Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201900003 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2019-05-06COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4176 May 3, 2019 Kelsey Schlein Shimp Engineering 912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22903 kelseykshimp-en ig neerin com / 434-227-5140 RE: ZMA201900003 Royal Fern Dear Ms. Schlein: Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for the zoning map amendment, ZMA201900003, Royal Fern. We have a number of questions and comments which we believe should be addressed before we can recommend favorably on your ZMA request. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss these issues. Review comments are provided below, organized by Department, Division, or agency. Our comments are provided below: Planning — General Application Comments 1. Revise the project materials with the application number provided for this project. 2. This property is potentially within the Monticello Viewshed. It is recommended that you contact Liz Russell at Monticello to discuss this proposed project and any concerns that Monticello may have. 3. TMP 76-54 falls within a rezoning ZMA199400020 that was approved in 1995. Please provide information in the narrative as to whether the conditions of this rezoning affect the proposed Royal Fern project. 4. A portion of this property — the eastern -most parts of TMPs 46A and 54 — falls within a state dam break inundation zone. Revise the project narrative to indicate this situation, and show the outline of this area on the concept plans so that staff may have a better idea of where the proposed development is in relation to the inundation zone. 5. As mentioned in the narrative, the COB — 5t' Street is designated as a "Center" in the comprehensive plan. Are there any proposed connections, such as bike or pedestrian, that will help to facilitate interaction across 5t' Street between this designated center and the proposed Royal Fern development? 6. Provide an updated project narrative stating the proposed impacts to schools, as Cale Elementary School is currently over -capacity and further residential development would increase this over -capacity issue. School capacity was also brought up as a concern among the public at the community meeting. Also, provide additional information on the impacts to the transportation infrastructure in this area. Transportation and traffic issues were raised repeatedly during the community meeting held on April 18t' by neighbors and other stakeholders and appear to be one of the major concerns among the public regarding this proposal. 7. There is a discrepancy in the acreage between the project narrative and the plat provided for the portion of TMP76-46F included in this proposal. Please clarify this discrepancy. 8. Update the project narrative to provide information on how this proposal meets the intent of the PUD, Planned Unit Development, district as stated in 20.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. As there are special exceptions requested for size and the process of commercial development, it is important to establish why PUD would be the appropriate proposed zoning district for this project. Commercial and industrial uses in PUDs are generally supposed to serve the residential portions of the PUD, with additional activity only if the area is not adequately served by those uses. Provide additional information on whether the 5' St. and Old Lynchburg area is already served by such uses, or why the proposed commercial development is appropriate, especially with 5t' St. Station, which includes many commercial uses, approximately a mile away. 9. Are there any proposed uses for which a Special Use Permit is required? If so, it is recommended that an application for these SUPs be requested simultaneously with the ZMA application. 10. In the narrative, provide the gross and net density proposed, as well as on the application plan, as these are required by 20.8.1. 11. According to 20.8.2, not less than 25% of the residential areas shall be in open space. Open space cannot be within street right-of-way. Provide the calculations on the application plan and show where the proposed open space will be. It does not appear that this requirement is currently met by what is shown on the application plan. 12. Recreational facilities are required for a PUD per 4.16 and 20.8.3. Identify where these recreational facilities are proposed to be within the residential areas. For example, facilities such as tot lots are required for attached single- family units. 13. The intent of commercial and service areas in PUDs (Seciont 20.9.1) are to be internally oriented, with external vehicular access discouraged. Provide more information in the project narrative how this proposal meets the intent of the commercial and service areas in PUDs. 14. A shopping center area is shown on the application plan. Provide additional information in the project narrative regarding this proposed use (see 25.1 of the Zoning Ordinance), including the PD-SC district's intent to serve areas not adequately provided by commercial and service facilities, as the 5t' Street Station development is approximately a mile away from the proposed Royal Fern. In addition, keep in mind that shopping center areas should have direct access to public streets that are adequate to accommodate the generated traffic. Provide more information on how a shopping center use conforms with the intent of the PUD district to serve the community and be internally oriented. In addition, provide more information explaining how a shopping center area conforms with the Community Mixed Use land use designation for this area. 15. The application plan shows this development using Wahoo Way. Provide documentation where the applicant has the right of access on Wahoo Way, as it is designated as a private street. 16. In the application plan on sheet 2, provide the following additional information for site details and data: a. Include Magisterial District, and add Samuel Miller, as this proposal crosses the line between Scottsville and Samuel Miller. b. Add CO to the existing zoning c. Add the zoning overlay districts d. What is the proposed gross and net density of the development as a whole, and each block individually? e. Indicate what the land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan is for this property, as well as what is allowed within this land use designation. f. Include what both the gross and net density would be, to clearly illustrate whether this proposal meets the intent of the comprehensive plan land use designation. g. Whether this property is within a water supply watershed. 17. Add a line to the Use Table on the Cover Sheet stating the proposed maximum density per block based on each blocks acreage. 18. The Use Table states there is a proposed maximum number of units. Is there also a proposed minimum number of units? 19. Clarify the proposed number of residential units. The table on sheet 2 and what is stated in the project narrative do not appear to match. 20. A hotel is one of the proposed uses as shown on sheet 2. However, the intent of the Community Mixed Use land use designation in the comprehensive plan is to serve community needs. Clarify how a hotel would be community serving? 21. There is a maximum square footage of 80,000 proposed for a hotel/self-storage use in Block 4. In the Community Mixed Use land use designation, no single -building footprint should be greater than 60,000 square feet. Would such structures be in multiple buildings, less than 60,000 square feet? Or are such uses proposed to be in one large building? Please clarify. 22. Is there a proposal to incorporate the exsting stormwater detention facility located within the VDOT right-of-way in the corner of TMP76-46A along Old Lynchburg Road. This facility creates a uniquely shaped lot. 23. On sheet 6 of the application plan, open space is shown extending into the roadway. Required open space cannot be within the streets. Please revise. 24. Include calculations of open space on sheet 2 with the site date. Open space/recreational areas must be at least 25% within PUDs. 25. Provide more information on the hatched areas labelled "no parking" shown on sheet 6 and sheet 8. Are these areas supposed to be for buildings, to create a more pedestrian friendly area with relegated parking? 26. On sheet 7 and sheet 9, provide a greater color gradiant between sidewalks and multi -use paths. Looking at the plan, they appear to be the same color and it is difficult to distinguish between the two. 27. On sheet 7, the proposed sidewalk is shown only along a portion of Country Green Road. Is it not proposed to be extended for the full length of the parcel's frontage on this road? 28. Similarly, are there sidewalks or multi -use paths proposed for the parcel's frontage on Old Lynchburg Road and Mountainwood Road? Traffic, transportation, and pedestrian safety and connections were topics repeatedly brought up by community members at the community meeting. On sheet 9, are there sidewalks or multi -use paths proposed for the frontage along Wahoo Way and Old Lynchburg Road southeast of the Region 10 building? 29. On sheet 7, there is an arrow pointing to an existing multi -use path. However, the color is different from that shown in the legend. Please clarify. 30. Is there any open space/recreational areas proposed in Blocks 2-5 on sheet 8? Such areas are required for PUD districts and multi-family/single-family attached housing. 31. Is the proposed street going through Blocks 2-5 going to be public or private? Are there sidewalks proposed along this street? 32. Provide more information on the existing stormwater facility mentioned on sheet 8? Does the applicant have the right to use such an existing stormwater facility? 33. Are there any proposed facilities to help access COB — 5` Street across the street, as that is a designated center in the comprehensive plan? 34. Please clarify whether any proposed open space will be privately owned or dedicated to public use. See section 8.3 for requriements of planned developments. 35. Are pedestrian interconnections with adjacent properties proposed? 36. Is any on -street parking proposed? 37. Please be advised that site plans and VSMP plans, as well as subdivision plats, are required for townhouse -style, attached single-family developments. Comments regarding Special Exceptions 1. In reviewing this proposal, it appears that special exceptions for the requirements of 20.9.1 may also be needed regarding the permitted gross floor area and the chronology of the issuance of building permits. See 20.9.3 and 20.9.4. Be aware of 20.9.2 and the perimeter of a PUD district, where the character of adjoining development should be taken into account by the commission when reviewing such a proposal. There is more commercial proposed than what is allowed; however, a special exception can be applied for. 2. With the shopping center area, a special exception to requirements found in section 25 may be needed depending on the additional information provided in the narrative (refer to comment #14 above). 3. In the narrative for the special exception requested for the size of a PUD district, explain how granting this special exception would conform with the vision laid out in the comprehensive plan for this area. The PUD would be appropriate where the establishment of a new nucleus exists. Provide more information on how a new village or nucleus would be appropriate in this area. 4. Please be advised that as review of this application continues, if the applicant chooses to resubmit rather than going straight to the Planning Commission, it may be determined that additional special exceptions are required. Comprehensive Plan Initial comments on how your proposal generally relates to the Comprehensive Plan are provided below. Comments on conformity with the Comprehensive Plan are provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report. The Comprehensive Plan identifies Tax Map Parcel (TMP) 07600-00-00-046AO west of Old Lynchburg Road, and the portion of TMP 07600-00-00-046FO included in this application, as Urban Density Residential land use. This classification calls for primary uses to consist of residential uses at gross densities between 6.01-34 dwelling units/acre. Secondary uses in this classification include supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses. The proposed rezoning from R-2 Residential and CO, Commercial Office, to PUD, Planned Unit Development, with residential as proposed on these parcels appears to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use recommendations. However, no density calculations were provided for the proposed Block 1. See graphic below from page 33 of the Southern and Western Neighborhoods master plan. Urban Dmslryl R*sidnfitwl ?hra dCsigncolon represerrrx fc.%- entibi execs Whh W-1plart" vses and nKa*•-resLdevAks! %� DeFaily rongas from o1 o denWfy of 6-01 - 34 4wefUngs pet oue. cxcep! In Crete+ where b 6 6,01 — 1 2 dweMiftgs per Otte_ R"denrlal vies of all hovying rype-i. Plocw of worINP, ;. Wic, orb prl+rtste Wjwx s. earIIF €lAIdhood education centers (day core cer+rr,s and pr*-sdraalr]. pu616c usetr and publk Insflr%Olonol UW& Ne{ghbor%Dp-serving rwed l/ctwnmrrclnd ocecs of no > 2000 square ieef and office vies 9f no > 5000 aq, fret mo_1 be aFlpr*PC iQtC in 010C" WhCrC *W11 are deemed compaft4e —Ith ne pr t) Y a nd ocgoking VW'3_ N/A 1 - 3 slowaCS; odd oral 00ries —hers opprapriale The Comprehensive Plan identifies Tax Map Parcel (TMP) 07600-00-00-046AO east of Old Lynchburg Road and TMP 07600-00-00-05400 as Community Mixed Use land use. This classification calls for primary uses to be residential (up to 34 units/acre), community scale retail, service and office uses, places of worship, schools, and public and institutional uses. Secondary uses in this classification include auto -commercial sales and service with all service activities within a building with a maximum foorprint of approximately 7,500 square feet. Office/R&D/flex/light industrial uses with maximum single -building footprint of approximately 20,000 square feet. The proposed rezoning from R-2 Residential and R-10 Residential, to PUD, Planned Unit Development, with residential and commercial uses as proposed on these parcels is partially consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use recommendations. However, no density calculations were provided for the residential areas. In addition, the proposal for 80,000 square feet of hotel/self-storage is more than the 60,000 sq. ft. footprint recommended by the comprehensive plan. See graphic on next page from page 33 of the Southern and Western Neighborhoods master plan. Cemnwna y mimed Uta TNs detlgmatfan rePr&$C-M•- . .._ 1,rq 41 r�yiLlc liui i r i J retail umn prod 2wrvkm +hat ser ve the convn rtdt lr. Resldenrial dsrnky up to 34 twJ4% paer aore- ACiLhre of Lads —lahfn bulkikup h exo,xaged wilt+ retoA f office on ground fbor and rexiderrrkA qt ofMa pn 4,+pgcr fl**(I� The propmTIon of norti-reskd&Wiol uses to Omen rr�&L- M LAC" k arra depdMdent_ Cgrm"mr4ty fr` viV Ic4oll ond Wvke uses and offlre us&s; reran, swwsce, and offke bLading faceprinh in rrra,r duon *1I0w-huild6ry foolwkw of no > *Wn 60.M sq. h, 1ow4mmnes, apartrr#&nt4 artid oflodsad h LmbV LoMtk Nods of wssrship: and privWe adtiar h early dm k* dad eductrri& caarsers (clay core ctsftn artid *-sd ooA Lisms, cnd Mrsiutianal usrL Augo- onrn c-Fcio$ saLbs omd #ervke wOh oA *&FVk* cwHv rles w*An a bulldKg —kh a numa in rm f owFu lm o[ opWekxL"w** 75W sq. h, 0ff4o!P f R&D%F7ea 1 UOM lhdarsOrlol UNM Whh MCJkln%&n S�-bWOdWV faaeprrIf* of appramanwoory 20�= h, 5-30 7 1 - 4 stories;, n� 3 of 2 - armies preferfe4 Neighborhood Model Projects located within the Development Areas are typically reviewed for consistency with each of the Neighborhood Model Principles found in the Comprehensive Plan. Comments are provided below on relevant aspects of the Neighborhood Model. More detailed comments may be provided after more detailed plans are provided. Pedestrian Orientation This principle is partially met with the information that was provided. No sidewalks are specifically shown on the block plan that was provided. In addition, there are no sidewalks shown along most of the existing roads, although there are some segments shown. Please indicate whether sidewalks will be provided internally. Are interconnections with adjacent properties proposed? The concept plan demonstrates that the project will be developed in a block format. What are the dimensions of the blocks, as the comprehensive plan suggests about 200 feet for a block length? The Comprehensive Plan supports pedestrian interconnections between adjacent parcels, as well as sidewalks internal to a development. Mixture of Uses This principle appears to be met, with a mixture of potential residential types, as well as commercial and service uses. However, the use table doesn't specify specific uses outside of hotel/self-storage. See Zoning comments for additional comments regarding the Use Table. Neighborhood Centers This principle is partially met. The conceptual plan provides blocks with commercial and service uses that appear to act as a central area. This principle is important for a PUD district, as it should be considered a mini -neighborhood providing services and housing for the community. In addition, COB — 5'h St., across the street from this development, is a designated "center" in the comprehensive plan. However, it is not clear if there are any proposed connections or interaction between that area and the proposed Royal Fern development. Mixture of Housing Types This principle is met, as the application plan proposes both townhouse units and multi - and Affordability family, with Block 3 being limited to townhouses only, and the potential for more multi -family units in blocks 1 and 2. Relegated Parking This principle appears to be partially met. There are hatched areas shown on the application plan designated as no parking. However, they do not cover the entire frontage of those parcels. In addition, Blocks 3 and 4 are along the Entrance Corridor of 5'h Street, and should have relegated parking along the entire frontage. Such a situation is not shown for a portion of Block 4. Parking areas in the other blocks are not currently defined. The conceptual plan does not identify any parking lots or parking spaces, and the project narrative does not mention relegated parking or the orientation of the proposed buildings in relation to the street frontage. Staff cannot verify that adequate area will exist to provide parking in a relegated manner. Revise the plan to show where parking will be provided. Consider the following: • Parking should be relegated to the back or side of buildings. • Front loaded garages on townhouse units should be the exception. • Parking areas located adjacent to the street should be screened from streets and should not be along the Entrance Corridors. Interconnected Streets and This principle is partially met. The conceptual plan shows a street connection between Transportation Networks Old Lynchburg Road and Wahoo Way. However, there are no additional streets shown, including in Block 1. Is there any proposal to connect Mountainwood Road and Country Green Road with a new internal street? Multimodal Transportation This principle is partially met. The conceptual plan shows sidewalks and multi -use Opportunities paths in some areas and along some road segments, but not along others. It does not appear that bike lanes will be installed within the development, as they are neither shown in the conceptual plan nor discussed in the project narrative. Transit opportunities are also not shown. This property lies approximately a mile from 5t1i St. Station, across from the COB — 5'1i St., and north of the proposed Southwood development, all important centers along this corridor. Is there any proposal for transit stops or service in this area? Parks, Recreational This principle is partially met. Open space is shown. However, it extends into the street, Amenities, and Open Space which is not allowed. In addition, PUDs have a minimum required amount of recreational/open space, and it is not clear from this plan whether that amount is currently met, as there are no calculations provided. In addition, there is an intermittent stream on this property that connects with Moores Creek. It is suggested that the applicant contact David Hannah, Natural Resources Manager with the County, to discuss this natural feature. (dhannah@albemarle.org) Buildings and Spaces of This principle is partially met. The application is conceptual and shows no buildings to Human Scale evaluate scale. However, some additional pedestrian connections are shown as being provided. Redevelopment This principle is met. There is currently no development on these parcels, and they are considered infill development within the Development Areas, as there is development on all adjacent parcels. Respecting Terrain and This principle is partially met. The only environmental features found on these parcels Careful Grading and Re- are managed steep slopes, which can be disturbed with approval of the County grading of Terrain Engineer. Any grading that would occur must meet the requirements of Albemarle County Code during the site plan stage of any potential development plan. There is no water protection buffer on this property. However, there is an intermittent stream with managed steep slopes along it. Clear Boundaries Between This principle is not applicable to the request. The subject property is located within the the Development Areas and Southern and Western Urban Neighborhoods Development Area. No improvements or the Rural Area changes in use near any boundaries with the Rural Area are proposed. Planning - Transportation Please see the attached Transportation Planning comments from County's Transportation Planner, Kevin McDermott, kmcdermott(&albemarle.org. Zoning Division, Community Development Department Please see the attached zoning comments from Kevin McCollum, kmccollum(c-r�,albemarle.org. Engineering & Water Resources Division, Community Development Department The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by the County Engineer, Frank Pohl, ffpohl(a�albemarle.org. Sheet 6 - Private streets must meet VDOT standards, except as allowed in the Albemarle County Code and Design Standards Manual. Underground stormwater storage facilities are not allowed within public or private street rights -of - way. Engineering is also implementing policy that UG storage is not allowed under alleys or "private travelways" serving as the only means of accessing individual lots. Remove UG storage from under private streets (and private travelway if serving individual lots). Sheet 6 - Can Open Space include the paved area of Country Green Road? E911, Community Development Department The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by the E911 Division GIS Specialist, Andy Slack, aslack(kalbemarle.org. This application will require two (2) new road names: "Road B — 36' Private" "Private Road B — 20' " Please contact our office (aslack@albemarle.org) to reserve road names for this application. An option to consider is renaming the portion of Wahoo Way that extends from the intersection of 5th St. to the beginning of the planned "Road B." This portion would be renamed to the same name as "Road B" to prevent a potentially confusing situation in which Wahoo Way appears to change names midway through. The addresses of the apartments off of Wahoo Way would not be affected because, as indicated on the submitted plan, Wahoo Way continues onto parcel 76- 54A1 (i.e. the portion of Wahoo Way that goes through the parking area would not be renamed). Since our department is not in a position to initiate this change, you would need to work with the property owner of parcel 76-54A1 to move this option forward. If this is of interest to both parties, our office would facilitate the change. I would reiterate that this is not necessary to do, but it is our recommendation to make the road naming in this area more predictable, particularly for emergency response. Building Inspections Division, Community Development Department No objection at this time. Albemarle County Fire -Rescue The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by the Fire & Rescue plans reviewer, Shawn Maddox, smaddoxkalbemarle.org. Fire Rescue has no objections to the zoning map amendment. Street widths, turning radius, water supply and any other fire code requirements will be addressed during the site plan review process. Albemarle County Service Authority Please see the attached comments from ACSA plans reviewer, Richard Nelson, melsonnserviceauthority.org. Virginia Department of Transportation Comments will be forwarded to applicant upon receipt by County staff. VDOT contact — Adam Moore, adam.moorenvdot.virginia. gov. Albemarle County Office of Economic Development The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by J.T. Newberry of the Albemarle County Office of Economic Development, jnewberr cr,albemarle.org. Goal 4, Objective 3 of Project ENABLE calls for the County to "lead the promotion of Opportunity Zones." Broadly speaking, these zones present a unique opportunity for our community to attract private capital investment to our area. However, in this case specifically, the proposed non-residential space provides an additional benefit by creating spaces where an Opportunity Fund can invest directly into a growing business that would locate there. Therefore, staff supports allowing the maximum amount of non-residential space that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In doing so, the County will also be taking the lead to "help businesses take advantage of grant programs, state and federal financing opportunities" (Goal 3, Objective 3). Albemarle County Architectural Review Board (ARB) The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by Margaret Maliszewski, staff planner for the ARB, mmaliszewskigalbemarle.org. In Blocks 3 and 4, parking should be relegated from 5th Street and Old Lynchburg Road, and building elevations facing 5th Street should be designed as "fronts." Action after Receipt of Comments After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified on "Action After Receipt of Comment Letter," which is attached. Resubmittal If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is no fee for the first resubmittal. The resubmittal date schedule is provided for your convenience online at: http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms_center/departments/Community Development/forms/schedules /Special_ Use Permit_& Zoning Map Amendment Schedule.pdf Notification and Advertisement Fees Prior to scheduling a public hearing with the Planning Commission, payment of the following fees is needed: $ 435.00 Total amount due prior to Planning Commission public hearing for Public Notice requirement Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining owners need to be notified of a new date. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is areitelbachgalbemarle.or , and my phone number is 434-296-5832 ext. 3261. Sincerely, W 1%cf aw Reite6" Andy Reitelbach Senior Planner Planning Division, Department of Community Development enc: Memorandum from Department of Community Development, Transportation Planning Memorandum from Department of Community Development, Zoning Division Memorandum from Albemarle County Service Authority ZMA2019-00003 Action After Receipt of Comments Zoning Map Amendment Resubmittal Form OF AL COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 TO: Applicant FROM: Kevin McDermott; Principle Planner —Transportation DATE: May 3, 201 SUBJECT: ZMA201900003 Royal Fern Comments The Albemarle County Community Development Department, Planning Division, Principle Planner for Transportation has reviewed the above referenced plan and associated traffic impact statement as submitted by Shimp Engineering P.C. (March 2019) and would like to submit the following comments: Application Plan: • The Pedestrian and Bike Facility on 5t' Street should be identified as a Shared -use Path and meet VDOT standards not a Multi -use Path meeting Albemarle County Class B standard. • Internal pedestrian networks and bicycle facilities such as bike parking should be identified as a necessary component of the application plan. • Transit facilities such as provision of a transit stop on 5' Street Extended should be identified as a necessary component of the application plan Traffic Impact Analysis: • Can you provide some evidence for the claim that the new crossover will take 80% of the existing right turn traffic on Wahoo Way? My understanding is that the development to the north is unable to make lefts out of their entrance in the peak hour and instead make a right and a U-turn. It seems that Wahoo Way will see this same issue. This open crossover may later be closed to crossover traffic if a roundabout is built at Old Lynchburg Rd and 5t' Street Extended. In the Build condition this is still a LOS of D. Is it worth it to open that crossover? • Table 4 and Table 11 lists the Old Lynchburg SB with a SBT/SBL LOS of A. Is this a typo and should those two movements be reversed? Please verify. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact me. Kevin M. McDermott Principal Planner — Transportation Albemarle County 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 (434) 296-5841 Ext. 3414 kmcdermott@albemarle.org ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT — Information from Service Providers 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. To be filled out by ACSA for ZMA's and SP's Site is in jurisdictional area for X_ water _X sewer water to existing structures only not in jurisdictional area. Distance to the closest water line if in the development area is _Wahoo Way feet. Water pressure is with gallons per minute at psi. Distance to the closest sewer line if in the development area is _On site feet. Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal _No Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority capacity certification _X_Yes No Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal 7. Red flags" regarding service provision (Use attachments if necessary) County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Andy Reitelbach From: Kevin McCollum and Francis MacCall Division: Zoning Date: 4/29/2019 Subject: Staff Comments for Rezoning Application ZMA201900003 Royal Fern Tax Map Parcels 76-46A, 76-46F, and 76-54 The following comments are provided as input from the Zoning Division regarding the above rezoning application. Any comments that you have that are duplicative of these please use your comment. 1. Proposal — Rezone three parcels from R-2, R-10, and CO to Planned Unit Development (PUD). Section 20 of the Zoning Ordinance outlines the regulations for the proposed PUD district. 2. Section 20.8.2 provides that no less than 25% of the residential area shall be in open space. Sheet 6 of 10 of the Application Plan shows .93 acres of open space on the site with 4.16 acres of residential in Block 1. Additionally, there are 6.02 more acres of residential in Blocks 2 and 3 combined (sheet 8), but with no additional open space. If the applicant is going to show the proposed open space location, they shall show the appropriate amount (25% of the residential area or approximately 2.55 acres) or apply for a special exception 3. Section 4.7 provides open space regulations. One of the intentions of open space is to provide active and passive recreation opportunities. For this application to better meet this intent to provide active and passive recreation opportunities the open space shall be safe and convenient for the residential areas. Additional open space on the parcels east of Old Lynchburg Rd would better meet this intent and provide recreational opportunities to all the residential areas in the entire PUD. 4. Section 20.9.3 provide that the total gross floor area of uses permitted in commercial/ service areas shall not exceed twenty (20) square feet per dwelling unit approved on the application plan. The Application Plan on Sheet 8 proposes a maximum number of 300 units. At this number of units, the maximum square footage of commercial/service area is only 6,000 square feet. To be able to show a larger max square footage for commercial/service the Application Plan either needs to show a larger number of proposed units or apply for a special exception.