Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201800012 Staff Report 2018-12-18County of Albemarle Planning Staff Report Summary Project Name: ZMA 2018-012 Galaxie Farm Staff: Megan Nedostup, Principal Planner Planning Commission Work Session: Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: December 18, 2018 N/A Owners: David and Anna Marie Witmer Applicant: Blackbird of Charlottesville, LLC- Nicole Scro Kelsey Schlein- Shimp Engineering TMP: 09100000000900; 09100000001SOO Acreage: approx. 13.36 acres Location: 193 Galaxie Farm Lane off of Route 20 South. Approximately 1/3 of a mile south from Mill Creek Drive's intersection with Rt. 20. Zoning District: R-1 Residential Magisterial District: Scottsville Proposal: Work session to obtain direction and Comp. Plan Designation: Neighborhood Density interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan for the Residential — residential (3-6 units/acre); supporting uses proposed rezoning of the parcels from R1 such as places of worship, schools, public and Residential to Planned Residential Development institutional uses and small-scale neighborhood serving (PRD). The applicant is requesting density above retail and commercial; what the Comprehensive Plan recommends. A Parks and Green Systems — parks, playgrounds, play total of 130 units are proposed resulting in 11.46 fields, greenways, trails, paths, recreational facilities and units/acre. The Comprehensive Plan recommends equipment, plazas, outdoor sitting areas, natural areas, a maximum of 3-6 units/acre. preservation of stream buffers, floodplains and steep slopes adjacent to rivers and streams in the Southern Neighborhood 4 within the Southern and Western Urban Area Master Plan. DA (Development Area): Neighborhood 4 Use of Surrounding Properties: Kappa Sigma, single family attached development- Avinity to the south; Cale Elementary, Assisted Living Facility- Albemarle Health and Rehab, Tandem Friends Private School, Monticello Fire Station to the north and east; and single family detached homes. Rural area is located across the property along Rt. 20 to the west. Recommendation: Staff believes that the proposal should follow the recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan for density. STAFF PERSON: Megan Nedostup PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION: December 18, 2018 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING: TBD Characteristics of the Site & Area The area proposed for the rezoning consists of two parcels located along Route 20 South and is adjacent to Kappa Sigma, Avinity, vacant County owned property, and Cale Elementary (Attachment A). There are a number of additional uses nearby the proposal including Tandem Friends School, Monticello Fire Station, Albemarle Health and rehab, and a number of County owned properties that are currently vacant. Route 20 is considered to be an Entrance Corridor and a Scenic By -Way. Two houses exist on the properties and have access from Galaxie Farm Lane which is a private street off of Rt 20. One of the houses, garage and barn are contributing resources to the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District. There are also two properties that currently have their access from Galaxie Farm Lane that are not a part of the rezoning. Specifics of the Proposal The applicant is proposing to rezone two parcels from 111-Residential (1 unit/acre) to Planned Residential Development (PRD) which allows 3-34 units/acre with limited commercial uses (Attachment Q. The current application as submitted includes two parcels to be rezoned totaling 13.36 acres. The applicant is proposing a maximum of 130 units that would include single family attached, detached, and apartments. The application plan shows proposed locations of streets, open space and blocks. To date, the application plan contemplates the acquisition of County property and a plan has not been submitted that shows how the property would develop if the County property is not included. The applicant has also been pursuing a land swap with the County for additional property that they would then build a portion of road that is shown in the Comprehensive Plan. The Board of Supervisors will be considering the land swap proposal at a later date, yet to be determined. The land swap does not need to be considered for the question before the Commission outlined in this report concerning density and how it relates to the Comp Plan. Should the land swap be approved by the Board of Supervisors, the rezoning request will still be over the recommended density within the Comp Plan, even with County property included. Background and Purpose of the Work Session The purpose of a work session is to gather input from the Planning Commission on the proposed project's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The action of the Planning Commission is non- binding but is meant to help advise the applicant on next steps. The following is a summary of meetings and review to date: • The applicant submitted the rezoning proposal on September 17, 2018 and held a community meeting with the 51h and Avon CAC on October 18, 2018. During this meeting the applicant presented the proposal and the community provided comments and asked questions. • Initial review comments from staff were given to the applicant on November 2, 2018. From staff comments, the applicant determined that a work session was needed with the Planning Commission prior to resubmitting the proposal. The applicant has submitted a narrative for the proposal (Attachment B). In the narrative there is information and justification for the use of environmental features for the calculation of density. The Planning Commission has given prior direction with the Adelaide proposal in Crozet, and most recently for the River's Edge property in Places29 that the most recent GIS data should be used for the calculation of density and that would follow Strategy 8c within the Comprehensive Plan (see below). Staff has provided this information to the applicant and advised that the calculation for density should follow this interpretation that has been discussed with the Planning Commission with prior submittals. Therefore, staff is not providing additional analysis for this question, only asking for a confirmation from the Planning Commission that the prior direction, and Strategy 8c, should be followed with this application. Strategy 8c With ;i,c Comprehensive Plan, when a property owner asks about the potential number of dwelling units that a parcel might yield, density is calculated by measuring the area with the land use designation other than Parks and Green Systems. For example, if a 10-acre property shows 8 acres for Neighborhood Density (3 - 6 units per acre) and 2 acres for Parks and Green Systems, available density would be calculated on 8 acres and range from 24 to 48 units. Staff and the applicant would like the Planning Commission to provide input and direction on the following question regarding density designations within the Comprehensive Plan: Should the proposal follow the recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan for density? The Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan designates the two properties proposed for rezoning as Neighborhood Density Residential which recommends a density of 3-6 units per acre. The total acreage for both properties is 13.36 acres, however 11.34 acres is designated outside of environmental features. This equates to 34 to 68 total units per the Neighborhood Density recommendation. The applicant is requesting a maximum of 130 units, which would equate to a density of 11.46 units/acre, almost double the recommended density in the Master Plan. Map of Properties with Comp Plan designation Map of Properties with Comp Plan designation and environmental features. The property does contain a stream buffer along Route 20 that was not designated when the Master Plan was adopted and would have been included in the buffer (shown in green) along Route 20 had it been identified at the time. There are some preserved slopes as well on the properties. While the Comprehensive Plan does encourage development and density (within the recommended ranges) to occur in the development areas, approving a rezoning for a higher density than is recommended in the Master Plan could set a precedence for future applications. The Master Plan and Comprehensive Plan updates are public processes that provide the community a vision and some assurances of how the County, and the specific Master Planned areas, will be developed. Therefore, staff recommends that the proposal should follow the recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan and Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan for density. Attachments: Attachment A: Vicinity Map Attachment B: Applicant Narrative Attachment C: Application Plan dated September 17, 2018 OTC=.12� gpC2, —0- 90C-190C-03--A' 7747A 90C-2A/9 90C�2` �� ��'� "� 77-47 0 1.. 90C,-0,1 VG p re CY790C-A1���+ '4 A9 11- Legend (None: snme Hems on map may not appaar In MganeF p 90C-01'-OG-2 906-6Y/A 90C`01pOG-3 ia. �J. 1 ` 90CM-1-0G=4� ?O 1 �C- 90C-01AG526 ., 'S Monticello HS �� OG=22 90Cf0A�-OG-18 tO 1 \� _ =90C-35 OG Y- 91-2 77E,1-02-; �..,. so 90C-01 9�p 0 0C 10I- Gr13 7a� 9 P. AD 9 � , 77 E^ ^ 77 E1'02--AA i \' 90C-59 57 90C-61 79 90Q56;, C-62/ O11--4l SCREEK0R ,.. 9F9 It -.Monticello © Fire'Rescue Station Q�lr 00 ��� 90C 5J, he65 = 1 90C-52 6 �o F Q / F 90 511: f9le'V Cale ES 91-12 �� 91.2A Mi 911-2 Y. �6�8 �pV 90C-69 91-13 � '91q- 19,1q-10 i/ - 91A 91q-6 25 0B-71 �1A 91�Cg�1iq,�18 ...,�.. �91- 9AA-23 �Y r91A-30 '!12A OB-70. 91A_2691A�32 91. 91-11 91-2l g 0-35 St71 9 A50 � 91-10 91 �91A�-8 OD-D 9p `c g111g 391IN :jr 9AA-6q-93 �7� 1+ 9 9 91q-68~ 91A-101 <q�� v911A`75�� B 90 ,0 SO Q41 �3S. y91 A-8� 76. ` 491-8 9Q, C C 91-15 'D 91-6B BQ 91�9 1 9�R a 97 • 0-355 91-16E 7Bp COW BRAN . �� g1gp/ 0 35T 90-35F / �SV\l�E•RG � `I 91-16AA+ 9i1"7 91-16q �F� 0 90-35W p4 Iq�1,0 Pe 91-16B e�F�R -� f 91-17 791-18 GISN@L 517 ft �� 90-35M 9p_3SN ,.I J=,Inr^N. Ge,ml Dams Ion ;t eltemane.vg - 90r35P r" eaq zeo-seaz Map Is for Display Pr Voeas Only • Pallor Imagery from the Commom.PaM MMMInla and OOer Somrres cerem8er 10, 2018 Galaxie Rezoning —Written Narrative Supplement September 17, 2018 November 30, 2018 Blackbird of Charlottesville, LLC (the "Applicant") is the contract purchaser for property located in the County of Albemarle, Virginia (the "County"), having addresses of 192 and 193 Galaxie Farm Lane, designated on County tax maps as parcels 091-00-00-01500 and 091-00-00-00900 (the "Blackbird Property"). The Blackbird Property is located immediately adjacent to that certain real property of approximately 15.8 acres, more or less, having an address of 133 Galaxie Farm Lane, and designated on County tax maps as parcel 09100-00-00-01100. The County also owns other nearby parcels designated on County tax maps as parcels 09100- 00-00-01000, 09100-00-00-008130, 09100-00-00-002E0, and 09100-00-00-01300 (collectively, the "County Property"). Blackbird Property: Tax Map Parcel No. Acreage Zoning Comprehensive Plan Designation 09100-00-00-01500 8 27 R1 Residential Neighborhood 192 Galaxie Farm Lane Density Residential 09100-00-00-00900 5.09 R1 Residential Neighborhood 193 Galaxie Farm Lane Density Residential Total: 13.36 County Property: Tax Map Parcel No. Acreage Zoning Comprehensive Plan Designation 09100-00-00-01100 Institutional 15.8 R1 Residential 133 Galaxie Farm Lane Neighborhood Density Residential 09100-00-00-01000 8.33 R1 Residential Institutional 167 Galaxie Farm Lane 09100-00-00-008BO 8.34 R1 Residential Institutional 1506 Scottsville Road 09100-00-00-002EO 13.27 R15 Residential Institutional 1515 Founders Place 09100-00-00-002EO 15.96 R1 Residential Institutional 1757 Avon Street Ext Total: 61.7 In the image below, the Blackbird Property is highlighted in yellow and the County Property is highlighted in red. The Applicant has proposed to construct an approximately 1,400-foot long, 67-foot wide connector road in exchange for 2.77 acres of County Property. On October 26`h, the County Property Committee recommended that the Board of Supervisors move forward with the proposal. Therefore, it will be discussed at the County Board of Supervisors' meeting on December 5`h in a closed session before subsequently being formally assessed by the Board of Supervisors at a public hearing. The 2.77 acres proposed to be conveyed to the Applicant is roughly highlighted in blue on the image below. With the addition of 2.77 acres of County Property, the Applicant's development area encompasses a total of 16.13 acres. ,of*, ,F91-1F 91-'D 4'7 ?� 119141'A 91-2 7 -01=OG A91-1 B \ I 91-1 6d 'o Monticello Fire Res eStaliai91-2E -67 Cale 91-12,,�� �$ 1. 1 w 1�1 �. P191 -14 ' -128 9 1` 8 �91A``26 -32• 1=12 91-11 91A A91�A-8 1A-5 p 91-10 SSF 91-16A1+ QR�O ,,...... 91-17 ` The Applicant proposes to develop the 2.77 acres of the County Property and the Blackbird Property (together, the "Property") as a residential subdivision with a density of 130 units. The image on the following page shows the County's current Comprehensive Plan land use designations for the Blackbird and County properties. As shown, the Applicant's development area consists mostly of a "Neighborhood Density Residential" land use designation (yellow). However, a portion of the Property is also designated as "Institutional" (blue). 2 Comp Plan Land Use Info Southern and Western Urb Neighborhood Density Re Neighborhood Mixed Use ■ Urban Density Residential ■ Community Mixed Use ■ Regional Mixed Use ■ CRfice / R S D / Flex 1 Light ■ Industrial ■ Institutional ■ Parks and Green Systems 91- Sy ` `91-s The total acreage of "Neighborhood Density Residential" designated property within the development area is 15.22 acres. The "Neighborhood Density Residential" designation recommends a density range between 3 and 6 dwelling units per acre, i.e. a maximum of 91 units, which is lower than the maximum of 130 units currently proposed. As discussed in more detail below, there are various ways to calculate the Applicant's proposed density per acre. However, each of these methods result in a density higher than 6 dwelling units per acre, the maximum density recommended by the "Neighborhood Density Residential" Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the Property. We contend it is appropriate for the Property to have a higher density than the recommended maximum for various reasons. The higher allowable density would enable the Applicant to provide (1) more affordable housing opportunities, and (2) more of a variety of housing types. In addition, the form of the development would still mirror that of a typical low -density neighborhood. One reason for this is because of the newly instituted County policy of excluding environmentally sensitive areas from the acreage used to calculate density. Such exclusion artificially inflates the proposed allowable density. A higher density would also complement the surrounding uses and "Center' designation for the County Property along Mill Creek Drive. Lastly, as discussed in more detail below, the Property's Comprehensive Plan land use designation was changed from "Urban Density Residential" (orange, 6.01 to 34 dwelling units per acre) to "Neighborhood Density Residential" (yellow, 3 to 6 dwelling units per acre) in 2015, the last major update to the Comprehensive Plan. During this process, there was very little community input with regards to the Property and the changed designation was mostly driven by County staff in an effort "to provide for a better opportunity for a mixture of housing." However, allowable density does not necessarily dictate the eventual mixture of housing and this same goal can still be achieved even with the Applicant's request for a slightly higher allowable density. In sum, while the land use designation of the Property may call for a density per acre slightly lower than what is currently being proposed, other County goals such as affordability and a variety of housing types can be achieved by allowing the flexibility of a higher density. Providing More Affordable Housing Opportunities As stated earlier, the main purpose of proposing a higher density than the maximum recommended by the Comprehensive Plan is to enable the Applicant to construct smaller homes at various, more affordable price points. The alternative would be a project with a much lower density, but more uniformly large, expensive homes. The construction of more affordable units, a key goal of the County, is more financially feasible the higher the allowable density. In addition, the higher allowable density would enable the construction of more accessory dwelling units, such as carriage house units and accessory apartments. Providing more accessory dwelling units is another means of offering more affordable housing opportunities. Objective 4 of the Housing Section of the Comprehensive Plan is to "Provide for a variety of housing types of all income levels and help provide for increased density in the Development Areas" By allowing a higher allowable density on the Property, the County is able to achieve this key objective of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, Objective 3 of the Housing Section of the Comprehensive Plan is to "Ensure sufficient land area exists in the Development Areas to accommodate future residential housing needs." The Comprehensive Plan continues, "...projections suggest that by the year 2030, approximately 15,000 additional dwelling units will be needed to accommodate the County's future population. According to the Development Area Master Plans, the Development Areas can accommodate a range of approximately 13,800 to 29,000 new dwelling units" Thus, there is a possibility a total build -out of the Development Areas will not accommodate projected capacity. Providing a higher allowable density on the Property would contribute to absorption of capacity needs in the Development Areas, easing pressure on development in the Rural Area and Industrially designated properties adjacent to the Property. Low -Density Form of Development Despite the proposed higher allowable density, the form of the development would still be consistent with a typical low -density neighborhood. The proposed density mirrors the current density of familiar neighborhoods, such as, Belmont, Fry's Springs, Fifeville, or Venable. In certain parts of the City of Charlottesville that are considered low -density residential neighborhoods, density per acre figures reach as high as 12 or 14 units per acre. However, such neighborhoods offer smaller units than those found in the new residential neighborhoods offered on the market today, and therefore the form of the neighborhood is still in keeping with a low -density neighborhood despite the fact that the density per acre figures reach higher than the Neighborhood Density Residential allows. As shown on the following page, the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Categories and Guidelines for the Southern and Western Neighborhoods chart notes Belvedere as an example of a "Neighborhood Density Residential" neighborhood. Belvedere offers homes between 1,900 and 3,000 square feet, with price ranges between $400,000 and $600,000+. We hope to offer homes between 900 and 1,500 square feet, with prices ranges between $250,000 and $380,000. The images on the next page show the proposed smaller cottage homes versus Belvedere homes. 13 Smaller cottage homes Belvedere homes In addition, the same chart providing the guidelines for the various land use designations of the Comprehensive Plan uses a townhome development as an example of a typical Urban Density Residential neighborhood and a more spacious single family detached layout for a typical Neighborhood Density Residential development (see below). Townhouse loos which abut the street Typical lot layout in a neighborhood MG7-1:'1 We contend it is advantageous to provide a mixture of these two layouts in the same subdivision and therefore our density allowances mirror a mixture of these two land use categories. Below is an image of the Applicant's proposed development, with darker blue representing areas with higher allowable density and lighter blue representing areas with lower allowable density. Block 1 --- ___ - ROAD A `. -�_ - Block `„' ..., -- ------ -, Block_---'------ Block --- 9 M Block Network Sl 4WB Block 10 To ensure the project is consistent with the form of development as described above, each Block in the Applicant's development has a different set of allowable housing types. For instance, Blocks 1, 4, 6, and 7 (shown in the image above) do not allow multifamily or townhomes, even though the maximum density allowed within such Blocks are fairly high (10-12 units per acre). This requires the Block to be developed with either a small number of large single family detached homes or a larger number of smaller "cottage" type units. Therefore, even though the development has a slightly higher allowable density per acre than in other Neighborhood Density Residential areas, the allowable housing types within each Block restricts the project to a form of development that is compatible with the intentions of such land use designation. Put simply, multifamily and single family attached homes, the housing types that allow for a higher density and the ones which the County seeks to avoid expanding in this area of town is prohibited in many Blocks in the Applicant's proposed development. By prohibiting the housing type in certain areas of the development, the County is able to better achieve the goal of providing a mixture of housing types both internal to the development and within the context of the larger neighborhood, while also achieving other County goals, such as affordability. Excluding Environmentally Sensitive Areas from Density Calculations In addition to the above, we believe the proposed density is artificially increased by the newly instituted policy of excluded environmentally sensitive areas from the acreage used to calculate density. Objective 8 of the Development Area Section of the County's Comprehensive Plan is to "Preserve natural systems which are shown for preservation on Master Plan Land Use Plans." This objective is described further: "Preservation of these features helps to promote species diversity and provide visual and physical breaks in areas of intense development. Slope and stream protection helps prevent erosion which in turn helps water quality." As a means of achieving Objective 8, the preservation of natural systems, Strategy 8c calls for the exclusion of environmentally sensitive areas from the acreage used to calculate density. Approximately 3.01 acres of the Property consists of environmentally sensitive area. Therefore, the proposed density of 130 units on the Property can be calculated several ways: • 8.06 dwelling units per acre, if total acreage = 16.13 acres (includes Institutionally designated property) • 8.54 dwelling units per acre, if total acreage = 15.22 acres (only Neighborhood Density Residential designated property) • 10.64 dwelling units per acre, if total acreage = 12.21 acres (only Neighborhood Density Residential designated property, excluding environmentally sensitive area) We contend Strategy 8c of excluding environmentally sensitive areas from density calculations does not help to achieve Objective 8, the preservation of natural systems. The preservation of natural systems is achieved through other federal, state, and local regulations and restrictions, namely, the County's steep slope overly district, the County's recently increased stream buffer regulations, and state and federal flood and wetland maps. These regulations already restrict, and in many cases outright prohibit, development in environmentally sensitive areas. By also prohibiting using such environmentally sensitive areas in the acreage used to calculate density, the County has substantially devalued environmentally sensitive properties. As a result of such devaluation, developers are not incentivized to include such environmentally sensitive areas in their developments. Including environmentally sensitive areas within developments has many benefits, such as, the integration of dense communities and greenspace, rehabilitating water systems, and ensuring the continued maintenance of appropriate buffers. Moreover, because the County's Zoning Ordinance differs from the language of the Comprehensive Plan and allows environmentally sensitive areas to be included in the acreage used to calculate density, developers are incentivized to develop by -right. By -right development applications are often inconsistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan land use designations and are subject to far less County oversight. In sum, Strategy 8c, excluding environmentally sensitive areas from the acreage used to calculate density, does not result in better preservation and protection of natural systems, i.e. the objective it sets out to achieve. Instead, it encourages behavior that may have a detrimental impact on such preservation efforts. Thus, of the density per acre calculations for the Property listed earlier, we believe it is appropriate to use 8.06 or 8.54 dwelling units per acre, which does not exclude the 3.01 acres of stream buffer on the Property from the total acreage calculation. The density of 10.64 dwelling units per acre would be the proposed density if the total acreage of the Property were to exclude the 3.01 acres of stream buffer. 10.64 is much higher than 8.06 or 8.54, demonstrating how this policy artificially inflates density calculations. Prior Change of the Property's Land Use Designation Another important consideration regarding the proposed density is the history of the land use designation of the Property. Prior to the most recent Comprehensive Plan update, the Property's land use designation was "Urban Density Residential," which recommends density between 6.01 and 34 dwelling units per acre, significantly higher than the 3 to 6 dwelling units per acre of the "Neighborhood Density Residential" designation. The most recent 7 Comprehensive Plan update began in July, 2011 and ended in March, 2015. At the very beginning of this four-year process, on April 2, 2012, the County held a community meeting for the future Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan. At this community meeting, two draft land use maps were presented to the public, labeled Alternative #1 and Alternative #2, which are enclosed with this Supplemental Narrative. In each of these alternatives, the Property is already shown as being changed from "Urban Density Residential' to "Neighborhood Density Residential." Therefore, this change in the land use designation of the Property took place very early in the Comprehensive Plan updating process and seems to have been driven by County staff rather than community input. On April 24, 2012, the Planning Commission held a work session, in part to assess feedback from the Southern and Western Neighborhood. The staff report for the work session detailed the proposed changes to various land use designations. The staff report does not note the change to the land use designation of the Property. However, the staff report does note that "property on Mill Creek Drive next to the Tandem School that was shown for urban density residential is now recommended for neighborhood density residential as is the Tandem School which is currently shown as institutional." The staff report continues, "Staff is recommending neighborhood density to provide for a better opportunity for a mixture of housing near Tandem and Monticello High School." The image on the left below shows the land use designations for the area prior to the 2015 Comprehensive Plan update and the image on the right below shows the land use designations for the area after the 2015 Comprehensive Plan update. fI Community Service Industrial Institutional Neighborhood Density Transitional Urban Density Comp Plan Land Use Info Southern and Western Urb Neighborhood Density Re Neighborhood Mixed Use ■ Urban Density Residenlia ■ Community Mixed Use ■ Regional Mixed Use ■ OIRos I R& D I Flex I Light ■ Industrial ■ Institutional or ■ Parks and Greer Sysle—is M We contend the goal of a mixture of housing can still be achieved by allowing for a density of 8 to 10 dwelling units per acre, rather than limiting density to 6 dwelling units per acre. Moreover, a slightly higher density is complimentary of the land use designations surrounding the Property. The County Property, to the north, is designated institutional, and from discussions with the County Economic Development office, there are preliminary intentions to develop the property at a fairly high intensity, drawing on the "Center" designation for the property in the Comprehensive Plan (see Figure 8 on page 29 of the Southern and Western Master Plan). The property to the south is designated as Urban Density Residential, calling for a density minimum of 6 units per acre, and a maximum of 34 units per acre. Conclusion In sum, while the land use designation of the Property may call for a density per acre slightly lower than what is currently being proposed, other County goals such as affordability can be achieved by allowing the flexibility of a higher density. In addition, the form of the proposed development is complimentary of the surrounding uses and consistent with the intentions of the future development in the area. W r +dp+^. n• p, 9 A J +� e ' {ty • n ♦ M �# Ask, r.,%` M • `p i rYn .ice.• i�d. f.y n w t r r;ee yy hq 4ti • nr1 su �+ y-.:� + �f� 1 �.,;.; A • LE a r S t ^+, s. J . as ' ♦ r L { A e $ OOL f • ?F ,ri ��' A J• C., ►.. r s !' * �' " " k* �,Rr•„ [` *� t i} a 4`� �� n +rw • n �� t5'` *'�%.1rr sA€.' t $ f All !n i t S ' • " .� ^'�L :. �` }^ ,:k i.. �. ' {3Y �14#� r� v�"•Mr +�%�^ti ��I r- �.. ' t9, w' i 4 ♦ tZ Y TKIf J fa •' Y 5, As NTS ZONING MAP AMMENDMENT GALAXIE FARM TMP 91-09, 91-15, 91-11 (portion) 17 September 2018 Comprehensive Plan Sheet 2 of 9 Portion of site in Neighborhood Density Residential area, per the Comprehensive Plan designated areas is approximately 15.22 Ac. This area is inclusive of the proposed stream buffer and was calculated using Albemarle County GIS online portal (as of 9/17/18). NTS ZONING MAP AMMENDMENT I TMP91-WYA \ Claude VVirginia Sprelhorse 1 ed' .51 Acre Zoned R1 \ ' TMP 91 1 County of Albemarle --,, Davis! orA / I 15.8 Acres i 5 � oned R1 i' - I I i' / ' r ------------- �----- TMP 91-16C - --- IC--------------- Avinity Estates L_ _'---- ---- Acres Zoned PRD 100 0 100 200 300 Graphic Scale: 1"=100' TMP 9145 ,.,"Jasper orAVrallie Haynes ,% -.-8.27 Acres i Zoned R1 -------------------------- -- 'Zzz - - - - - - -� GALAXIE FARM TMP 91-09, 91-15, 91-11 (portion) 17 September 2018 Existing Conditions I / Sheet 3 of 9 1 I I / J ♦ ♦ Block "Block _l o, Q _Blod ''--, O i I J i ZONING MAP AMMENDMENT GALAXI E FARM TMP 91-09, 91-15, 91-11 (portion) 17 September 2018 Block Network Sheet 4 of 9 i 4 E ; ,Block --------------------- ROAD A o Blogk Q 0 -' 5-------------------------- o Block ' `� ,-' �-' 0 4 _ __- ' 0 2 ,- ROAD B Block �O Block ----------------- � r 100 0 100 200 300 Graphic Scale: 1"=100' EW ' � T I 0 , , , / , , , , , r , l I ROA A ROA PHAS I PHA I / i ROAD A ROAD B ' 100 0 100 200 300 Graphic Scale: 1"=100' - - `-- I`\\ - \ ________-_________________- I__..-..----------------------- _..___________________ _ / ZONING MAP AMMENDMENT GALAXIE FARM TMP 91-09, 91-15, 91-11 (portion) 17 September 2018 Circulation Sheet 5 of 9 Al ZONING MAP AMMENDMENT 1UU U 1UU ZUU 3UU Graphic Scale: 1"=100' Low Impact Trail Use & Passive Recreation GALAXI E FARM TMP 91-09, 91-15, 91-11 (portion) 17 September 2018 Recreation and Preservation Areas I I I I 3lock FUTURE PHASE County portion of the project I I 1 I ZONING MAP AMMENDMENT GALAXI E FARM TMP 91-09, 91-15, 91-11 (portion) / 17 September 2018 / Residential Areas Sheet 7 of 9 1 1 B Block BlockOf ;' • 8 10 wok, ��_� ---- -- _ i i♦� Bloch --- V : Block 5 Block - V _------- ---- ♦ ;-Block --------- XIMUM FRONT SETBACK UCTURE (see notes below) <-----__Block BLOCK ID UNIT TYPE MAXIMUM MA Block t ; 1 Notes: A) 5 feet from the right-of-way or the exterior edge of the sidewalk if the sidewalk is outside of the right-of-way B) Front loading garage. 18 feet from the right-of-way or the exterior edge of the sidewalk if the sidewalk is outside of the right-of-way C) 10 feet from the right-of-way for Private Road "F" D) 5 feet from the right-of-way for Private Road "G" and "H" E) All blocks except 8, 91 and 10 may be used for residential uses as noted by the unit types listed above. F) All rear yards (except those adjoining open space) shall have a minimum setback of 15 feet. G) Structures adjoining blocks 8, 9, and 10 (open space) shall have a minimum rear setback of 5 feet H) Structures on adjoining lots shall maintain a minimum of 6 feet building separa- tion. (1) Maximum number of units within PRD shall not exceed 1 9 ' � fr , ♦, I; 0 100 0 100 200 300 Graphic Scale: 1 "=100' ROAD A 6' 6" 2' 4' 11' 11' 4' 9' 6" 6' 5' w z z z z z 4 tt U' C7 Y W wQ Y z (� p z m Q < m C z y w rr a z a aw 10 0 10 20 30 Graphic Scale: 1 "=10' ROADS B, C, & D ZONING MAP AMMENDMENT GALAXI E FARM TMP 91-09, 91-15, 91-11 (portion) 17 September 2018 Urban Street Sections: A - D Sheet 8 of 9 5' 6' 6" 10, 10, 9' 6" 6' 5' d y Z z Q>Q z >QQ z K a 2 O N K K g~ < a z a a ZONING MAP AMMENDMENT ROAD E Y 1 K z z K 4 o c7 w w cD o z 3 ~ ~ 5 a a 10 0 10 20 30 Graphic Scale: 1"=10' ROAD F 30 Fr EASEMENT 1_ J-W f 10' 10, w w 5 5 ROADS G&H GALAXI E FARM TMP 91-09, 91-15, 91-11 (portion) 17 September 2018 Urban Street Sections: E - H 30 Fr EASEMENT 10 FT E AMC MERGENCSS V Sheet 9 of 9