HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201800012 Review Comments Appeal to BOS 2023-02-03 (3)April 1, 2019
Megan Nedostup
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: ZMA 2018-012 Galaxie Farm — Response to November 2, 2018 Staff Comment Letter
Dear Megan:
Below are our responses to the November 2, 2018 Staff Comment Letter. The staff comments
are noted in grey and the applicant responses are noted in black.
General Application Comments:
Statz'rcconimends that the application go to a kork session "jih tla. Planttinlr
Cotnnussion to c t i °edln ck on the proposed densitN drat is aboN e the recommended
density v� ithin the Coml+rA msi� e Plan. See further commnernts on the densitN in the
PlanninL,7oning .onrmert section.
The original application for ZMA 2018-012 included 2.77 acres of adjacent property owned by
the County, Tax Map Parcel 91-11 (the "County Property'). The County Property was shown as
a "Future Phase" and was dependent upon an agreement between the Applicant and the County
in which the Applicant would build a portion of a "Connector Road" per the specifications of the
Comprehensive Plan in exchange for the conveyance of the County Property to the Applicant.
The original application also requested a density of 130 total units, 10.65 dwelling units per acre
(inclusive of the acreage of the County Property). Because the Comprehensive Plan land use
designation for the Property recommends between 3 to 6 dwelling units per acre, i.e. a maximum
of 72 total units, staff recommended the application go to a work session with the Planning
Commission. The work session was held on December 18, 2018. The Planning Commission
recommended the Applicant explore the possibility of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
(CPA). However, the County Zoning Ordinance was amended on January 3, 2018, eliminating
the ability for applicants to initiate CPAs. The revised process for CPAs requires initiation by a
member of the Board of Supervisors or Planning Commission.
The purpose of proposing density higher than that recommended in the Comprehensive Plan was
to allow for the construction of single family detached homes with much smaller square footages
relative to the average newly constructed home. In order to afford selling such smaller homes at
lower prices than the typical larger home, it is necessary to be able to construct more of them
(i.e. have a higher density allowance). These smaller homes are often referred to as "cottages" in
other jurisdictions and many "cottage cluster" ordinances have been adopted in other localities
across the nation.
From discussions with members of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, the
Applicant believes these smaller homes can be constructed by providing specifically tailored
supplemental regulations that allow for certain housing products to be considered a half dwelling
unit. This consideration will only be given if certain restrictive conditions are met. These
regulations can be found in the "Supplementary Regulation" section of the Application Plan and
were inspired by the "cottage cluster" ordinances adopted by other localities. In addition, these
regulations only apply to Block 1, not the entire development.
In sum, the application was revised from allowing a maximum of 130 units to the following:
• Without supplementary regulations: 72 units are allowed
• With supplementary regulations: 59 units are allowed, plus 26 "cottage" units or half
units, totaling 72 units
Since the County declined to pursue the exchange related to the County Property, the total
maximum density recommended by the Comprehensive Plan (excluding the County Property
acreage) is 63 units. The Application allows for 9 units over the maximum recommended
density to accommodate 9 affordable housing units (15% of 63).
Therefore, the Application's revised allowable density is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
land use designation (excluding the 9 affordable housing units).
2. The application for the deNclopme nt appears to be proposin_-, its ov, n -,n of requirements.
�chich is somethi the Neighborhood Model allo%%s for. hov exer there are requirements
within the PRD that states the regulations and requirements in the ordinance. If, ou are
daviating front any of the stated requirements under PRD. a special exception for all of
those deviations will he required, ifihec are available to be modified. Reciew of the
regulations Ndliah } ou are proposing should be compared to the requirements of the PRD
to determine i-1 hat spacial exceptions are needed.
There are no deviations from the PRD requirements.
�. I lie plan shows deeelopntell t o❑ County owned property 0iich is not a part of the
rezoning application.] lie parcels shown in the Galaxie 1=arm rezoning ineluda:
a. - T\4P 91-1 5. otkned h} Jaspzr or Millie Ida�ties.
b. - Trb11' 91-9, wt ned h\ 11,vid or Anna ilarie 1Einner. and
e. - "hAP 91-1 1. oNsned b}Connv of Albemarle.
The project its propo:,:,d in the Oalaxie Rezoning Written Narrativ e describes contract
purchasing for only wo of these three parcels: 91-15 and 91-9. 1 rider Section 33.15tA).
a zoning map amendment ilia\ he filed bc. -An omicr,j contract purchaser with th;,
omier.s consent_ or the oz. ner's authorized agent.- As no contract has been initiated for
Parcel 91-1 1. this zoning map amendment map not be appi-med as currenth proposed.
Fa
Tither proN ide.1 plan the t Coll taillS .!11 of (iW railLlik!IVlclll: ;illd 6 ,1h s!:iud oil it's; own
li LthULit f OLlt7ti 1)rOpel"t4, or Subillit dociNri tli dlspLiA iw.e the p 'L1 :ise coillracl: tltr tlh�
(:ouni} propeirt\.
As stated above, the Application no longer envisions a "Future Phase" that includes the County
Property and therefore the Application exclusively consists of property the Applicant has under
contract.
4. T7]c profrers oil�red cannot Le e>:ccpied under the stale code unless it is sp �iii..ail�
attribut lle tc ao inlpact from the de�;lopinent. -1t tllis tinlc. tl>•_ transportation p�otTcrs
cannot Cie9,:l'nlined to h, speciticrilj, attributable.
a. i h_ affordable housiti- polio; under the Comp Phin will need to b. addressed
tlu(Afh other algal:. as it is not allov able as a profter, cyen it'there is e) idence
of it being specifeally attributable. under th•1., state code. Hoxa eN er, the proposal
Illust llsll spCcity Q 1n"crti tinting t;hr ih4Y,io LIIlitS.
b. 1'or it alsportation. a 11_A should�be suhlnitted to determine the imp.icts io the
loch iiltw�rsertions.
The Application no longer consists of a proffer statement. Instead, Note A of the Supplemental
Regulations of the Application Plan states that 15% of the total residential units within the
project shall be designated as Affordable Dwelling Units. Affordable Dwelling Units is defined
in the Supplementary Regulations and now specifies the delivery timing for such units, stating,
"The 15% Affordable Housing Requirement... must be satisfied prior to construction of more
than sixty-five (65%) of the project."
Since the County declined to pursue the agreement in which the Applicant would construct a
portion of a "Connector Road" to the specifications of the Comprehensive Plan, the Application
no longer provides transportation proffers.
>. A statenlellt should be prorided as to how the proposal specitictl,1- addresses inhpaels ill
schools, parks, transportation. and safety 1poliee and fire.
This may no longer be applicable as the Application no longer includes a proffer statement.
However, see below:
The Applicant has discussed the Application with Rosalyn Schmitt, Chief Operating Officer of
Albemarle County Public Schools and Joe Letteri, Director of Building Services for Albemarle
County Public Schools. Both officers stated that development is welcome in this area of the
County due to low enrollment (and under capacity) of Monticello High School and Walton
Middle School. While Cale Elementary School is at or over capacity, Albemarle County Public
School officers stated that this issue would need to be addressed regardless of the proposed
development and may be solved through redrawing the district boundaries or some other means.
The officers stated Cale Elementary School will likely not expand towards the applicant -
controlled property as Cale is already larger than the ideal size for an elementary school and
there are steep slopes and stormwater management facilities located where the possible
expansion could occur, rendering such expansion impractical.
The Monticello Fire and Rescue Station is located within a'/2 mile of the proposed development.
The station was constructed within the past several years and has the capacity to serve the nearby
proposed development. A second emergency -only entrance was added to the proposed
development since the original Application Plan in response to Fire & Safety comments.
The proposed development is located within close proximity to several park facilities, including
the facilities of Cale Elementary School and Monticello High School. In addition, the newly
proposed Biscuit Run park is also nearby. The proposed development also includes 2.78 acres of
passive recreational space, which includes greenway trails along the perennial stream located
parallel to Route 20. These greenway trails will include a trail envisioned in the Comprehensive
Plan to continue along Route 20 and possibly connect to the Monticello Trails and/or Biscuit
Run. A little less than an acre of the proposed development will be used for more active
recreational space, including playground facilities, dog park, and possibly a clubhouse (if
feasible).
Estimated traffic counts are provided below:
AM
PM
Use Description
ITE
Qty
in
out
Total
in
out
Total
Single Family Detached
210
42
IT
27
37
30
17
47
Townhomes
220
30
5
13
18
12
9
21
Total
15
40
55
42
26
68
Right Turn
4
32
Left Turn
11
10
The above table assumes 42 single family detached units and 30 twnhomes (72 units total).
According to the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Manuel, it is estimated that 40 units will be
turning out of the proposed site in the morning and 15 will be turning in, with the stream of
traffic reversing in the afternoon (42 cars into the site, 26 cars out of the site). Based on Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT) data on Scottsville Road (Route 20), it is estimated that
of those turning into the site (in the AM: 11 will be turning left into the site, 3 will be right into
the site; in the PM: 10 will be turning left into the site, 32 will be turning right into the site). The
image on the next page depicts the above data based on current traffic estimates on Route 20. If
a certain relationship between turns and the existing volume of traffic is met, a right turn lane or
right turn taper would be warranted. In this instance, a right turn taper is warranted, which will
allow more room for cars turning right into the site. This right turn taper will minimize delays
on Route 20 that might have resulted from a backlog of cars turning right into the site.
120
l _ i_ I I _t_
100 2co ,tM 400 Vrn r30E1
516
PHV h'aPIRaACHTOTAL. VE"ICtESf H
In addition, based on advancing volume and opposing volumes (VPH), speed and percentage left
turns of Route 20, a left turn lane is not warranted. See the below graphic.
LrT TUR4
tLrt r.IM+' tRT T iS1T Te+SrG
�
404" 1*$" SPEED,
i0c.
111
240
100
rap
x[
410
1"'
_
20D
,
400
xtc.
no
215
1
1-46
200
±WO
410
t5D
'S'
1
1DD
`M
010
140
W
5OAFH ofssR3Y SPEED -
no
2a
210
75^_
13E
04D
3t0
tad
140
I'D
406
SAD
1
270
00D
25�0
21D 1F!"
1*.D
400
303
S'0 ^'
1 ;
Y
:00
A15
33D I
100
50S
$1D
+-
TABLE 31
Source, Adapted from 2011 AASHTO
Green Book, Chapter 9, Section 9 7 3,
Page 9- t 32, Table 9-23
5
The location and timing of the traffic signals along Route 20 result in steady openings in traffic,
which will allow residents of the proposed development to turn left out of the site at regular
intervals without extended delays.
Application Plan:
Planning/Zoning (Megan Nedostup; Lea Brumfield):
9 connection ihould i"e consid.reJ from this &aclopmvrit to A "ivity. 'Ih'i,c is an
e-xistini., right of r a} that is pl tacd to the pl•opartc line in .•fix init%. fhi v,ill ins olcc
connecting througgh school property_ and a pedestrian and bike connectiou %pith a flour
right 01 ti :r;. 1l«+iea600 ..ould 'r. ,xplor�:d at a minimum.
Road C is designed to the property line of Tax Map Parcel 91-15, which abuts Avinity and Cale
Elementary School. Therefore, if the County chooses, it can extend Road C through the Cale
Elementary School property, exiting onto Avon Street Extended. Any connection to Avinity
would require the acquisition of off -site easements and therefore the Application does not show
any connections.
Importantly, the design of the Avinity subdivision is not supportive of through traffic.
Driveways were allowed to be constructed such that they do not accommodate the size of a
typical vehicle and therefore such vehicles block the neighborhood's sidewalks and backup right
up against passing traffic. In addition, all of the roads in the Avinity subdivision are private
roads with narrow through lanes. The Applicant does not believe it would be appropriate nor
safe to provide a vehicular connection to the Avinity subdivision without, at minimum, providing
traffic from the proposed development to exit onto Avon Street Extended by a separate, and
more immediate connection, thus discouraging and minimizing traffic from the proposed
development through Avinity.
2. The Southern and Wcsttmi klaster Plan shows a ercenwaN trail along Route 20. `Ihis
should be pro%id4d for alon& the frontage.
The Application Plan shows a Class B greenway trail located parallel to Route 20.
All tots are required to hslvc frontage on a public or private strcat. It is unclear what
classification of roads are heing proposed. if there will he lots that n ill not have frontage
From a public or private strut. then this should he addressed in the application plan.
There }rive been other developments that have "amenity orientad lotJ - that could be used
as a starting point for lanuage to address this.
All lots will have frontage on either a public or private street.
k. The narrative states there vvill be a "boardwalk" in Block 2. Please clarih if Road F is a
"boardwalk" and evhat the materials will be for the access to Block 2. Also, see comment
2 abore rcgardine froittatic for lots.
Road F is not a "boardwalk." The boardwalk referenced in the narrative relates to a path to be
constructed along the frontage of the greenway of Block 7. A cross-section of each proposed
road is provided in the Application Plan.
;. PP.D h is rW.,vtdations stated for height. building scptraiioa, and setback lfvou are
deaLahti, from 'the reuuirements. a l,.cia! exceptir?n r_�quir,d rfavailable to be
modi fic'].
a. Hi: ight is stutcd aji >: inal of 65 11w, hoil Ck 4"' tit., Conip Plan rocolnmerids a trla.'i
height of ; stories Block 5 alloti s for a mar: of 50 1zet xdiieh could equatc to 5
stories, If) addition, PRIG siatrs that there is a niiitinlum stepb,ick required tor ail),
5tUl'v that br. lns above-10 feet to height Qr for each story- abtnc the third story.
tvhichcvn is less as provide_! in section 4.I(). 'I lie application does not address
this requirement.
The Application no longer allows for structures above 35 feet.
b. I here is;: minimum building separation of 10 laet. Note it states ti teet, rrhich
does not meet this re_iuirenlent.
The Application has been revised and this note has been removed. Building
separation will meet the 10-foot minimum required by PRD regulations.
c. Setbacks are required under 4.19 for PRD. A masimtun sethack should be stated
Hith in the application plan.
The Notes in the Application Plan state the applicable setbacks in each Block.
0. Remove area for Lie%elopntent nut of the stream buffer in Block 1. In addition. a note
should be added to the application plan that states that no lots lire permitted within the
stream Killer.
The very small area for development shown in the stream buffer was provided to allow for a
residence at a desirable intersection. This lot will frame the intersection and will contribute to a
sense of place as residents and neighbors pass through the neighborhood. While this small
portion of the rear of a lot is shown as being in the stream buffer, Note H states, "No structures
shall be permitted in the stream buffer." Therefore, only open yard space is allowed in the
portion of any lot that overlays with the stream buffer. While the Applicant recognizes the risk
that a homeowner might not follow the County Zoning Ordinance and construct a shed or other
small structure in this buffer even though it is prohibited, we believe the impact of such a shed or
other structure would be minimal, especially given the grading that will already occur in this area
to allow for the relocation of Galaxie Farm Lane. This grading would also result in the loss of
any existing vegetation. The regulations at the site plan level would require mitigation plantings
for this grading and replacement of the loss of any vegetation along the stream buffer. The small
amount of vegetation within the lot of which has a portion within the stream buffer can be
7
included in this mitigation plan, resulting in added vegetation elsewhere to offset the risk of the
loss of vegetation within this residential lot.
j. i%'ote -I J'..:'.t11S to bti C: cvroi it ;)t GJ3 th'.{t tl e .ri , J,1ltlnt 111&!I .r of units sh:dl I:ut
eWccd 1. itl addition. th" uutnl?Or ot'utlits ir, th, cuait on d�,,t 7 egtnl 112_ not 110 as
rdqucsted.
Yes, Note I was meant to state that "the maximum number of units shall not exceed 130" in the
original Application Plan. The number of units did not equal 112 — that column in the chart
referenced dwelling units per acre (DUA), not the maximum allowable units.
As stated previously, the maximum allowable residential units has been revised to 72. To
minimize confusion only the acreage and maximum allowable units is provided for each Block.
Block 8 indicates that there is a maximum structure height and a setback. Provide
information on lvllat is to be provided in the block as it relates to recreation and possible
structures.
The Application allows for a structure with a maximum height of 35 feet and setback regulations
in the Block designated for amenity space to allow for the possibility of a small clubhouse. We
envision Block 8 to consist of natural playscapes and playground equipment, benches, sports
fixtures, etc. We are not certain if a clubhouse will be provided but would like the option should
it be feasible.
9. Provide a st itentent on the recreation to be provided. W ill it be in conformance vi ith 4.16
of the Zoning Ordinance as required in PRD? Or are other amenities proposed" Ilov. will
amenities b.--addressed?
All PRD requirements will be satisfied per the Zoning Ordinance. The passive greenspace and
recreational amenity areas will include playscapes, playground equipment, benches, sports
fixtures, etc. There will also be a trailway system throughout the passive greenspace, with
houses orientated towards the greenway as much as possible to encourage residents to use such
trail system. The trails in the passive greenway will be located along a perennial stream and
connect to the extended greenway trail shown in the Comprehensive Plan. This extended
greenway trail is shown as being located parallel to Route 20, eventually connecting to the
Monticello Trail system and Biscuit Run.
10. "1 lie pleasing aspect of this proposal does consider the thture development of the Count%
property at TMP 91-1 I separately from the initial dev:lopnient ol'parecls 91-15 and 91-9.
Ihm ever. as clrrently submitted, the l;rst plulse relics on the second phase for op--n space
not under purchase contract. this first "phase' must indapendernk meet all zoning
requirements, including the open space imd interconneetkit} requirements listed in
comment I hcloN.
0
The Application Plan has been revised to exclude the County Property and only include those
properties the Applicant has under contract. Therefore, the open space has been moved to within
the boundaries of the Applicant -controlled properties.
I I. The two parcels ttndei pulchasutg contract total 1 ;, 16 .acres. I. Sector 1Q.6.1, th:-
PR(9 niust pros ide 2S440. or 3.34 acres o!'annntan opC0 ,jr: C'_. I-Wludit] cc' the land
inc ltrcled in the second Phase. file total proposed green space consisns of .+.01 acres. st°hied
does not Incet the inliittnurn 2510 open SpaeC rcgUir�AnCnl. 1StClndin' the nnconit'acted
la1 acres of Connie parcel toNvard s the proposal. the three pareel:� total 14.87 acres. this
rc�ults in a rcquircd 3. 7'' acres of open space. The current proposal. includittr the s-C and
phase of lls°.�lopme!tt on County-o�nted laml. dee otcs 3.58 acres tast.trds open sp aE.e.
This tlucs not m et the requited 3.72 acres of open space required bi Section 19.6. i .
As stated earlier, the Application Plan has been revised to exclude the County Property and
therefore the open space has been moved to within the boundaries of the Applicant -controlled
properties. As stated above, the Zoning Ordinance requires 25% open space, or 3.34 acres. The
revised Application Plan shows 2.78 acres as passive recreational open space and 0.83 acres as
active recreational open space, totaling 3.61 acres of common open space, satisfying the required
3.34 acres (or 25%).
12. The proposal as currently submited s,idt contract signatures for INil's 91-15 and 9 1 -90
does not shoss phasing for access, to cxcisting dwellings at 107. 1 17. and 130 Gaaxie
Farm Lane. Nor does it shos, access for the ds clling on EMP 91-10 (167 Gala.,ie Farm
Lane). These dsscllings currently rely on Gal a xic Farm Isaac for access. which is
retnos ed in the proposed plan. The connections impacts to these three residential
dwellings is not addressed in the project proposal. Additionally. the dv.elling at 133
Galaxie hams Lune is not shown on the current proposal. tlnlcs the C'ount.-ossned
parcel is under purchase contract, this dwelling must be shown on the proposal.
As stated earlier, the Application Plan has been revised to exclude the County Property and only
include those properties the Applicant has under contract. The Application Plan also shows all
existing dwellings and how they will have continued access from Route 20 off of Galaxie Farm
Lane.
13. The ts� o lots under purchase contract. 9 1 -15 and 91-9. totaling13.36 acres. allow 13
dwelling units by -right under the currant R-1 zoning. A maximum density of 6 dwelling
units per acre are recommended under the eontprehensis e plan desi',nation of
Neigliborhood Density Residential. Excluding 3.01 acres of land under the � atcr
Protection Ordinance stream buffer to leave 10.35 buildable acres_ the nutximum dcnsits
Xuxdd equate to 62 dwelling units.
As stated previously, the two lots under contract total 13.36 acres. Under the recommended
maximum density of 6 dwelling units per acre and excluding 2.78 acres of environmentally
sensitive area, the maximum recommended density equals 63 dwelling units. While the GIS
shows 3.01 acres of environmentally sensitive area, the enclosed survey shows that an accurate
calculation of the stream buffer is 2.78 acres.
2
14, Tlw narrnti%e proposal lists tvo ditf rent acnmges ofCourm land in its calculation. Orr
the first page, the proposal states "Elie proposed maximum densitN is i30 Lin; is. .khick
amounts to 8.74 units per 13Jac kbird Propert' plus 1.5 i acres of County
Property,)" IloweN- r. tl;e arlcnlations under 'Consistcuc� With Comprehensive Plan" list
a total of 15.22 acres. vaueh %could requir: 1,86 acre_, (if CornuN oa+ned land.
Tiae inclusion of 1.51 acrL„of t ounty Property in the proposal allows for a total of 1.4 by-
riJtt dwelling units under the eaistinu R-1 r'onmr. 'r7z hiding 3.01 acres of ]sand under the
1?`ater Protection Ordinance stezm buffer to lcm e 11.86 buildable acres. the ini icnum
density wor.dd equate to 71 chilling units.
ffosve'er, the inclusion of 1.86 .cres of County Property allo xs for a total of 15 day eilht
units under the cs+stin R-1 zoning. Excludint i.01 acres of f.uld under the AVater
Protection Ordinance stream buffer to lca'-t I I' I build :bh acres, the nraximunr dctrsity
would equate to Ti dwelling units.
-1 he propo°led maximum density of 130 dvellino units. equates to a total of 11.5 ds�elliiw
unity per acre. nearly double the recommended nraxinuun density. This is an extirmely
high number o'er the recommended mtaximurn density Stall' recommends this b
discussed in a �Nork session with the Planting Conunksion.
The Applicant only intended to construct 130 units should the proposed development include the
County Property and therefore the maximum dwelling units per acre proposed was 10.65, not
11.5. As stated earlier, the proposed density was discussed at a work session on December 18,
2018. Discussions following the work session lead to the revised allowable maximum density of
72 units, 9 of which are designated as Affordable Dwelling Units. Using a total acreage of 13.36
(all Applicant -controlled property) less the environmentally sensitive area (2.78 acres), the total
recommended maximum density would be 63 units. Excluding the units designated as
Affordable Dwelling Units, the total allowable density in the Application Plan is 63 units,
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
ARB/Mstoric Preservation (Margaret Maliszcwski):
1. 1 he residence. garage.. and barns on '1_l41' 91 -9are contributing, resources in the Southern
Albemarle Rural Historic District. Retaining the residence and incorporating it into the
new development would support the Comprehensive Plan goal of preserving the count''s
historic resources. The residence, gnra, e and barns should be full documented in photos
and drawings prior to demolition of the Outbuildings.
Per the National Register for the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District (enclosed) the only
contributing structures within the proposed development relate to TMP 91-15, which has a Dutch
colonial house on the property. The colonial house and associated structures on 91-15 do not
have clearly defined historical features and were constructed in the early 1940s. They were
included as "historical" due to their location along the historic and scenic byway of Route 20 and
proximity to Monticello. The historical structures have also not been kept in good condition and
were recently severely damaged by a tornado that hit the area. For these reasons, we do not
10
believe the historical structures should be incorporated into the proposed development. Please
see the enclosed photos for more information.
2. Rt. 20 is an I`ml' ucif ?_oIridor and it N i iIna i34'b I'; . 1 he corridor a! Id UN 14i1N
designations [lie lnt'.ndcd to [)reserve and enhance the aestheties Ond natural hCaUt\ o7'the
Yoad)i:.b, fhe hrGSc`Ci ad StIYaYlI bU'ftci can Ildll) SlippUl"t 11i1.'s goal 2IIld 171Ctlili.xltl _m
approniinte appc-,ii 'tic: ;4onw the corridot% Dcn,�J Ceitetation bullink the vie\of tilt
glc'lz ddv-elopinrtnt troto the hi=hv x, is appropriate.
There will be a 2.78-acre buffer from Route 20 to the residences of the proposed development.
The stream buffer area will be preserved as passive open space — no structures will be allowed to
be constructed within this area. The preservation of such a large, vegetative buffer will preserve
Route 20's natural beauty and scenic byway designation.
The n.irrov. +vidtll of Rt. 20 and the minimal v. idih and simple app :ranee of drivcv.afs
providing access to properties off the high\vay are major contributors to the scenic
character of the corridor. 1; idened entrances and vtidcned roads (the 66' right-of-v),ai fin•
Road V for example&) and added turd lanes on Route 70. together with it)-- lssociatcd log;
of existing icooded area. will erode the scenic qualio cfthc highway. Nle_isures tor
signilicanth liinitin- these impacts shuUld be pursued.
The entrance to the proposed development has been reduced from 67'of right-of-way to 36'.
Therefore, the revised Application Plan is more in conformance with the minimal width and
simple appearance of driveways off of Route 20. No turn lanes will be added, only a right lane
tapper will be installed and therefore there will be minimal loss of existing wooded area.
-i, All\ safety the higimav and entrance road should incorporate
traditional fencing materials and design.
Noted.
�. Density of the landscape in the stream buffer g ill determine 'ihe degree of AR13 reviei>
required on the internal blocks oCthe development.
Noted.
6. The application notes that cottages will front on a boardv-elk adjacent to the open space.
fhe plan should be clarified to shove the general location of the boartivvalk and cottages.
and a conceptual detail "image of the board%%alk, so that th-e potwuial impacts of this Inrm
of development can be hotter assessed.
The Application shows the "boardwalk" along the border of the stream buffer and therefore there
will be minimal, if any, impact on the stream buffer or vegetative open space from this
installment. The boardwalk will encourage utilization of the open space, which will have a trail
system with the potential to connect to the Monticello Trails once the greenway trails along
11
Route 20 are installed as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. The boardwalk will meet
requirements of allowable trails within environmentally sensitive areas.
Transportation (Kevin McDermott; Adam Moore (VDOT):
I . Reconimen.; do • eloptnem ()I'.! '11,a to fflah-/e lnlpact , to local intersections and clkn elop
nlltP�;ltion ltl, : ltr.'�- "tun] lanes) hlr siw iiccesF;.
Based upon estimated traffic data, the addition of a right or left turn lane is not necessary.
However, a right -turn taper will be installed. The location and timing of the traffic signals along
Route 20 result in steady openings in traffic, which will allow residents of the proposed
development to turn left out of the site at regular intervals without extended delays.
�. l#lhe I_.Inw- t0 be tt iltlninitnn of 5 legit Pi lerl tiPt act
.jaeen' to 111tlL'l' p::n.
This comment is no longer applicable as no portion of the "Connector Road" shown in the
Comprehensive Plan shall be constructed.
Inspections (Michael Dellinger):
Caution is needed when moving property line, that existing structtes will nova need to
he fire rated construction duc to proximity to line.
As stated earlier, the Application Plan no longer includes the County Property and therefore
changes to the applicable property lines that would result in the above concern will no longer
occur.
Fire/Rescue (Shawn Maddox):
1. •A second entrance will he required based al the densil%.
A second fire entrance is shown on the revised Application Plan (Road F).
2. Travel vc ly s sen'ing as the prirnar\ means of access to a stricture shall he a minimum of
20' clear unobstructed irm: el xridth.
The only roadways that will be less than 20' or 26' are located within Blocks 1 and 2. The
requirement of structures to be limited to 30' in height shall apply at the site plan phase of
development.
If anv structural in the dowelopmern lslll he 30' or higher then travel tvay s shall be
increased to :6' of unohstructcd v. idth.
The only roadways that will be less than 20' or 26' are located within Blocks 1 and 2. The
requirement of structures to be limited to 30' in height shall apply at the site plan phase of
development.
12
Engineering (Frank Pohl)-
1 ii: ill', it I?'oitc:; stLtemew stato all to id iinprovenknts A-11 he to applicable
tit 1)01 - a'tidm . lloCi evel'. stroet sec! and la.%out prof id,,J do ❑ot appear to 1nCtA
l 1)01 s end: ;;its. Rcfer to VD0'f %PPendi7. B 1 !b: road design standards.
Roads A, B, and C will be designed to VDOT standards. Roads D and E will meet Private Road
standards and Road F will be constructed for the purpose of a second entrance for fire/rescue.
All sidewalks will be located within an easement or right-of-way.
3. Roads G&II — line rescue will need to conflorm width is adequate. N inin)wn ��.idth of
tllcyt� is 13-ft )vith a minimut.l e.tseinent Mdth o1' 20-11 (County Design Staudards
Manual J. If then roads' .are intended to provide lot frontage. the% must meet pri - Site road
st ndards.
See response to Fire/Rescue comments. Private Road standards will be met for Roads D and E.
All roads less than 26' in width shall not have structures fronting the road with a height of more
than 30' as required by Fire/Rescue standards.
Dire rescue requires a second means of access v hen a certain number of SF ardor
attached units are constructed. Confirm thresholds with fire rescue.
A second fire entrance is shown on the revised Application Plan (Road F).
5. The intersection of Road B and Road F does no; appear to o)ret A"DO1' standards.
The Application Plan has been revised — the intersection of Roads B and F no longer is required
to meet VDOT standards as Road F has been revised to an emergency accessway. All other
intersections in the revised Application Plan meet VDOT standards where required.
0. Prm ide a brief narrative to address how slornicsater nianagenlem requirements v6ll be
satisfied.
Stormwater Management will be provided for in accordance with the VSMP regulations. The
system will likely consist of a network of underground storage and treatment facilities and a
surface facility at the end of Road E outside of the stream buffer.
?. A rotrd plait and VSti1P application kz ill be required. A miti�_ation Plan )gill be rcquired
fi)r stream huller impacts.
These requirements will be addressed at the site plan stage of development.
13
Proffers
1. A,, �!Jui d aho,,e 1 roiferJ i� drilled r;}litloI bt ac c:pted. Bciovi are comments or., vte
traW,Fportation ptoffers if the propos�.d ittip;ovenienis ary found to h,c specificall\
aitrihuiahle to th O dcvelopnlent, h;�s u cal ail, toquesied HA.
These comments are no longer applicable as the application no longer consists of a proffer
statement.
_. ILoi�d Improvements
a. Para 3 of the curram profFer statement 1 1-161 suvil time as the County
deterniincs ul submit the Galexie Farm 1_ int Connection for public dadicsrtien. the
OvN nei shall be responsible tier all muinieuara...." The County does not submit
roads for public d,crdisatiott. "I'he applicant must submit the road tier public
dedication.
h. Th::�pplicam must Specify fife requirCIFICAtS of the "completion'" of Galaxie Farm
Lane Connection.
c. G tlaxie I-atu Lao,. Connection is eurreuth proposed to be completed "prior to
the comptetion ofniueticth (90th) certiticate of occupancy."'l lie proposal should
read "prior to the issuanca..." Additionalli, postpcniM" conapletiou of tile
Connection until the 901h certiticate ofoceupanc% Ml! result in poor access for
Bloc!: 7.6. and i.
These comments are no longer applicable as the application no longer consists of a proffer
statement.
Waivers/Modifications/Exception:
Private ;ueets serving single flmih detached tots require private street approval. A
request should be made if there are private streets.
For planned districts, an application for a special exception request is not required for private
roadways as long as such roadways are labeled as such in the Application Plan. The Application
Plan labels Roads D and E as private.
The only waiver request for this Application relates to a request for double frontage lots between
Road B and Road E. Section 14.401 of the County Subdivision Ordinance prohibits the
development of double frontage lots for single family detached and attached residential uses.
Section 13.203.1(B) allows the agent or Planning Commission to vary or allow an exception
from this prohibition. We request an exception from such prohibition to allow double frontage
lots between Road B and Road E, consistent with the Application Plan. In accordance with
neighborhood model principles, we propose rear loaded residential units fronting on the green
space of Block 7. Due to the size, shape and location of the property, the alleyway (labeled as
Road E), which serves the rear of the units fronting the green space of Block 7, will also serve
the next row of units between Road B and Road E. Strict adherence to the requirements of
Section 14.401 would prohibit the alleyway serving the units which front on Road B and the
green space of Block 7; however, the strict adherence would require moving Road E from its
14
current location to the space between the lots fronting the green space of Block 7. This would
create a paved barrier between such lots and the green space rather than allowing the green space
to act as more of an extended front yard. This would be a substantial injustice resulting in
degradation of the green space of Block 7, is not supported by the principles of the neighborhood
model, and inhibits the orderly development of the area.
Planning
Planning staff s comments are organized as follows:
• How the proposal relates to the Comprehensive Plan
• The Neighborhood Model analysis
• Additional comments from reviewers (See attached)
Comprehensive Plan.
Comments on uocv yoor projeci combrins to thz C'onipteheusivc Plan will be provided to the
Plamuai� Commission and Board of Supervisors its part oftl7e staff report that tidill be prepared
for a t�oti;. session or public nearin1g.
The properties are within the Sonthern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan area and :ire
desi11
.ned as y;ei!ohborhood Density Residential that alloys for residential (3-6 units'aere):
suppottum,= Uses such as places ol'caorship, schools. public and institutional uses and small-seale
neit>hborhood Leming retail .,nd commercial. lu addition. a road is desiauated on the plan that
would connect throwJt the properties.
A Center is designated on an adjoining prop .rty. and it is recommended that due to the number
ofC'ounty owned properties, that it collaborative conmwnity process for a small area plan is
nec&-d in this location.
Me proposal request density abo\-e what is recommended within the Conip Plan, bttt pro\ ides
Fora portion of the road that is shown, Other portions of the Comp Plan that will be discussed
fitrther as part of the staff report inchtde Historic. Culhnal. and Scenic Resources (see klargaret
..VlahszeNvski's conmients). Development Areas. Housing. Transportation. Parks and Green
Scsterns. and Growth Management.
As stated previously, the Planning Commission held a work session on December 18, 2018 to
discuss the previously proposed density. The Planning Commission recommended exploring a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. However, upon discussing the project with members of the
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, we believe a CPA is no longer necessary. The
Application's revised allowable density is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use
designation (excluding the 9 affordable housing units).
The project is also consistent with other portions of the Comprehensive Plan. The project
satisfies the Comprehensive Plan's desire to encourage 15% affordable housing within each new
project. In addition, it is common practice to only provide 15% affordable housing above the
total number of units that would have been allowed by -right. The application provides
affordable housing for 15% of the total allowable units, without subtracting the number of units
that would be allowed by -right. Due to changes in Virginia proffer laws, the County is no longer
15
able to accept proffers for 15% affordable housing units. Therefore, it is especially important for
the County to maximize the number of affordable housing units when it is able. While the
Virginia proffer law is changing again effective July 1, 2019, the most recently revised proffer
law still does not allow the County to deny projects based on the fact that proffers that are not
specifically attributable to the impacts of the proposed development were not offered. Therefore,
applications after July 1, 2019 still cannot be denied based on the fact that they do not offer
affordable housing.
The Application also shows the greenway trail along Route 20 that is shown in the
Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan also shows a Connector Road through the
property. However, due to the same changes in Virginia proffer laws noted above, the County is
no longer able to accept such transportation proffers unless such proffers are specifically
attributable to the impacts of the proposed development. The proposed development consists of
only 72 residential units and therefore does not warrant the construction of a "Connector Road"
as specified in the Comprehensive Plan. While the Application does not show the Connector
Road that is specified in the Comprehensive Plan, the Applicant made a good faith effort to
provide such road within the framework of the new Virginia proffer laws. However, the County
declined to pursue the road and so the revised Application no longer shows construction of the
road. The Application Plan still provides bike lanes along Road A and enables the County to
connect to Road A should it desire to do so in the future.
While the Comprehensive Plan states that a small area plan is needed for the County -owned
properties, it explicitly does not include the adjacent parcels not owned by the County.
Neighborhood Model
General comments on hov, %cell the proposed development meets the principles of the
Neighborhood Dlodel are provided here. More detailed comments maN be provided at a. later data
it changes are made andior after more detailed plans are provided.
Pedestrian Orientation I + The material of the stde%kalk should he
indicated on the sections. and this
vhould be stated as concrete.
A label has been added to the cross sections
of the roads within the Application Plan
labeling the sidewalk material as concrete.
• Till lighting be provided? if so. please
note that bill cut-off fixtures are
required per Section 4.1 7 of the lonitw
O dinancc.
Note I has been added to the Application
Plan stating, "For all lighting within the
development, full cut-off fixtures shall be
required per Section 4.17."
16
.VV stated ,above. M a mininlnin a
p,�dzstrian and bike conn,ction should
be ina-i& bemeen this deNclopinent end
the ri ht of lvaF that is proti ided to the
property line is Avinit�.
As stated previously, it is not possible to
connect to Avinity except through the
acquisition of off -site easements and
therefore the Application Plan does not
show a pedestrian or bike connection.
However, Road C is shown as being
extended to the property line and therefore
the County is able to pursue a bike or
pedestrian connection from the proposed
development to Avinity through the Cale
Elementary School property if it so desired.
17
Mixture of Uses
l he proposal is titr residcntial u:=es ott:.
hoNvever ih_ rl— are ci niiT ture ui Lies
%,Jthin the immediate are.+ inchtding
schools-, assisted" living. fire station.
shol?pin _ and County (coned laud
dcsien:au�d lbr institutional.
No response necessary.
• In addition to the above. the
tcighbohood N4odei prill:Jp les for
IniVure of t!ses diseuSscs hole Hisioftc
Properties should he respected and that a
desire to prs.�-rve th,.,e re>ources. should
be included. As stated abode. there are
historic buildings on the property fltat
should he considere� i to be incorporated
into the development.
The historic structures on the property do
not have clearly defined historical features
and were constructed in the early 1940s.
They were included as "historical" due to
their location along the historic and scenic
byway of Route 20 and proximity to
Monticello. The historical structures have
also not been kept in good condition and
were recently severely damaged by a
tornado that hit the area. For these reasons,
we do not believe the historical structures
should not be incorporated into the
proposed development. Please see the
enclosed photos for more information.
Neighborhood Centers • The Southern and Western
Neighborhoods Master Plan indicates
that a Center should be provided on a
Count} ov.ned property near the
proposed properties. It further discusses
that a sniatl area plan be dcyclopod to
determine l+fiat tk pe ofeenter Mould be
appropriate on the Count% olcned
propem. While the proposed properties
do not include a center. then vre
important considerations a; the Count}
considers holy to develop their property.
1E
Mixture of Housing Types and
Affordability
A "Center" is defined in the Comprehensive
Plan as "a school or a park... major
employment area or a shopping area... [or]
mixed -use area. It is a "place" to which
people want to walk... [and] should be
located within''/3 to 1/4 mile walk zone from
residences..." There are zero residences
within %: mile and only a portion of the
Avinity subdivision within'/4 mile.
Therefore, to fulfill the Comprehensive
Plan's vision of having a "Center" on the
County -owned properties adjacent to the
proposed development, it would be prudent
to allow for the proposed residential
development to help support the "Center"
designation.
15°o affordable hOntlnkt is oftercd
ho)Never this needs to be accomplished
outside oY a proffer. also. th, timillL of
the affordable housiva needs to he
addressed.
As stated earlier, affordable housing
component of the project has been revised
to be provided within conditions of the
Application Plan rather than a proffer
statement. The timing of the affordable
housing has also been added to the
Supplementary Regulations section of the
Application Plan.
\ mis of housing tV l`,es is permitted
within all blocks, but nothing in the
application requires c mis 0l'ho11si1)!2
types within the develcpnient, so the
development could end up being buih to
one housing tyl)c.
Noted, though we do not believe this
comment justifies revision of the
Application Plan. Of the 6 blocks that allow
for residential development, 3 allow for
single family detached (SFD) and single
19
Interconnected Streets and
Transportation Networks
family attached (SFA) units and 2 allow for
SFD, SFA, and townhouses. While it is
true, all Blocks could potentially be built as
SFD or SFA units, it is highly unlikely that
the applicant would choose to construct
only SFD or SFA units, as the density of the
project would be greatly reduced rendering
the project financially infeasible.
A,: s;Luo l above.:: connection to AN ini*
S11OUld I),' i:':11±01 s J " illl S%JIOOIS W1 thiS
J;nclrn)t;i,�itt. lo: ddition. there are
q L[Cllior L, concernln.g the exl4ult�" liouSs-'s
beim4 sencd currcntl} by Galaxy 3 artn
Road thou access needs to be addressed.
As stated earlier, Road C is designed to the
property line of Tax Map Parcel 91-15,
which abuts Avinity and Cale Elementary
School. Therefore, if the County chooses, it
can extend Road C through the Cale
Elementary School property, exiting onto
Avon Street Extended. Any connection to
Avinity would require the acquisition of off -
site easements and therefore the Application
Plan does not show any connections.
Importantly, the design of the Avinity
subdivision is not supportive of through
traffic. Driveways were allowed to be
constructed such that they do not
accommodate the size of a typical vehicle
and therefore such vehicles block the
neighborhood's sidewalks and backup right
up against incoming/oncoming traffic. In
addition, all of the roads in the Avinity
subdivision are private roads with narrow
through lanes. The Applicant does not
believe it would be appropriate nor safe to
provide a vehicular connection to the
Avinity subdivision without, at minimum,
providing traffic from the proposed
development to exit onto Avon Street
Extended by a separate, and more
immediate connection than through the
Avinity subdivision, thus discouraging and
Dei
Multi -modal Transportation
Opportunities
minimizing traffic from the proposed
development through Avinity.
The proposed road iniprovenients are
d.scribui as shown (,)if the application
plan shoo bic)Cle lanes oil Road A.
proposed to be bonded prior to the
crcaation of the 50th lot. `phis relies on
the Contract purchase ofthe Cotuttc-
m%ned propert; "oi- bicycle eecess, as rno
bicycle access is shoe, it o❑ Rood 13 of
:any eormcctor roads. Bike and
pedestrian accass should be provided
lorui Road B and further connect to
Ai i r i t%.
This is no longer applicable as the
Application Plan no longer shows Road A
as being built to the standards of a
"Connector Road" due to the desire of
County Supervisors to not pursue the
agreement that would allow for the
construction of such road.
A shared use path alom, the frontage of
Rout, 20 should be proN ided as shown
in the blaster Plan.
The Application Plan shows a Class B
greenway trail located parallel to Route 20.
Currently CAI is considering a neck
Route that "ould service A -lilt Creel.
Drive. If there are opportunities to
provide a pedestrian and bike
connection to tiliII ('reek via Founder's
PIaCC. these should he explored.
A connection to Mill Creek via Founder's
Place would require the acquisition of off -
site easements which would not be allowed
under the new Virginia proffer law. While
the Applicant attempted to provide such
infrastructure despite changes in the proffer
law, such attempts were not pursued by the
County Supervisors. Therefore, the
21
Application Plan no longer shows such
connections.
Parks, Recreational Amenities, and Open
. 11,e.juired opcii space is currentl% not
Space
bein"'t met on the prop.'nies for
consideration for the rezxminE. Block 8
cont:tirts area lbr open space that is not
Oil a pr:rcel behn, rezoned. ,ee
comments abo%e.
As stated earlier, the Application Plan has
been revised to exclude the County Property
and only include those properties the
applicant has under contract. Therefore, the
open space has been moved to within the
boundaries of the Applicant -owned
properties, satisfying applicable PRD
requirements.
• Open space is being provided al oil the
stream bill'. rs a -here a wail ivil] he
located. The type of trail should ba
.tared and a section should be provided.
The trails within the stream buffer will be
Class B greenway trails per the
Comprehensive Plan.
Buildings and Space of Human Scale
* %laxiniurn setbacks need to be provided
See the Notes section of the Application
Plan.
Stepbacks need to be provided
This is no longer necessary as the height of
all structures within the proposed
development is now limited to 35 feet.
• Pro�id rules for relegation of parking.
(see relegaied parking comments
hcknr ).
See below.
22
Relegated Parking Parkin.- should be relegated to the back
or side of buiNinc,"s.
Parking is relegated to the back or side of
buildings where possible. There are zero
side or rear loaded structures constructed in
the adjacent Avinity subdivision and
therefore we do not believe it is appropriate
to require such design in the proposed
development. Unlike the adjacent
subdivision, sufficient setbacks from the
right-of-way is a condition of development,
thereby avoiding a design where the typical
vehicle does not fit within the driveway
without blocking the sidewalk. Notes B and
C of the Application Plan relate to front
loaded garages. Note B states, "For front
loaded garages, the entrance of the
applicable residence shall be a minimum of
3 feet closer to the street as measured from
the face of the garage door." Note C states,
"For front loading garages, the minimum
front setback to the face of the garage door
shall be 18 feet from the right-of-way or the
exterior edge of the sidewalk if the sidewalk
is outside of the right-of-way."
Front loaded-aragcs should be the
exception. ['here are a number ol'blocks
that atlov for front loaded Garages.
Allc} s should be explored to be
provided in lieu of front garages.
See above.
Parking areas located adjacent to tivz
street should b, screened from streets.
Noted.
• �6'here Cront loaded garages are allo�ced.
provide a setback frotn the �-ara<ee to the
Porch or liront of the house ( ;-? feed.
Note B of the Application Plan states, "For
front loaded garages, the entrance of the
23
applicable residence shall be a minimum of
3 feet closer to the street as measured from
the face of the garage door."
Redevelopment
• This propos i is on prop;rt)° that is
�:tmvnd% not developed. this
principle ,ta:°s not applg.
No response necessary.
Respecting Terrain and Careful Grading
o fh,zrc are pre erred slop, s located
and Re -grading of Terrain
ssithin I locl; 1. Ihrse slopes cannot h
disturbed ;md lots should be located
outside ofthe slopes.
While the preserved slopes in Block 1 will
not be disturbed, we believe it is acceptable
for such slopes to be located within lots so
as to allow for a logical subdivision of
property. Note H of the revised Application
Plan states, "No preserved slopes within the
development shall be disturbed." In
addition, the Application will be
supplemented with a topographic survey
that may be able to demonstrate that the
preserved slopes shown on the County-GIS
should not be designated as preserved
slopes.
Information should be provided that
retaining %Nulls in the dexclopment
Should rneet the design standards
required for the disturbance of rnamtged
slops in section '0.7.5 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Note J has been added to the Application
Plan, stating, which states, "Retaining walls
within the development shall meet the
design standards required for the
disturbance of managed slopes in Section
30.7.5 of the Zoning Ordinance."
Clear Boundaries with the Rural Area
. Rural area is located across the street
from this proposal_ The btifl r ��ill
roiligate the Impoct.
kV
No response necessary.
Enclosed:
Resubmittal Application Form
Staff Comment Letter dated November 2, 2018
Application Plan
Updated Narrative
Survey (showing 2.78 acres of stream buffer)
National Register for the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District
Photos of Historical Structures on the Property
25
May 16, 2019
Megan Nedostup
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: ZMA 2018-012 Galaxie Farm — Response to May 3, 2019 Staff Comment Letter
Dear Megan:
Below are our responses to the May 3, 2019 Staff Comment Letter. The staff comments are
noted in grey and the applicant responses are noted in black.
General Application Comments:
Density proposed is still over what is reconunended v,ithin the Comp Plan'master Plan
for this area. The Planning Commission recommended that the proposal stay vtitlun the
re�:onuncnlations of the Comp Plan .a the csotksession. See Comnxnt - 2 below
regarding the "half unit' proposal.
The Planning Commission held a work session on December 18, 2018 to discuss the previously
proposed density. The Planning Commission recommended exploring a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment. However, we believe a CPA is no longer necessary. The Application's revised
allowable density is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation (excluding the
9 affordable housing units).
One goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to encourage 15% affordable housing in each new
project. However, due to changes in Virginia proffer laws, the County is no longer able to accept
proffers for 15% affordable housing units. Therefore, it is especially important for the County to
maximize the number of affordable housing units when it is able. While the Virginia proffer law
is changing again effective July 1, 2019, the most recently revised proffer law still does not allow
the County to deny projects based on the fact that proffers that are not specifically attributable to
the impacts of the proposed development were not offered. Therefore, applications after July 1,
2019 still cannot be denied based on the fact that they do not offer affordable housing.
In order to satisfy the 15% affordable housing goal of the Comprehensive Plan within the context
of the new Virginia proffer laws, the Applicant is proposing affordable housing as a condition of
the Application Plan rather than in a proffer statement. If the Application were revised to a
rezoning to a Residential R-6 designation, an Application Plan like the one submitted for this
Planned Residential Development (PRD) would no longer be required and therefore affordable
housing could only be provided through a proffer statement, which would not be allowed. This
results in the perverse outcome of discouraging rezonings to planned residential districts, which
is contrary to the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. In the Development Areas Section of the
Comprehensive Plan, Expectation #2 states that "High quality development through application
of the Neighborhood Model principles" is expected in the Development Areas. The best way to
achieve the Neighborhood Model principles is through the requirements and regulations in the
planned development districts.
In addition, under the by -right regulations of R-6, Section 16.4.3 of the County Code states, "For
providing affordable housing units, a density increase of thirty (30) percent shall be granted..."
Therefore, by not allowing the 9 affordable housing units above the recommended density in the
case of a rezoning, the County would incentivize by -right development, where bonuses are
provided, or rezoning to non -planned development districts, where requiring proffers for
affordable housing are prohibited. Given these perverse incentives and the changes in the new
proffer law, the Applicant believes it is a reasonable request, and consistent with the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan, to allow for 9 affordable housing units above the property's recommended
density.
In addition, it is common practice to only provide 15% affordable housing above the total
number of units that would have been allowed by -right. The Application provides affordable
housing for 15% of the total allowable units, without subtracting the number of units that would
be allowed by -right.
2. The Zonim_� Ordinance contains definitions for divelling aitcl density that does not permit
u a "]tall nit' or cottage unit to be counted less than Otte for densitk� purposes. In somz
developments in the County. "r:rriage`' houses do not count against the density of a
developnent as they are considered accessory to the prinnan divelling unit. I Ioivever.
these accessory wets are gencralh afforded a square lbotage smaller than the L600 sf
proposed in the applicant's `cottage" cluster regulations, and the proposed "cottages'
would not be accessory to any primary residential d; vclopments. As discussed in a
meeting with your the question oftypes of units and density and to treat different types of
housin_r differently. is something that needs to be addressed within the Comp Plan and
Housing Policy. Section 13 on Sheet 10 should he removed from the application plan set.
Ih: elling unit: A single unit providing complete: independent living facilities for one (1) or more
persons: including permanent provisions for living: sleeping: eating, cooking and sanitation.
Residertial density `gross): The total number of divelling units within a development dMded by
the gross residential area and expressed in divelling units per acre.
Resider.; ial den sib, (retr: The total number of divelling units ivithin a development divided bythe
net residential area and expressed in divelling units per acre.
The Supplementary Regulations related to the cottages has been removed from the Application
Plan.
3. the narrative proposal describes an increase ofo) dwelling units mote than the
comprehensive plans recommended density. These units are proposed to be affordable
divel ling units its Justification for the increased density. I loivever. the comprehensive
plan lists a i 540 of units aftbrdable housm_ strategy for all rezonines, and does not itffotd
bonus densitv for this requirement. The narrutiv e state,, "it is common practice to onh
2
l
proyidJ I_;",, Iordably homing aboN e the lot al ntin,lb r Ot UnitS that wol!I,d kai C been
zrllouwcl hy.ri- Ilt" (page 15 ol'Response... ;. lloc:e�er. the Count does not
administrari�eh appii bonus denait} b"N olid the reconnnended cl>rnpreitc:n,iie plan
See the discussion in the response to Comment #I above.
11-tn, anwtication is fotlov;na the regulations ,,,i dIin ih,: ordinance for PRD. a it sctbwk
regulations. ,etc. sht•uld be removed from Slreet 7 that are alread} listed in the ordinance.
I lwse include Xoies A and C..ivot4 D. F and G are de" iating ttom )iliai is listed in the
ordinance, and --- - ni �ditication request end justification should he subrninc,i lr;r 3.2t"1).
b. IPaivets m? d mod fica dons. An applicant may request than any requirement of sections 4. 5. 21. 26
and 32. or the applicable planned development district regulations be waived or modified by the
board of supervisors, as follows:
Submirrai of request for lrairer or modification. If the applicant requests such a waiver
or modification as part of the application plan, the applicant shall submit its request in
uniting as part of the application plan. and shall demonstrate how the findings required
by subsection 8 2(b)(3) would be satisfied.
Tinting of request. \onvithstanding any regulation inn sections 4. 5. 21. 26 or 32
establishing a procedure for considering a waiver or modification. any request for a
waiver or modification shall be reviewed and considered as part of the application plan;
provided that an ouver within a planned development may request a waiver or
modification of any requirement of sections 47 5. 21; 26 or 32 at any time_, under the
procedures and requirements established therefore.
3. Findings. In addition to making the findings required for the granting of a waiver or
modification in sections 4. 5, 2 L 26 or 32. a waiver or modification may- be granted only
if it is also found: (i) to be consistent with the intent and purposes of the planned
development district under the particular circumstances. and satisfies all other applicable
requirements of section 8: (h) to be consistent uith planned development design
principles: (iii) that the waiver or modification would not adversely- affect the public
healt="L_ safety or general xvelfare; and i 1,) in the case of requested modification, t3tat the
Public purposes of the oigiml regulation would tie satiEfiied to at leas? s7 eq? Sy )Ent
degree by the n. odificatioii
t Express t>airer or modifncatimi. Each waiver and modification rnuit be er.'pressly
granted and no ivai`,w or modification shall be deemed to )lave been granted by'
implication. `
Notes A and C have been removed from the Application Plan. Waiver requests for Notes D, F,
and G have been added to the updated narrative.
Application Plan:
Plannina/Zoning (Medan Nedostuo' Lea Brumfield):
1. Roads labels should be listed on all sheets. It is difficult to clip hem .,ell sheets for Notes
relerencin certain streets on Sleet 7.
The road labels have been added to all sheets of the Application Plan.
Rorti C should shop:, rigl l all the pal to th:: prof °rty line. for fti urc dcdic-,Jon to
the Gounty for n coan cction. it -needed.
A note has been added to the Application Plan that states, "Right -of -Way extended to Property
Line." In addition, Note I of Sheet 7 has been added to the Application Plan, it states, "Road "C"
is shown as a possible future connection to Tax Map Parcel 91-13. However, a vehicular
connection to Road "C" shall only be allowed if such connection does not also provide vehicular
access to the Avinity subdivision; provided, however, that such vehicular connection to the
Avinity subdivision shall be allowed if a connection is made from Road "C" through Tax Map
Parcel 91-13 to Avon Street Extended, which would provide traffic from the development an
alternative means of accessing Avon Street Extended besides travelling through the Avinity
subdivision."
The design of the Avinity subdivision is not supportive of through traffic. Driveways were
allowed to be constructed such that they do not accommodate the size of a typical vehicle and
therefore such vehicles block the neighborhood's sidewalks and backup right up against passing
traffic. In addition, all of the roads in the Avinity subdivision are private roads with narrow
through lanes. The Applicant does not believe it would be appropriate nor safe to provide a
vehicular connection to the Avinity subdivision without, at minimum, providing traffic from the
proposed development to exit onto Avon Street Extended by a separate, and more immediate
connection, thus discouraging and minimizing traffic from the proposed development through
Avinity. Note I of Sheet 7 was added to address the above.
Road A section should show the planting strip and -,idcuralks that start just east of Road
D.
The Application Plan has been updated and now shows a cross section for Road A.1 and Road
A.2, detailing the different cross sections for each section of Road A. Planting strips and
sidewalks were added to the cross section of Road A.2.
•1. Indicate which streets are private and hvhich are public. Is it possible for Roads 13 and C
to be public to allow for a possible fuure connection to adjacent properties:' Also, if
private streets arc proposed. a request and justillcation tw those streets if they are ser4 ing
single family detached lot, should either be prov ided with the rezoning. or kill he
required during the site plansubdivisfon stagy e.
Labels of "public" or "private" were added to the cross sections of the Roads on the Application
Plan. Roads B and C are public. In addition, Private Street Authorization requests have been
added to the updated narrative.
�. Remove are-i tier development out of the su-cvn buffer in Block 1. In addition. a note
should be added to the application plan that states that no lots are permitted within the
stream buffer. In addition. prescrx-ed slopes that nre on the Count% GIS are not being,
0
sho-nn and wtits.u?d lots, ♦%itkin Block 1 vJII inipar_t the slopes. Shoe the slopes oil tlic
application plan.
Note F of Sheet 7 of the Application Plan has been revised to state, "No structures or lots shall be
permitted in the stream buffer. No preserved slopes within the development shall be disturbed."
Therefore, Lots will be no longer be allowed in the stream buffer.
The Application Plan has been revised to more clearly show the preserved slopes that are on the
County GIS. While the preserved slopes in Block 1 will not be disturbed, we believe it is
acceptable for such slopes to be located within lots so as to allow for a logical subdivision of
property. As stated above, Note F of Sheet 7 of the Application Plan states, "No preserved
slopes within the development shall be disturbed." The County GIS shows critical slopes as
being located in Block I next to the entrance to the subdivision. Therefore, the area will be
disturbed anyway from the grading necessary for the construction and relocation of the road.
Therefore, such slopes may not exist after completion of the road. Also, some of these critical
slopes may currently be mislabeled. The Application will be supplemented with a topographic
survey that may be able to demonstrate that the preserved slopes shown on the County-GIS
should actually not be designated as preserved slopes. The Applicant requests this issue be
addressed at the site plan stage of development.
6. Provide information in the Votes for the Open Space Blocks oil" hat is to be permitted in
the blockwen space as it relates to rect-,ration and possible structures.
A table has been added to Sheet 6 of the Application Plan, which lists what is allowed in the
Open Space Blocks.
I . Sheet 6 should include a chart indicating the acreage of the recreation and open space
areas.:Nlso what tope of open space are where. The title indicates "preservation areas'.
however as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. preservation is preseroed. without anti
manmade features. 'this does not seem to be the intent of ant of the open space areas. and
preservation should be removed. Cortmion Open Space is required per the PRD section of
the ordinance. and that is the term that should be used.
A table as been added to Sheet 6 of the Application Plan, which indicates the acreage of the
recreation and open space areas. The title has also been changed from "Preservation Areas" to
"Recreation & Common Open Space."
Note B on Sheet 7 should be revised to state "porch' or "building face" rather than
"entrance of the applicable residence*'. This language is not consistent o� ith other
rezonings that have been approved and it's not clear where the "entrance" nta% be. or if a
front entrance is required.
The applicable Note has been revised to state "porch" or "building face" rather than "entrance of
the applicable residence."
ARB/Historic Preservation (Mar¢aret Malisaewski):
r
Retaining the residence on 91-1? and incorporat em+, it into the development vouId
snhport the Compi%hellsttc Pia❑ 2o:11 oI,pres rVllill county s historic ri Sont'ces.
r
CnIL-a:mr� r anang :irchuecnlr:d feaWrc include die floret-<zumbrel roof. hip}?ecl-root
porch v ith haitered posts and bricl, piers. and shed dolnteis. 'Mlle dvNellin-g_ ganage and
mo h: lri-; lye e considered conttifiuti,ir_ to rile historic districL tl,ot-!h the carport v,as
not.
Per the National Register for the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District the only
contributing structures within the proposed development relate to TMP 91-15, which has a Dutch
colonial house on the property. The colonial house and associated structures on 91-15 do not
have clearly defined historical features and were constructed in the early 1940s. They were
included as "historical" due to their location along the historic and scenic byway of Route 20 and
proximity to Monticello. The historical structures have also not been kept in good condition and
were recently severely damaged by a tornado that hit the area. For these reasons, we do not
believe the historical structures should be incorporated into the proposed development. Please
see the previously enclosed photos for more information.
2. All the struclures on 91-1 5 shall be fully documented in photos and drat;i;lgs prior to am
denrolition.
Noted.
3. Lighting' urxe �`;I on shut 7 is confusing. If the intent is for all lighting in the development
to be full cutoff: eliminate "per Section 4.17 of the Zoning Ordinance". If the intent is
simplg to meet lielttin-, ordinance requirements. eliminate the entire note.
The Note related to lighting has been removed from the Application Plan.
Transportation (Kevin McDermott: Adam Moore (VDOT):
1. Road F. Option 1 does not appear to meet <Acce,,s %,Linagenlent entrance spacing
standards. Road F. Option''. il'implemented. should he shifted and aliened across from
Road B: othenkise. Road B must be cured into Road C`.
Road F will be an emergency accessway and therefore is not subject to Access Management
entrance spacing standards. A label of "fire access" has been added to Road F on the
Application Plan.
2. Based on the information provided. it does not appear that a left turn lane is v. arranted at
this time. liowexer. this ma} change if the proposed land uses and or densities are
chtulged.
11
Depcndem upon spacing to the nearest conln7'rc:hl entrance or intersection on Refute 20.
vrhich has not been provided ate ,' c -ess >vlanaoement I.%ccption may be squired. Tltis is
previous comment that has not been addressed.
The entrance to the development is located approximately 900 feet from its centerline to the right
turn lane from Route 20 to Mill Creek. The next closest commercial entrance is the entrance to
the Kappa Sigma Headquarters, which is located more than 1,000 feet from the proposed
entrance. Based on the above, an Access Management Exception is not required.
d. It is not clew from the .,Npplicatiou how gamy trips arc cep„cued for W-lad _; iu the future
,and therefore thee-;appropriat. design classification has not been identified.
Noted.
Note that the subdivision,road plan must shov% coeformanc with the N'DOT Road
Design Manuel :Xppendices 11(1) and F, as l%ell as am oth:°r apphcablc standards.
renukations or other requirements.
Noted.
Fire/Rescue (Shawn Maddox):
What is the needed %eater pressure for the proposed use? fire t7m; requirements are tied
to square lbotagc, single family detached versus attached single or multifamily and
construction t. pe. 1500 gpnl is the mhtinlU n unless there are sprinklers.
Noted.
_. The proposed design provides a second means of ingressegress however it is on the same
road. Route 20. Not all roads alleys shov�n on the plaits have a clear travel �xidth of'_0'.
am travel wat that serves as the primary means of providing sen ice to a dwelling unit
must have the required 20-'(his can be accomplished by increasing the pavement width
to allow fbr desired on street parking or through restriction of ou street parking based on
the proposed pal.entein �zidth.
All road cross sections show 20' of travel width.
3. Turning radii within the development shall not he less than 25' iur those roads being used
to provide emergency service to the dwellings.
Noted.
Engineering (Frank Pohl):
1. Private street authorization request is required (1.1-234j.
7
Private Street Authorization requests were added to the updated narrative.
Blocks I and t nCro ch inns dw sl eBZi btllter. Reniole intttre lots Iront ii aIn bajl`z'r.
Note F of Sheet 7 of the Application Plan has been revised to state, "No structures or lots shall be
permitted in the stream buffer. No preserved slopes within the development shall be disturbed."
Therefore, Lots will be no longer be allowed in the stream buffer.
3- Reconinien.! a note on the application plan requirinx ttcr treatment to
address "ester qualm cornplianc;;.
Note J of Sheet 7 has been added to the Application Plan, it states, "25% of the required
stormwater quality treatment shall be provided onsite."
i. Parking on Road B coal. not meet V D01' requirements for required sight lines.
Road B meets VDOT requirements for required sight lines.
5. `;idet,alks shown iu Ritad D section should be included in the road easement or
additional :ccss casements are needed.
Road D cross section has been updated accordingly.
6. Underground storag: cannot be located under public or private road��ays.
Noted.
Waivers/Modifiications/Exception:
Private streets serving single ftnnih' detached lots require private street appi-mal. A
request should be made if there are private streets. if not submitted with the rezoning.
kill be required V-ith the site!Subdivision application.
Private Street Authorization requests were added to the updated narrative
Planning:
Comprehensive Plan
Contntents on ito" pour pruject conforms to the Cotnprehetisive Plan sill be provided to the
Planning Contntission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report that will be prepared
for a work session or public hearing.
The properties ore ),. ithin the SOUthern and Western Neigliborhords Blaster Plan area and are
designed as Neighborhood DensitN Residential than allows For residential (3-6 units'acre):
supporting uses such as places of ««rship: schools. public and institutional uses and small -kale
H
❑eigl'iborhood sen ing lcmil and coinmeo.,iai. In addition_ a food is designated on the plan That
ii ould connect throwh die prop,-rtits.
A C 1, ne i iS dr„' i�nialed oil fin adjoining property'. and it 1,.� recori I welItled I4LJ due to the nuriiber
of (`ourth' wo med properties. that a collabnratitie coninnuiit} proce.4, for a small area plan is
needed in this loc: Lion.
Other portions of the Ccmip Plan ihat still be discussed fiirtl;er as p:.ri of the staft'report include
Historic. CUltur: 1. and Sconic Resonrees (Sec Marg•iret MaliszOwski's conunenis). )ei elopnient
AtCLis. llonsing . Transportation. P irks and Green S} tents. and Grow h llluulgetnent.
As stated previously, the Planning Commission held a work session on December 18, 2018 to
discuss the previously proposed density. The Planning Commission recommended exploring a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. However, upon discussing the project with members of the
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, we believe a CPA is no longer necessary. The
Application's revised allowable density is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use
designation (excluding the 9 affordable housing units). See the earlier discussion regarding the
request for the 9 affordable housing units (15% of the total) above the recommended density
allowance.
The Comprehensive Plan encourages 15% affordable housing within each new project. The
project achieves this goal.
The Application also shows the greenway trail along Route 20 that is shown in the
Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan also shows a Connector Road through the
property. However, due to the same changes in Virginia proffer laws noted above, the County is
no longer able to accept such transportation proffers unless such proffers are specifically
attributable to the impacts of the proposed development. The proposed development consists of
only 72 residential units and therefore does not warrant the construction of a "Connector Road"
as specified in the Comprehensive Plan. While the Application does not show the Connector
Road that is specified in the Comprehensive Plan, the Applicant made a good faith effort to
provide such road within the framework of the new Virginia proffer laws. However, the County
declined to pursue the road and so the revised Application no longer shows construction of the
road. The Application Plan still provides bike lanes along Road A and enables the County to
connect to Road A should it desire to do so in the future.
While the Comprehensive Plan states that a small area plan is needed for the County -owned
properties, it explicitly does not include the adjacent parcels not owned by the County.
Neighborhood Model
General connnents on li m well the proposed development meets the principles of the
\eighlxirhood \ iodel .ire provided here. More detailed coinnients nial be pro,. ided at a later date
ifchanges are made aad'or after more detailed plans are provided.
F7
Pedestrian Orientation I0
1hG mat,�.ttai ofthe iidcivoP, should be
indicated on the ,ind this Should
h ,t ted 71S con rct
The label concrete has been added to the
cross sections Sheets of the Application
Plan.
As stated ab,)N,�, sidewalks and landscape
strips should be provided for Road A.
The Application Plan has been updated and
now shows a cross section for Road A.1 and
Road A.2, detailing the different cross
sections for each section of Road A.
Planting strips and sidewalks were added to
the cross section of Road A.2.
Mixture of Uses • the proposal is for residential uses onh.
howexer there are a rnistnra of uses
v, ithin rhe innnediate aria including
schools_ assisted livine:. tire station.
shopping. and CountN paned land
designated l6r institutional.
No response necessary.
• In addition to the above, the-eighborhood
%lodel principles tier ntieture of uses
discusses 1u»v Historic Properties should be
respected and that a desire to preserve these
re5ourees should be included. As Stated
above, there are historic buildings on the
property that should be considered to be
incorporated into the devetoputent.
Per the National Register for the Southern
Albemarle Rural Historic District, the only
contributing structures within the proposed
development relate to TMP 91-15, which
has a Dutch colonial house on the
property. The colonial house and associated
structures on 91-15 do not have clearly
defined historical features and were
constructed in the early 1940s. They were
included as "historical" due to their location
10
along the historic and scenic byway of
Route 20 and proximity to Monticello. The
historical structures have also not been kept
in good condition and were recently
severely damaged by a tomado that hit the
area. For these reasons, we do not believe
the historical structures should be
incorporated into the proposed
development. Please see the previously
enclosed photos for more information.
Neighborhood Centers
• `lfie southern and Western Pi,ighborhoods
dl,aster Plan indicates that a Center should
be provided on a Cowu_: owned property
near the proposed properties. It funber
discusses that a, -)mall area plan be
developed to cleiermine what type of center
would be appropriate on the County owned
property. AX hile the proposed properties do
not include a centar. they tare important
considerations as the Couute considers hov
to deN-elop th:,ir prop..rt,,.
A "Center" is defined in the Comprehensive
Plan as "a school or a park... major
employment area or a shopping area... [or]
mixed -use area. It is a "place" to which
people want to walk... [and] should be
located within'/2 to '/a mile walk zone from
residences..." There are zero residences
within %2 mile and only a portion of the
Avinity subdivision within '/a mile.
Therefore, to fulfill the Comprehensive
Plan's vision of having a "Center" on the
County -owned properties adjacent to the
proposed development, it would be prudent
to allow for the proposed residential
development to help support the "Center"
designation.
Mixture of Housing Types and
• 1 �o d atlbrdable housine is otirred.
Affordability
ho%N;n-er most of the units will ouh h<•
provided if dansity is above the
recominendatloni of the Comp Plan.
11
Interconnected Streets and
Transportation Networks
See earlier discussion.
• A mi•1 ol'housia- t%prra i� p•-rmitted N%ithiu
all blocks, but nothing in the application
requires a mi, ot'housing apes % ithin the
development, so dte development could end
ttp being built to one ltenrin_ to°pe.
Noted, though we do not believe this
comment justifies revision of the
Application Plan. Of the 6 blocks that allow
for residential development, 3 allow for
single family detached (SFD) and single
family attached (SFA) units and 2 allow for
SFD, SFA, and townhouses. While it is
true, all Blocks could potentially be built as
SFD or SFA units, it is highly unlikely that
the applicant would choose to construct
only SFD or SFA units, as the density of the
project would be greatly reduced rendering
the project financially infeasible.
• As stated above. a richt of way should be
provid:d all the anti to the property line
for Road Cfor a possible fiuure connection.
As stated earlier, Road C is designed to the
property line of Tax Map Parcel 91-15,
which abuts Avinity and Cale Elementary
School. Therefore, if the County chooses, it
can extend Road C through the Cale
Elementary School property, exiting onto
Avon Street Extended. Any connection to
Avinity would require the acquisition of off -
site easements and therefore the Application
Plan does not show any connections.
Importantly, the design of the Avinity
subdivision is not supportive of through
traffic. Driveways were allowed to be
constructed such that they do not
accommodate the size of a typical vehicle
and therefore such vehicles block the
neighborhood's sidewalks and backup right
up against incomingloncoming traffic. In
all of the roads in the A
12
subdivision are private roads with narrow
through lanes. The Applicant does not
believe it would be appropriate nor safe to
provide a vehicular connection to the
Avinity subdivision without, at minimum,
providing traffic from the proposed
development to exit onto Avon Street
Extended by a separate, and more
immediate connection than through the
Avinity subdivision, thus discouraging and
minimizing traffic from the proposed
development through Avinity.
Multi -modal Transportation
• -r p,2destrian primitive trail is provided
Opportunities
atom; the frontage oftlie r+roplrty :and bike
lanes art provided for Road ,V
No response necessary.
Parks, Recreational Amenities, and Open
- open space is being provided alom, tits.
Space
stream butlers when: a primitive trail trill
be located.
• Block A provides loran active recreation
area.
No response necessary.
Buildings and Space of Human Scale
• Principle has beer. nut.
No response necessary.
Relegated Parking
• Parking should be relegated to the back or
Side of buildings. It is unclear if a
clubhouse is Provided in Block 8 ifthcrc
hill be parking and if it will be relegated.
Parking is relegated to the back or side of
buildings where possible. There are zero
side or rear loaded structures constructed in
the adjacent Avinity subdivision and
therefore we do not believe it is appropriate
to require such design in the proposed
development. Unlike the adjacent
subdivision, sufficient setbacks from the
right-of-way is a condition of development,
13
thereby avoiding a design where the typical
vehicle does not fit within the driveway
without blocking the sidewalk. Note A of
Sheet 7 of the Application Plan relates to
front loaded garages, stating, "For front
loaded garages, the porch or building face
shall be a minimum of 3 feet closer to the
street as measured from the face of the
garage door."
Block 8 is allowed a clubhouse; however,
we are not certain if one will be provided.
We would like to maintain the flexibility to
provide one in Block 8, or not, depending
on various circumstances. To address
parking, if a clubhouse were built in Block
8, Note B of Sheet 6 of the Application Plan
was added and it states, "If Block 8 includes
a clubhouse or other similar structure, the
related required parking shall be provided in
Block Y' Block 3 is immediately adjacent
to Block 8 and a parking area for Block 8
can be constructed to allow an easy access
to Block 8.
Front loaded garages should be the
exception. There are a number of blocks
that allmv for front loaded garages.
Alleys should be explored to be
proy ided in lieu of front garages.
See above.
• Where front loaded garage.i are allowed.
prov°ide a setback from the garage to the
porch or from of the house (3-5 teet).
As stated above, Note A of Sheet 7 of the
Application Plan states, "For front loaded
garages, the porch or building face shall be
a minimum of 3 feet closer to the street as
measured from the face of the garage door."
Redevelopment • I hi. propo.al i> I'll property that i�
LO10111\ 11,11 i1_l elill)ed. Ihel'i li Ali. Ilni
prlll6ple doe, 11ol ;1111111 .
14
No response necessary.
Respecting Terrain and Careful Grading
• fr2sen ed slops, and stttcan Mutter are
and Re -grading of Terrain
located within Mod, 1. Thes: slopes
Cannot be diswrbo.! and lots should 17_
located outside of the slope.,. In :addition.
lots ahot!ld i , lo:::ai.d omP ide of th :aa +ru
buffer.
While the preserved slopes in Block 1 will
not be disturbed, we believe it is acceptable
for such slopes to be located within lots so
as to allow for a logical subdivision of
property. Note F of Sheet 7 of the
Application Plan states, "No preserved
slopes within the development shall be
disturbed." The critical slope areas were
revised on the Application Plan so that they
are now more clearly shown. They are
located in Block 1 next to the entrance to
the subdivision. Therefore, the area will be
disturbed anyway from the grading
necessary for the construction and
relocation of the road. Therefore, such
slopes may not exist after completion of the
road. Also, some of these critical slopes
may currently be mislabeled. The
Application will be supplemented with a
topographic survey that may be able to
demonstrate that the preserved slopes shown
on the County-GIS should actually not be
designated as preserved slopes. The
Applicant requests this be addressed at the
site plan stage of development.
Clear Boundaries with the Rural Area
. Kural atea is located across the str:
from this proposal. The buller will
mili,..ate the impact.
No response necessary.
1s
Enclosed:
Resubmittal Application Form
Staff Comment Letter dated May 3, 2019
Revised Application Plan
Updated Narrative
16
July 15, 2019
Megan Nedostup
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: ZMA 2018-012 Galaxie Farm — Response to June 26, 2019 Staff Comment Letter
Dear Megan:
Below are our responses to the June 26, 2019 Staff Comment Letter. The staff comments are
noted in grey and the applicant responses are noted in black.
General Application Comments:
The narrative proposal d-Oseribes an increase of 9 d%%clling units more thin the:
comprehensit c plan's recommended density. These writs are proposed to be affordable
d;ellim, units as justification ibr the increased densiiv. Moreover. the comprehensive
plan lists a 15°0 ol'units affordable housing Strategy for all rezoni_ngs. and does not of iird
bonus density for this requirement. For by-ri:_i1it applications using bonus density
I including affordable housing) the County .foes not apple bonus density beyond the
reconunended comprehensive plan densitv per Section 1, 4.1.
2.4.1 APPLICATION OF BONUS FACTORS
Bcnus factors shall be applied to the gsnss densiiv-standard etel in accordance with the
re`viatiens of the applicable district, excepi that the resultmL deasit-, shall not exceed the
rtec—m-e ided density shorn in the cc;nprAersiva plan.
Unless other:rise specifically prodded, bonus Actors shall not be pemvtted .`or ant• improvement
or design feature required by this ordinance, Chapter 14 of the Code o°eslbernwle. or any other
applicable lace or regulation. 11,11here pen itted, bonus factors shall be applied in toto only.
(Arnerided 8-14-85)
The Planning Commission held a work session on December 18, 2018 to discuss the previously
proposed density of 130 units (to accommodate small "cottage" houses). The Planning
Commission recommended exploring a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA). However, an
applicant -initiated CPA is no longer allowed, and we believe a CPA is no longer required
because the Application's revised allowable density is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
land use designation (excluding the 9 affordable housing units). The Comprehensive Plan
recommends 63 units, the Application proposes 72 units (9 units above 63) to accommodate the
inclusion of 9 affordable housing units, which equals 15% of the total units proposed.
Allowing a small bonus above the recommended density in the Comprehensive Plan for
affordable housing is consistent with other key goals of the County, avoids treating planned
zoning districts differently than conventional zoning districts, is consistent with how affordable
housing is encouraged for by -right developments, and such bonuses have previously been
approved by the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors (e.g. the Riverside
Village Rezoning).
One goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to encourage 15% affordable housing in each new
project. However, due to changes in Virginia proffer laws, this goal is much more difficult to
achieve. For rezoning applications requesting a change to a conventional zoning district, the
County would not be able to legally accept proffers for 15% affordable housing units.
In order to satisfy the 15% affordable housing goal of the Comprehensive Plan within the context
of the new Virginia proffer laws, the Applicant is proposing affordable housing as a condition of
the Application Plan rather than in a proffer statement. This can only be accomplished by
requesting a rezoning to a planned zoning district, such as a Planned Residential Development
(PRD). As stated earlier, it would not be allowed in a conventional zoning district, such as
Residential R-6. Notably, there is nothing in the proposed PRD Application that would not also
be allowed in a Residential R-6, except for minor reductions in setbacks from 5 feet to 3 feet for
front setbacks and 20 feet to 15 feet for rear setbacks. The proposed Application was originally
filed as a PRD in order to allow for the possibility of cottage clusters or small houses. However,
the County has since ruled out such option.
Prohibiting affordable housing in conventional zoning district rezonings but requiring affordable
housing in planned zoning districts results in the perverse outcome of discouraging rezonings to
planned residential districts, which is contrary to the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. In the
Development Areas Section of the Comprehensive Plan, Expectation #2 states that "High quality
development through application of the Neighborhood Model principles" is expected in the
Development Areas. The best way to achieve the Neighborhood Model principles is through the
requirements and regulations in the planned development districts.
In addition, under the by -right regulations of R-6, Section 16.4.3 of the County Code states, "For
providing affordable housing units, a density increase of thirty (30) percent shall be granted..."
Therefore, by not allowing the 9 affordable housing units above the recommended density in the
case of a rezoning, the County would incentivize by -right development, where bonuses are
provided, or rezoning to non -planned development districts, where requiring proffers for
affordable housing are prohibited. Given these perverse incentives, the Applicant believes it is a
reasonable request, and consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, to allow for 9
affordable housing units above the property's recommended density.
In addition, a bonus for affordable housing above the recommended density has been previously
approved by the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. In 2013, the County
approved ZMA-2012-00002, Riverside Village, a request to rezone property designated as
Residential R-1 to a Neighborhood Model District. The Riverside Village Application proposed
10 units above the recommended density in the Comprehensive Plan, with the justification being
that such units would be designated as affordable housing. Enclosed are the minutes from the
County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor public hearings on this issue.
Similar to the Riverside Village justification for the 10 units above the Comprehensive Plan's
recommended density, the proposed project would also have no measurable impact attributable
to the small increase of 9 units above the recommended density; the proposed project is also
located in an area with very few neighbors; and the proposed project is also located nearby a
"Center." A "Center" is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as "a school or a park... major
employment area or a shopping area... [or] mixed -use area. It is a "place" to which people want
to walk... [and] should be located within %2 to''/4 mile walk zone from residences..." There are
zero residences within % mile and only a portion of the Avinity subdivision within'/4 mile.
Therefore, to fulfill the Comprehensive Plan's vision of having a "Center" on the County -owned
properties adjacent to the proposed development, it would be prudent to allow for the proposed
residential development to help support the "Center" designation.
As stated earlier, in sum, allowing a small bonus above the recommended density in the
Comprehensive Plan for affordable housing would result in no additional measurable impacts, is
consistent with other key goals of the County, avoids treating planned zoning districts differently
than conventional zoning districts, is consistent with how affordable housing is encouraged for
by -right developments, and such bonuses have previously been approved by the County Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors (e.g. the Riverside Village Rezoning).
2. Staff recommends that the historic structure be incorporated into the dcve1opnr0t1t. Se.
comments below front kla garet Molisze%cski in response to th.a moist recent sahniival:
a. I lie residence does retain chaiacicr defining teatutes. as indicated in rn April 26
comment �, 1.
h. The ca. 1919 construction date bell, within the period of signiticance for the
di strict.
c. "fhe resource uas not included in the district beeaLlSe of its location along Rt. 20
and proximity to btonticello, as the applicant states. It vvas included because it is
representative of one of the diverse building types and styles retlected in the
ex ofv ing cultural patterns of the district's settlement.
d. Althou;ah it does appear that the residence has not been maintained in prime
condition and has suftered damage. it still retains integrity of location, design.
setting, materials, worl:ntanship_ feeling and association.
Per the National Register for the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District, the only
contributing structures within the proposed development relates to TMP 91-15, which has a
Dutch colonial house, garage, two sheds, and carport on the property. The structures on 91-15
have not been kept in good condition and were recently severely damaged by a tornado that hit
the area. In addition, due to the narrow shape of the Property and location of the existing
structures on the Property, it is not feasible to include these structures in the layout of the
redevelopment. Because of this, the Property's value who substantially decrease if forced to
include the existing structures in the redevelopment. Therefore, the current landowner is
incentivized and contemplating demolishing the existing structures simultaneous with this
pending rezoning Application. There is nothing that would prohibit the current landowner from
applying for and receiving a demolition permit. For these reasons, we do not believe the existing
structures should be incorporated into the proposed development. Please see the previously
enclosed photos for more information.
Application Plan:
Pleas•' note f6r'dle rettlleste,l ietba r ; of 3 feet front and 5 toot rean enCroachnients
(inclndin.! t;:cl.s and front kill not h- pern;itt<d p.:r --hl 1.1.
4.11.1 COHERED PORCHES, BALC0\TES, CHI\LNEYS AND LIKE FEATURES
Covered porches, balconies, ehimnecs,. eaves and like arcli tectural features mac- p±vject not more
than four (4) feet into an}'required yard; pro-,ided that no such feature shall be located closer thin
six (t}) feet io any lot line. iAmended 9-9-9')
Noted. No response necessary.
The I2oW emension note for Rug ld C should state the c. idth (50') as cNolI as inctud the
1,ollovui -W futur-, right of cca6= tirture dedication Upon demand o} the Counts
The Application Plan has been revised to reflect the above.
Retnoce Note I from sheet 7. This future connection and road network kill be determined
b} the Count}, if and cchen the Coantc decides to pursue future road connections in this
location. Also. the note is for olI'site parcels, which is not controlled by this development
or dey eloper-.
Note I on Sheet 7 of the Application Plan has been revised to "The 54' right-of-way for Road
"C" is shown as a possible future connection to Tax Map Parcel 91-13, to be extended and
dedicated upon demand of the County."
i. The revised plan includes a note that states Thai the lots and structures are not permitted in
the stream buf1`cr. however Blocks t and 2 should be rel'ised to show those blocks not
u ithin the butter area. Also, if the intent is for the buffer to be in the open spaca- Sheet 6
should be revised to shocc that area as green. In addition, the prior comment regarding
preserved slopes not being in lots is still applicable. Note F should include preserved
slopes lbr the lots and structures not permitted. If during the site plan. those preserved
slopes are found not h. lie 25° i, or grafter. then :it that time adiusunents can he made.
Blocks 1 and 2 have been revised to show those blocks not within the buffer area. Note F on
Sheet 7 of the Application Plan has been revised to add the following underlined language, "No
structures or lots shall be permitted in the stream buffer or on preserved slopes."
5. Provide a deiinition for "Nawrescapes - and "Sports I iXtures" as these are not defined in
the zoning ordinance and it',, unclear if these will invob;e structures that ntaN he in the
stream butter portion ofthe open space.
n
While a definition of the above terms has still not been provided, this comment is addressed by
Note A on Sheet 6 of the Application Plan, which states, "The 2.78 acres of Block 7 shown as
the hashed area on this Sheet shall be restricted to low impact trail use and passive recreation."
Whether the specific recreational installations fit within this allowance can be determined at the
site plan stage of development.
6, Procida one tn.it l _-hind sid tial.a t)nd ctirlI fbt (lie ri:ritt of leay it,. till road sections for
n1.:intcnana of dhose tlacilid,es. In addition_ the dgoht ofttai for Roads B and C should he
l%idened to inciuilc the sid.n:aVk and full tcidtit of the planting strip.
The Application Plan has been revised to reflect the above.
7. Note a) en tho .application Plant. P.d"e 10. Regulation." notes that the
Countv's 15" a affordable IkOntitng regmrein eats tnfly he III el -Ili ro u-11 a N ariety of ho'.!stnt„
tapes. inchtdht_: but not limited to. for -.;ale units. rentad units or aecsssory emits."
I IOV.,rvCt �ece:,sony units Are n'ither shoFen not, mentioned on an% oth:r part ot, tile
narratk,.r or tlr.� application plan. If iliese accessory 11114s are to he inciuded to the
Country 15°0 afkirdable housing rquirenlents. thev must he iuciuded in thO rrzt>ning.
Accessory units have been removed from Note (A) of the Supplementary Regulations of the
Application Plan.
ARB/Historic Preservation (Margaret Maliszewski):
Retaining the residence on 91-15 and incorporating it into the development would
support the Comprehensive Plan goal of preserving the countv's historic resources.
Character defining architectural features include the front -gambrel roof. hipped -roof
porch en'ith haltered posts and brick piers. and shed dormers. 7 he dwelliug. garage and
use horns were considered contributing to the historic district. though the carport was
not.
Per the National Register for the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District the only
contributing structures within the proposed development relate to TMP 91-15, which has a Dutch
colonial house, garage, two sheds, and carport on the property. The structures on 91-15 have not
been kept in good condition and were recently severely damaged by a tomado that hit the area.
The cost to renovate these structures would likely outweigh the cost of new construction. In
addition, due to the narrow shape of the property and location of the existing structures on the
Property, it is not feasible to include these structures in the layout of the redevelopment.
Because of this, the Property's value who substantially decrease if forced to include the existing
structures in the redevelopment. Therefore, the current landowner is incentivized and
contemplating demolishing the existing structures simultaneous with this pending rezoning
Application. There is nothing that would prohibit the current landowner from applying for and
receiving a demolition permit. For these reasons, we do not believe the existing structures
should be incorporated into the proposed development. Please see the previously enclosed
photos for more information.
5
2. All tile;StRIC tnr,ti oli 91-15 shall be On! IN, doCU11Clued in photos and lha`-N ijwr priorto any
denaolidon.
Noted.
Transportation (Kevin McDermott; Adam Moore (VDOT):
110 Af B most [)c- cttryxl in to Road C eliminating: the iw,� -xtion.
Road "C" has been revised to now end in a clu-de-sac, allowing for the necessary ability of
snowplows to be able to ram -around on either end of this roadway.
I -u litre a; at -rants v, ill be cN aluated it the site pi..n phase arhen number 01'twits
and trip o,neratiojis ate finalized.
Noted. No response necessary.
Note that the suhdivisior7:1,oad plan must shoe: conti)rmance %tith the VDOT Road
Design Manual Appendit:es 13(1) and F. as e;eil as am° other applicable standards.
rl,oti ations or other requirement,.
Noted. No response necessary.
Planning:
Comprehensive Plan
Comments on hota} our project conforms to the Comprehensive Plan still be
prov,id,d to the Planning Commission and Board ot'Supervisors as part of the staffrepon that
kill be prepored fora Nwrk session or public hearing.
I he properties are to ithin the Southern and N� estern Neighborhoods Master Plan area and arc
designed as Ncighhorhood Denist% Residential that allmNs for residential (3-6 units,acre)_
supporting uses such as places of N+orship. schools. public and institutional uses and small-scale
neisliborhood serN ing retail and commercial. In addition. ❑ road is devignated on the plan that
Xsould connect through the properties.
A Center is designated on an adjoining property. and it is recommended that due to th, number
of Counh otencd properties, that a collaborative community process for a small area plan is
needed in this location.
Other portions of the Comp Plan that xs ill he discussed further as part of th^ start report include
Historic. Cuitural. and Scenic Resources (see Margaret \laliszcvNshi's comments). Deielopment
Areas. Housing:. Cransportation. Parks and Green Systems. and GroNNth Managcnent.
As stated previously, the Planning Commission held a work session on December 18, 2018 to
discuss the previously proposed density. The Planning Commission recommended exploring a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. However, an applicant -initiated CPA is no longer allowed,
and we believe a CPA is no longer required because the Application's revised allowable density
is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation (excluding the 9 affordable
housing units). See the earlier discussion regarding the request for the 9 affordable housing units
(15% of the total) above the recommended density allowance.
The Comprehensive Plan encourages 15% affordable housing within each new project. The
project achieves this goal.
The Application also shows the greenway trail along Route 20 that is shown in the
Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan also shows a Connector Road through the
property. However, due to the same changes in Virginia proffer laws noted above, the County is
no longer able to accept such transportation proffers unless such proffers are specifically
attributable to the impacts of the proposed development. The proposed development consists of
only 72 residential units and therefore does not warrant the construction of a "Connector Road"
as specified in the Comprehensive Plan. While the Application does not show the Connector
Road that is specified in the Comprehensive Plan, the Applicant made a good faith effort to
provide such road within the framework of the new Virginia proffer laws. However, the County
declined to pursue the road and so the revised Application no longer shows construction of the
road. The Application Plan still provides bike lanes along Road A and enables the County to
connect to Road A should it desire to do so in the future.
While the Comprehensive Plan states that a small area plan is needed for the County -owned
properties, it explicitly does not include the adjacent parcels not owned by the County.
Neighborhood Model
General continents on hox� dell the proposed development meets the principles of the
Neighborhood Model are provided here. More detailed continents may be prodded at a Inter date
it chang, s are tuade and or after more detailed plans are provided.
Pedestrian Orientation
• SidekNalks and trails are provided
throughout the dex clopment. Lhis principle
has been met.
No response necessary.
Mixture of Uses
• The proposal is for residential uses onl%.
ho,%c cer thcrr arc a mixture of uses
within the immediate area ineludine
schools, assisted living. fire station.
Shopping. and County owned land
designated for institutional.
7
No response necessary.
• In addition to the above. the PIei hhorhood
Z.9od,_l principle, for miNwrc of uses
dis,.+usr,es hovr Historic Properties should be
respo:tcd an(] that a desire to l,res,,rve these
reScurces should be included. Ns stated
abol e. th,:re care historic bUildin- !4 (In th
propert. that should be conside,ed to be
i ru'orpor ;tcd into the de I elopment.
As stated earlier, per the National Register
for the Southern Albemarle
Rural Historic District, the only contributing
structures within the proposed development
relate to TMP 91-15, which has a Dutch
colonial house, two garages and a
shed. These structures have not been kept
in good condition and were recently
severely damaged by a tornado that hit the
area. The cost to renovate these structures
would likely outweigh the cost of new
construction. In addition, due to the narrow
shape of the Property and the structures'
location on the site, it is not possible to
viably integrate such structures into a
development layout. Because of this, the
value of the Property is greatly reduced if a
rezoning conditioned on integrating the
structures. This results in the incentive to
demolish the house prior to the rezoning.
Nothing currently would prohibit the
acquisition of a demolition permit. For
these reasons, we do not believe these
structures should be required to be
incorporated into the proposed
development. Please see the previously
enclosed photos for more information.
Neighborhood Centers • I he Southern and Western Neigrhborhoods
;Master Plan indicates that a Center should
be provided on a County owned propeitt
near the proposed properties. It further
discusses that a small area plan be
dev cloped to determine vg hat tv pe of center
H
Mixture of Housing Types and
Affordability
pror,-,11,,. «'hik the ptuposed properties do
not include a c_n.er, th n. art hoportant
considerations as the C'ountN considers how
to de%elop their propefty.
A "Center" is defined in the Comprehensive
Plan as "a school or a park... major
employment area or a shopping area... [or]
mixed -use area. It is a "place" to which
people want to walk... [and] should be
located within % to ''/a mile walk zone from
residences..." There are zero residences
within % mile and only a portion of the
Avinity subdivision within ''/a mile.
Therefore, to fulfill the Comprehensive
Plan's vision of having a "Center" on the
County -owned properties adjacent to the
proposed development, it would be prudent
to allow for the proposed residential
development to help support the "Center"
designation.
• l="o aftordable ]rousing- is offt:red.
however most of the units �N ill only be
proLided ifdensity is above the
reeommcndations of the Comp Plan.
See earlier discussion.
• A mix of housing types is permitted within
all bloci.y, but nothing in the application
requires a miX of housing types within the
development, so the deN c lopment could end
up being built to one housing type.
Noted, though we do not believe this
comment justifies revision of the
Application Plan. Of the 6 blocks that allow
for residential development, 3 allow for
single family detached (SFD) and single
family attached (SFA) units and 2 allow for
SFD, SFA, and townhouses. While it is
true, all Blocks could potentially be built as
SFD or SFA units, it is highly unlikely that
only SFD or SFA units, as the density of the
project would be greatly reduced rendering
the project financially infeasible.
Interconnected Streets and
• As stated above. more intorma�.ion
Transportation Networks
et ncerni.; the ri`,ht o`i v.av for tuiure
(A>dicat.ion for Road C should tre prop ided.
)Vifh revision.; this principle. c =n lie
Road C is designed to the property line of
Tax Map Parcel 91-15, which abuts Avinity
and Cale Elementary School. Therefore, if
the County chooses, it can extend Road C
through the Cale Elementary School
property, exiting onto Avon Street
Extended. Any connection to Avinity
would require the acquisition of off -site
easements and therefore the Application
Plan does not show any connections. A
connection to Avinity from the development
is up to the County.
Importantly, the design of the Avinity
subdivision is not supportive of through
traffic. Driveways were allowed to be
constructed such that they do not
accommodate the size of a typical vehicle
and therefore such vehicles block the
neighborhood's sidewalks and backup right
up against incoming/oncoming traffic. In
addition, all of the roads in the Avinity
subdivision are private roads with narrow
through lanes. The Applicant does not
believe it would be appropriate nor safe to
provide a vehicular connection to the
Avinity subdivision without, at minimum,
providing traffic from the proposed
development to exit onto Avon Street
Extended by a separate, and more
immediate connection than through the
Avinity subdivision, thus discouraging and
minimizing traffic from the proposed
development through Avinity.
Multi -modal Transportation
• :1 pedestrian primitive trail is provided
Opportunities I
alone the fronta_: of the property and bike
10
gr,: p -o� ideci for i`toad . �.
No response necessary.
Parks, Recreational Amenities, and Open
- Open space is being provided alone the
Space
su:.mt butlers �diew a primicvc trail will
132 ioez,jod.
• Block A provides for an ac!k c recreation
No response necessary.
Buildings and Space of Human Scale
e Principle has K: en mci.
No response necessary.
Relegated Parking
• Parking shcwld be relegated to the back or
side of buildin<,s. It is unclear if a
clubhouse is provided in Block 8 iftherti:
v, ill be parking and if it kill be raegatcd.
Parking is relegated to the back or side of
buildings where possible. There are zero
side or rear loaded structures constructed in
the adjacent Avinity subdivision and
therefore we do not believe it is appropriate
to require such design in the proposed
development. Unlike the adjacent
subdivision, sufficient setbacks from the
right-of-way is a condition of development,
thereby avoiding a design where the typical
vehicle does not fit within the driveway
without blocking the sidewalk. Note A of
Sheet 7 of the Application Plan relates to
front loaded garages, stating, "For front
loaded garages, the porch or building face
shall be a minimum of 3 feet closer to the
street as measured from the face of the
garage door."
Block 8 is allowed a clubhouse; however,
we are not certain if one will be provided.
We would like to maintain the flexibility to
provide one in Block 8, or not, depending
on various circumstances. To address
11
parking, if a clubhouse were built in Block
8, Note B of Sheet 6 of the Application Plan
was added and it states, "If Block 8 includes
a clubhouse or other similar structure, the
related required parking shall be provided in
Block Y' Block 3 is immediately adjacent
to Block 8 and a parking area for Block 8
can be constructed to allow an easy access
to Block 8.
• %1 hile other devclopmctus hoe e been
approved in the N icinio to have front
loaded ttcuaecs. that does not clean that
form of d n elopment. -o hich doesn't
meet the Neighborhood Modes, should
continu<. alleys Should be explored to
provide rete�i:ted parkin_* behind main
structure.".
Alleys are possible for most of the Lots in
the development and are preferable by the
Applicant as well. However, upon
finalizing the exact details of the
dimensions of each Lot and homesite
location, some minimal number of front -
loaded garages may be necessary.
Redevelopment
r This proposal is on prop.rtti that is
curr-rndy not developed. therefore. this
principle does not apply.
No response necessary.
Respecting Terrain and Careful Grading
• Preserved slopes and snram hutl'er are
and Re -grading of Terrain
located «ithin Block 1. These slopes
cannot be disturbed and lots should be
located outside of the slopes. ht addition.
lots should be located outside of the stream
huf ,n%
The Application has been revised
accordingly.
Clear Boundaries with the Rural Area
8 Mural area is located across the sweet
from this proposal. The buffer will
mitil*ate the im ,act.
12
No response necessary.
Enclosed:
Resubmittal Application Form
Staff Comment Letter dated June 26, 2019
Riverside Village ZMA-2012-00002 Planning Commission July 30, 2013
Riverside Village ZMA-2012-00002 Board of Supervisors November 13, 2013
Revised Application Plan
Updated Narrative
13