Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201500008 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2016-01-29COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4176 January 29, 2016 Justin Shimp Shimp Engineering 201 E. Main Street Suite M Charlottesville, VA 22903 RE: ZMA2015 -008 Adelaide Mr. Shimp: Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for your proposal to rezone TMP56 -108A and 56 -26A2 from R1- Residential to R -6 Residential. We have a number of questions and comments which we believe should be resolved before your proposal goes to public hearing. As discussed, there are a couple of items that we recommend be taken to the Planning Commission for a worksession. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss these issues. Our comments are provided below: General Application Comments: 1. As proposed the R6 designation would be at the high end of the density range and that would yield as many as 88 units, as measured using the just the yellow area within the Crozet Master Plan. If the green area were remapped today, it might be smaller because of current distinctions between managed and preserved slopes, allowing as many as the 93 units. We believe that we could support a case for the lesser green area, given the fact that the maps were intended to represent important environmental features for preservation and updated mapping shows a smaller area identified for the environmental features. We recognize that there are different interpretations of what the green area was intended to convey as well as expectations for development along Route 250 and further away from the nearest center, which is Clover Lawn. We recommend that this be further discussed at a Planning Commission work session, to verify the density. See additional comments on this within the compliance with the comprehensive plan section. 2. The proposed application plan does not state the types of units that are to be built, but instead just provides a minimum and maximum density. However, in the community meetings and the submittal to the Architectural Review Board, you have presented a plan that indicates that the units will all be attached. The Crozet Master Plan designates these parcels as Neighborhood Density Residential, and states that the housing types should be primarily single family detached. The proposal does not conform to this land use designation in the master plan. It is recommended that if you wish to build these types of units, that this be discussed with the Planning Commission at a work session. Otherwise the plan should be revised to state that more than 50% of the units will be single family detached. 3. The buffer along Rt. 250 should be preserved at a minimum of 50 feet in depth outside of the right of way, so as to preserve the rural scenic character of Rt 250 as a scenic byway. The stormwater management facilities should not be located within this buffer. See additional comments from ARB planner. Application Plan: 1. The application plan will need to provide not just the number of units, but the type(s) as well. 2. If possible, the multi -use path along 250 should be moved further into the right of way to allow for further preservation of the existing landscaping, and to allow for additional landscaping for the ARB. 3. State which roads will be public and which will be private. If private streets are proposed a request will need to be submitted and approved by the Planning Commission that will be processed with the rezoning application. 4. It is unclear if Brownsville Road will be abandoned or if it will remain. Show the existing road if remaining. If it will be abandoned, it will need to go through the proper process per the State Code, and further research will need to be done to determine the process once it is clear if it is proposed to be abandoned. 5. A pocket park or another type of amenity area outside of the trail(s) should be provided. See additional comments under the Neighborhood Model. 6. The LAND USE LEGEND on sheet 4 of the Application Plan should have the breakdown of Area in Residential lots not just "RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AREAS ". The number on the in the proffer and on the plan (93) does not match the area in the table. If all 93 dwellings will be on separate lots then with the minimum lot size for R -6 being 7,260 square feet would mean there would be 15.5 acres in residential lots and not 8.8 acres as the LAND USE LEGEND shows. 8.8 acres comes out to only 52 dwellings on separate lots. If there intent is to take advantage of the clustering provision within R -6 then that should be stated since this would not require a minimum lot size for the 93 dwellings and this may only use 8.8 acres. 7. The road cross section on sheet 5 should reference the setbacks from Section 4.19 of the Zoning Ordinance. These were developed to promote the Neighborhood Model so they should be used appropriately and shown properly. 8. Are those parking areas on sheet 5 necessary for this plan? It just needs to be as clear as possible that the main things for this rezoning are what show up on the proffered plan. Proffers: 1. The by right exhibit that was submitted includes bonus density calculations for the number of units, however bonus factors can not be used for the credit towards cash proffers. 2. Proffers general - Eventually we need to make sure that all proffers use the current standard language for certain proffers. County attorney review of final proffers will be needed. Some of these may be the correct way they should be written but we need to verify this. We will follow up with some standard language for some of the proffers mentioned below. 3. Other triggers may need to be applied to revised proffers, i.e. when certain improvements will be completed. 4. The first proffer should be the one that proffers the application plan. (See 5b below) 5. Proffer #2 - a. This should probably read something like "There shall be no more than 93 dwelling units within the Project." b. The second sentence of this proffer should be at the beginning of the proffers and should use standard language about the Project is to be developed in general accord with the application plan (see comment #5). Are there major elements that will be required? If so list in the proffer about being in general accord. I know this is stated on sheet 4 but should be in the actual proffer. 6. Proffer #3 - Use standard language for dedicating an easement to public use. A trigger for when this is to happen should be within this proffer. 7. Proffer #4 - Use standard language for this proffer. Traffic Study: 1. The traffic study uses trip generation for single family detached units and states that there are 15 units of that type, however the ARB submittal indicates that there are no single family detached units proposed. Clarify and update the traffic study as necessary to show the traffic generated by the proposed unit types. 2. The narrative indicates that the road connection to Route 250 to the east will be for fire and emergency vehicles only. However, the Traffic Impact Analysis applies trips to this entrance that are essentially the same as the trips applied to the primary entrance. That should not be the case if the connection to the east is only for fire and emergency vehicles. In addition, if the connection to the east will be open to traffic other than fire and emergency vehicles, it is likely that the PM peak trips will generate a much higher percentage for the eastern entrance than the primary entrance for right turns as this will represent residents returning home after working in the Charlottesville area. This seems to be the likely scenario, and it appears that a right turn lane would be warranted for the eastern connection. 3. The Traffic Impact Analysis indicates that a left turn lane is warranted at the primary connection, however the application plan does not show a left turn lane. 4. Additional Traffic /road comments are provided by VDOT. See attached. Identified Waivers /Modifications /Exceptions Needed: 1. Waivers /special exceptions needed: a. It is unclear if any special exceptions are needed for setbacks. Prior to the submittal we had discussions concerning setbacks for the back of the units, however I cannot determine if an exception is needed. It is recommended that any and all special exceptions and waivers that can be requested with the rezoning be submitted and reviewed now instead of at the site plan or subdivision stage. b. It is unclear if any private streets are proposed. If so, provide the request and justification to be reviewed with the rezoning. Planning Planning staff's comments are organized as follows: How the proposal relates to the Comprehensive Plan The Neighborhood Model analysis Additional Planning comments Additional comments from reviewers (See attached) Comprehensive Plan. Comments on how your project conforms to the Comprehensive Plan will be provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report that will be prepared for the work session or public hearing. The comments below are in preparation for the work session and may change based on direction from the Commission at the work session and /or with subsequent submittals. The property is located with in the Crozet Masterplan. The land use designations for this property is as follows: Neighborhood Density Residential — residential (3 — 6 units /acre) supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools and other small -scale non - residential uses. Within the Crozet Master Plan, Neighborhood Density Residential is further described as follows: "Housing in this area is primarily single - family detached with some single - family attached /townhouses ". The proposal narrative and the application plan both do not indicate what type of housing is proposed, only that a total of 93 units will be built. However, the Architectural Review Board application states that there will be 50 single family attached units, 28 townhouse units and 16 affordable units. You also presented this plan at the community meeting and these unit types are not in conformance with the Master Plan. The majority of the proposed units should be single family detached (more than 50 %). This is a subject that may be an appropriate topic for the Planning Commission to consider during a work session if you wish to move forward and intend to have these types of units. Additionally, the Master Plan provides for a range of density and, as we have said previously, if the request is within the range recommended in the Master Plan, it can be supported from the standpoint of total numbers of units. But, whether or not a total number of units can be achieved or should be achieved at a given location depends on more than the density range recommended in the Master Plan. It must be paired with design in keeping with the Neighborhood Model and also with the recommended unit types in the Master Plan. And ultimately, the BOS, on the recommendation of the PC and CAC, decides on the most appropriate interpretation of the Plan. At present, the application plan and information provided does not fully show how the design meets the applicable neighborhood model principles, which would show us how your design supports higher density and your unit types are not in keeping with the Master Plan recommendations. Neighborhood Model General comments on how well the proposed development meets the principles of the Neighborhood Model are provided here. More detailed comments may be provided at a later date if changes are made and /or after more detailed plans are provided. Pedestrian All streets will be required to have sidewalks on both sides of the street per the Orientation ordinance A trail is proposed within a greenway as well as a multi -use trail along Route 250 This principle will be met with ordinance requirements Mixture of Uses This principle is not applicable, as non - residential is not required per the Crozet Master Plan in this area. Neighborhood A pocket park or some open space /gathering feature should be provided outside Centers of the preserved stream buffer. Preserved areas are necessary, however a pocket park should be provided to allow for a playground or other plaza /green space. This principle is not met Mixture of 15% affordable housing is proffered. Housing Types The application plan does not specify the housing types, single family detached and should be the majority of housing units proposed per the Crozet Master Plan. Affordability This principle is not met Interconnected While a vehicular interconnection to Cory Farm is not a possibility, a trail Streets and way /pedestrian path should be provided from the internal sidewalk system to the Transportation property line to their open space, so if in the future a pedestrian network is sought Networks to connect Cory Farm, the path will be in place. Further extending the multi -use path to connect to the planned County project that ends at Cory Farm Road should be explored /offered. The path may need to be negotiated with the Cory Farm neighborhood, or may be able to be placed soley within the right of way. This will address pedestrian interconnection to the Harris Teeter and Clover Lawn shopping centers, as well as address traffic trips /impacts that would be made to this area from the proposed development. This principle is not met Multi -modal As stated above, a multi -use path is proposed along 250, however further Transportation extending the proposed multi -use path to connect to the planned County project Opportunities that ends at Cory Farm Road should be explored /offered. This principle could be further met by providing additional path to connect to planned pedestrian project Parks, Recreational Amenities, and Open Space Buildings and_r Space of Human Scale As stated above, a pocket park should be established to provide recreation and social gathering opportunites within the development and to further meet the recreation requirements within the zoning ordinance. This principle is not met at this time. The setback regulations were recently updated to address neighborhood model ' principles. Therefore, this development will be subject to the R6 setbacks and will meet this principle. Relegated Parking should be relegated to the back or side of buildings. The garage should Parking be set back several feet behind the front fagade or porch of the house or provide side loaded garages, to meet this principle. With additional information /commitment this principle can be met. Redevelopment Respecting Terrain and Careful Grading and Re- grading of Terrain Clear Boundaries with the Rural Area This proposal is for new development within Development Areas. This principle does not apply. It is unclear if the lots will be located within the stream buffer or the preserved slopes. Consider combining sheets 4 and 5 to clarify how the developed area will impact the stream buffer and preserved slopes. This principle is not met at this time. A 50 foot buffer should be provided along Route 250 outside of the right of way to preserve the rural scenic character and protect the designated scenic byway. All buffers should be owned and maintained by the developer /HOA and should not be on private lots. This principle is not met. Additional Planning Comments: 1. The cover sheet states that sheet C5 is the by- right exhibit, however sheet C5 is the infrastructure sheet. Revise the legend, or provide the by right exhibit within the plan set. 2. The proposed development will need to meet all of the R6 ordinance requirements, including lot size, setbacks, recreation, etc. It may be that the number of units will be reduced if the lot sizes do not meet the requirements under R6. 3. The post master has stated that individual mailboxes will not be allowed within the Crozet area and that group mailboxes need to be provided for new developments. If the rezoning is approved, this should be planned for early on as the site plan is designed, so as not to have an issue at a later date. 4. The typical trail section is too small to read the notes. Revise so that it is legible. 5. The existing conditions information on sheet 2 for the parcel information is not legible. Revise the font, either make it bigger, not bold, so that it is legible. Action after Receipt of Comments After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified in the attachment "Action After Receipt of Comment Letter." Resubmittal If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form (1 will forward you this once 1 have an updated version with the correct fees). There is no fee for the first resubmittal. The resubmittal date schedule is provided for your convenience. Notification and Advertisement Fees Recently, the Board of Supervisors amended the zoning ordinance to require that applicants pay for the notification costs for public hearings. Prior to scheduling a public hearing with the Planning Commission: $ 115.70 Cost for newspaper advertisement $ 200.00 Cost for notification of adjoining owners (minimum $200 + actual postage /$1 per owner after 50 adjoining owners) -$ 178.00 Credit (extra paid at time of application) $ 137.70 Total amount due prior to Planning Commission public hearing Prior to the Board of Supervisor's public hearing, payment of the newspaper advertisement for the Board hearing needed. $ 115.70 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing $ 253.40 Total amount for all notifications Fees may be paid in advance. Payment for both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings may be paid at the same time. Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining owners need to be notified of a new date. Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My phone number is (434) 296 -5832, x. 3004, and my email address is: myaniglos @albemarle.org. Sincerely, �j[ F Megan Yaniglos Principal Planner Planning Services Attachment A — Comments from VDOT, dated January 13, 2016 Attachment B — Comments from Architectural Review Board /Historic Preservation Staff, dated January 6, 2016 Attachment C — Comments from Zoning, dated January 28, 2016 Attachment D- Comments from ACSA- forthcoming Attachment E- Comments from Parks and Rec- forthcoming DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LIRGI" l� ACTION AFTER RECEIPT OF COMMENT LETTER Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following: (1) Resubmit in response to review comments (2) Request indefinite deferral (3) Request that your Planning Commission public hearing date be set (4) Withdraw your application (1) Resubmittal in Response to Review Comments If you plan to resubmit within 30 days, make sure that the resubmittal is on or before a resubmittal date as published in the project review schedule. The full resubmittal schedule may be found at www.albemarle.org in the "forms" section at the Community Development page. Be sure to include the resubmittal form on the last page of your comment letter with your submittal_ The application fee which you paid covers staff review of the initial submittal and one resubmittal. Each subsequent resubmittal requires an additional fee. (See attached Fee Schedule.) (2) Request Indefinite Deferral If you plan to resubmit after 30 days from the date of the comment letter, you need to request an indefinite deferral. Please provide a written request and state your justification for requesting the deferral. (Indefinite deferral means that you intend to resubmit /request a public hearing be set with the Planning Commission after the 30 day period.) (3) Request Planning Commission Public Hearing Date be Set At this time, you may schedule a public hearing with the Planning Commission. However, we do not advise that you go directly to public hearing if staff has identified issues in need of resolution that can be addressed with a resubmittal. After outstanding issues have been resolved and /or when you are ready to request a public hearing, staff will set your public hearing date for the Planning Commission in accordance with Revised 1 -29 -16 mcy the Planning Commission's published schedule and as mutually agreed by you and the County. The staff report and recommendation will be based on the latest information provided by you with your initial submittal or resubmittal. Please remember that all resubmittals must be made on or before a resubmittal date. By no later than twenty -one (21) days before the Planning Commission's public hearing, a newspaper advertisement fee and an adjoining owner notification fee must be paid. (See attached Fee Schedule) Your comment letter will contain the actual fees you need to pay. Payment for an additional newspaper advertisement is also required twenty -two (22) days prior to the Board of Supervisors public hearing. Please be advised that, once a public hearing has been advertised, only one deferral prior to the Planning Commission's public hearing will be allowed during the life of the application. The only exception to this rule will be extraordinary circumstances, such as a major change in the project proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that have not previously been brought to the applicant's attention. As always, an applicant may request deferral at the Planning Commission meeting. (4) Withdraw Your Application If at any time you wish to withdraw your application, please provide your request in writing. Failure to Respond If we have not received a response from you within 30 days, we will contact you again. At that time, you will be given 10 days to do one of the following: a) request withdrawal of your application, b) request deferral of your application to a specific Planning Commission date as mutually agreed to with staff, or c) request indefinite deferral and state your justification for requesting the deferral. If none of these choices is made within 10 days, staff will schedule your application for a public hearing based on the information provided with your original submittal or the latest submittal staff received on a resubmittal date. Fee Payment Fees may be paid in cash or by check and must be paid at the Community Development Intake Counter. Make checks payable to the County of Albemarle. Do not send checks directly to the Review Coordinator Revised 1 -29 -16 mcy 2016 Submittal and Review Schedule Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendments Resubmittal Schedule Written Comments and Earliest Planning Commission Public Hearing* Resubmittai Dates Comments to applicant for decision on whether to proceed to Public Hearing ' Request for PC Public Hearing, Legal Ad Payment Due ** Planning Commission Public Hearing No sooner than' COB Auditorium Monday Wednesday Monday Tuesday Nov 2 2015 Dec 2 2015 Dec 21 2015 Jan 12 Nov 16 2015 Dec 16 2015 Jan 04 Jan 25 Dec 7 2015 Jan 06 Jan 11 Feb 02 Dec 21 2015 Jan 20 Feb 01 Feb 23 Jan 04 Feb 03 Feb 08 Mar 01 Tue Jan 19 Feb 17 Feb 22 Mar 15 Feb 01 Mar 02 Mar 14 Apr 05 Tue Feb 16 Mar 16 Apr 04 Apr 26 Feb 29 Mar 30 Apr 11 May 03 Mar 14 Apr 13 May 09 May 31 Apr 04 May 04 May 16 Jun 07 Apr 18 May 18 May 30 Jun 21 May 02 Jun 01 Jun 20 Jul 12 May 16 Jun 15 Jul 04 Jul 26 May 30 Jun 29 Jul 18 Aug 09 Jun 13 Jul 13 Aug 01 Aug 23 Jul 04 Aug 03 Aug 22 Sep 13 Jul 18 Aug 17 Sep 05 Sep 27 Aug 01 Aug 31 Sep 19 Oct 11 Aug 15 Sep 14 Oct 03 Oct 25 Tue Sep 06 Oct 05 Oct 10 Nov 01 Sep 19 Oct 19 Oct 31 Nov 22 Oct 03 Nov 02 Nov 14 Dec 06 Oct 17 Nov 16 Nov 28 Dec 20 Oct 31 Nov 30 Dec 19 Jan 10 2017 Nov 14 Dec 14 Jan 09 2017 Jan 31 2017 Dec 05 Jan 04 2017 Jan 16 2017 Feb 07 2017 Dec 19 Jan 18 2017 Feb 06 2017 Feb 28 2017 Jan 02 2017 Feb 01 2017 Feb 13 2017 Mar 07 2017 Sold italics = submittallmeeting day is different due to a holiday. Dates with shaded background are not 2016. 2017 dates are tentative. " The reviewing planner will contact applicant to discuss comments of reviewers and advise that changes that are needed are significant enough to warrant an additional submittal or advise that the the project is ready for a public hearing. If changes needed are minor, the planner will advise that the project go to public hearing- ** The legal ad deadline is the last date at which an applicant can decide whether to resubmit or go to public hearing. If an applicant decides to go to public hearing against the advice of the reviewing planner, a recommendation for denial will likely result. Generally; the applicant will will have only one opportunity to defer the PC public hearing for the project once it has been advertised for public hearing. Additional deferrals will not be allowed except in extraordinary circumstances such as a major change in the project proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that have not previously been brought to the applicant's attention. f Me, � COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper. Virginia 22701 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner January 13, 2015 Ms. Megan Yaniglos Principal Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: ZMA -2015 -00008 Adelaide Dear Ms. Yaniglos, We have reviewed Adelaide rezoning request and the application plan dated 12'7115 as submitted by Shimp Engineering and offer the following comments: I . The utility crossing shown on the application plan should cross the roadways perpendicularly. 2. The roadways and alleys should be clearly labeled on the plan indicating which will be private and which will be public. 3. Street centerlines should intersect roadways perpendicularly. 4. Is the emergency access proposed to be publicly maintained or restricted to emergency vehicles only? If the road is to be restricted, bollards will need to be installed on both the Route 250 end of the road and at the connection to the internal subdivision street. 5. What is the reason for making the emergency access connection to Route 250 a right - in/right -out connection? It appears that this could be a full access. 6. What is the typical section for the emergency access road? 7. It appears that the crosswalk on the primary entrance will need to be located closer to Route 250. As currently shown, this crossing will be in the queue of vehicles exiting the development. 8. Per Appendix B(1), entrances /street connections on opposite sides of the road shall be offset at least 200' unless they are aligned with each other. The emergency access road should be relocated so that it is at least 200' offset from Brownsville Road. 9. The narrative indicates that the road connection to Route 250 to the east will be for fire and emergency vehicles only. However, the Traffic Impact Analysis applies trips to this entrance that are essentially the same as the trips applied to the primary entrance. That should not be the case if the connection to the east is only for fire and emergency vehicles. In addition, if the connection to the east will be open to traffic other than fire and emergency vehicles, it is likely that the PM peak trips will generate a much higher percentage for the eastern entrance than the primary entrance for right turns as this will represent residents returning home after working in the Charlottesville area. This seems to be the likely scenario, and it appears that a right turn lane would be warranted for the eastern connection. 10. The Traffic Impact Analysis indicates that a left turn lane is warranted at the primary connection, however the application plan does not show a left turn lane. 11. The primary entrance may need to shift east so that a left turn lane does not conflict with the existing entrance on the south side of Route 250 just west of the primary entrance. If you need additional information concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 422 -9782. Sincerely, " -. -,- A, � � Troy Austin, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Culpeper District WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Project Name: Date Completed ZMA201600008 ,delaide - ZMA Nednesday, January 06, 2016 Reviewer: Margaret Malisze ski Department/DivisioNAgency: ARB Reviews Comments: 1- The plan notes that no historical features have been located on the site- It is Historic Preservation Committee policy to obtain a photographic record of all briildings to be demolished prior to demolition- It is recommended that the applicant provide labeled photographs of each building that is to be demolished for the development - 2- The color conceptual plan shows trees along the EC frontage- Are these intended to be ne}x trees existing trees, or a combination of new and existing? 3- With the layout shown, there appears to be no planting area available along the Rt- 250 Entrance Corridor - The application plan shows a potential stormwater facility extending nearly the full frontage of the corridor- A path and underground utilities (fiber optic and copper telecommunication) are located between the facility and the street, and a sewer line is shown on the Adelaide side of the facility- (A 12° water line is also located along the frontage, closer to the road -) Where will the EC frontage landscaping be located? Clarify how the frontage landscaping requirements will be met while avoiding utility conflicts and maintaining the frontage plants outside of individual homeowners' lots - 4- The ARB will require that stormwater facilities visible from the EC look like fully integrated landscape elements- Engineered site features unrelated to the surroundings will not meet the EC guidelines - 5- There is a big size discrepancy between the EC- fronting stormwater facilities shown on the ARB concept plan and those shown on the rezoning application plan- It is anticipated that it will not be possible to fully and appropriately integrate a facility extending the full length of the frontage into the landscape - 6- Moving the path into the right -of -way may help acquire some space for on -site frontage landscaping - 7- It is recommended that a creative, holistic approach to the treatment of the EC frontage be devised, to fully integrate stormwater, landscape, streetscape and path requirements, resulting in a treatment that meets the EC Guidelines and maintains a rural scenic character that is consistent with the status of Rt- 250 West as a scenic byway- Review status: Requested Changes Page: F_ County of Albemarle Printed On: 10 729120/6 'AL , County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Megan Yaniglos, Principal Planner From: Francis MacCall, Principal Planner Division: Zoning Date: January 28, 2016 Subject: ZMA 2015 -00008 Adelaide - initial zoning comments Please consider the following comments: 1. Application plan should show entire parcels to be developed since some proposed improvements are along Route 250. 2. The LAND USE LEGEND on sheet 4 of the Application Plan should have the breakdown of Area in Residential lots not just "RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AREAS'. The number on the in the proffer and on the plan (93) does not match the area in the table. If all 93 dwellings will be on separate lots then with the minimum lot size for R -6 being 7,260 square feet would mean there would be 15.5 acres in residential lots and not 8.8 acres as the LAND USE LEGEND shows. 8.8 acres comes out to only 52 dwellings on separate lots. If there intent is to take advantage of the clustering provision within R -6 then that should be stated since this would not require a minimum lot size for the 93 dwellings and this may only use 8.8 acres. 3. The road cross section on sheet 5 should reference the setbacks from Section 4.19 of the Zoning Ordinance. These were developed to promote the Neighborhood Model so they should be used appropriately and shown properly. 4. Are those parking areas on sheet 5 necessary for this plan? It just needs to be as clear as possible that the main things for this rezoning are what show up on the proffered plan. 5. Proffers general - Eventually we need to make sure that all proffers use the current standard language for certain proffers. County attorney review of final proffers will be needed. Some of these may be the correct way they should be written but we need to verify this. 6. Other triggers may need to be applied to revised proffers, i.e. when certain improvements will be completed. 7. The first proffer should be the one that proffers the application plan. (See 7b below) 8. Proffer #2 - a. This should probably read something like "There shall be no more than 93 dwelling units within the Project." b. The second sentence of this proffer should be at the beginning of the proffers and should use standard language about the Project is to be developed in general accord with the application plan (see comment #5). Are there major elements that will be required? If so list in the proffer about being in general accord. I know this is stated on sheet 4 but should be in the actual proffer. 9. Proffer #3 - Use standard language for dedicating an easement to public use. A trigger for when this is to happen should be within this proffer. 10. Proffer #4 - Use standard language for this proffer.