Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200800019 Review Comments 2008-02-07Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District February 7, 2008 2134 Berkmar Dr Charlottesville, VA 22901 975 -0224 TO: Summer Frederick Planning Department RE: Soils Report and Comments for: Crozet Station - Phase I L A J FEB 0 8 2000 r I-Al Isi:ilf'tEi: O 3n w n ID M .ca 1 ? I \ w r 1 ko In a M 2• ' I - ro U - m m fly' In 1 M LLI In m Ell In cl n I- P CI N . Ip LO ro ED m 10 USDA United States Natural Department of Resources Agriculture Conservation Service Prepared by: Tholffas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District 434 - 975 -0224 Soils Report SOILS REPORT FOR: Crozet Station Soil Survey Area: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Unit: 7B Braddock loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Braddock is a gently sloping to moderately sloping, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 8 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a high available water capacity and a moderate shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 2e. The Virginia soil management group is O. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 80 Braddock clay loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes, severely eroded Description Category: Virginia FOTG Braddock is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is clay loam about 4 inches thick. The surface layer has a low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a high available water capacity and a moderate shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 4e. The Virginia soil management group is O. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 14C Chester loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Chester is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 7 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a moderate available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 3e. The Virginia soil management group is D. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 37C3 Hayesville clay loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes, severely eroded Description Category: Virginia FOTG Hayesville is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is clay loam about 7 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a high available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 4e. The Virginia soil management group is X. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 95 Wehadkee silt loam Description Category: Virginia FOTG Thomas Jefferson SWCD 1 2/7/08 Wehadkee is a nearly level to gently sloping, very deep, poorly drained soil. Typically the surface layer is silt loam about 10 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a high available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is occasionally flooded and is not ponded. The top of the seasonal high water table is at 15 inches. The land capability classification is 4w. The Virginia soil management group is MM. This soil is hydric. Dwellings With Basements - Dominant Condition Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 7B Braddock loam, 2 to 7 Somewhat limited percent slopes 8C3 Braddock clay loam, 7 to Somewhat limited 15 percent slopes, severely eroded 14C Chester loam, 7 to 15 Somewhat limited percent slopes 37C3 Hayesville clay loam, 7 to Somewhat limited 15 percent slopes, severely eroded 95 Wehadkee silt loam Very limited Small Commercial Buildings - Dominant Condition Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 7B Braddock loam, 2 to 7 Somewhat limited percent slopes 8C3 Braddock clay loam, 7 to Very limited 15 percent slopes, severely eroded 14C Chester loam, 7 to 15 Very limited percent slopes 3703 Hayesville clay loam, 7 to Very limited 15 percent slopes, severely eroded 95 Wehadkee silt loam Very limited Thomas Jetterson SWCD 2 2/7/08 Mapunit Hydric Rating Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 7B Braddock loam, 2 to 7 Not hydric percent slopes 80 Braddock clay loam, 7 to Not hydric 15 percent slopes, severely eroded 14C Chester loam, 7 to 15 Not hydric percent slopes 370 Hayesville clay loam, 7 to Not hydric 15 percent slopes, severely eroded 95 Wehadkee silt loam All hydric Soil Shrink - Swell - Dominant Soil Top Depth : 0 Bottom Depth : 0 Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 7B Braddock loam, 2 to 7 1.5 percent slopes 80 Braddock clay loam, 7 to 1.5 15 percent slopes, severely eroded 14C Chester loam, 7 to 15 1.5 percent slopes 37C3 Hayesville clay loam, 7 to 1.5 15 percent slopes, severely eroded 95 Wehadkee silt loam 1.5 Corrosion Concrete - Dominant Condition Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 7B Braddock loam, 2 to 7 Moderate Fhomas Jetterson SWCD 3 2/7/08 percent slopes Survey Status: Published 8C3 Braddock clay loam, 7 to Moderate 15 percent slopes, severely Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 eroded Map 14C Chester loam, 7 to 15 High percent slopes 7B Braddock loam, 2 to 7 370 Hayesville clay loam, 7 to Moderate 15 percent slopes, severely 8C3 Braddock clay loam, 7 to eroded 15 percent slopes, severely 95 Wehadkee silt loam Moderate Corrosion Steel - Dominant Condition Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 7B Braddock loam, 2 to 7 High percent slopes 8C3 Braddock clay loam, 7 to High 15 percent slopes, severely eroded 14C Chester loam, 7 to 15 Low percent slopes 37C3 Hayesville clay loam, 7 to Moderate 15 percent slopes, severely eroded 95 Wehadkee silt loam High Thomas Jetterson SWCD 4 2/7/08 0' . \I.IJF, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 February 20, 2008 Ashley Cooper Atwood Architects Via email: Ashley @atwoodarchitects.com RE: SDP2008 -19 Crozet Station /Phase I - Preliminary Dear Ms. Cooper: The Site Review Committee has reviewed the development proposal referenced above. Preliminary comments for the following divisions of the Department of Community Development and other agencies, as applicable, are attached: Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Engineer) Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Planner) Albemarle County Division of Planning (E911) Albemarle County Division of Planning (Architectural Review Board) Albemarle County Service Authority Virginia Department of Transportation Comments reflect information available at the time the development proposal was reviewed, and should not be considered final. However, the Site Review Committee has attempted to identify all issues that could affect approval of the proposed project. Please make the revisions that have been identified as necessary for preliminary approval by the Site Review Committee. If you choose not to make the requested revisions, please submit in writing justification for not incorporating such revisions. Submit eight (8) full size copies and one (1) 11" x 17" copy to the Department of Community Development including responses to each of the attached comments of the Site Review Committee by March 3, 2008. Failure to submit this information by this date will result in suspension of the review schedule. Review will resume when revisions are submitted along with a reinstatement fee of $65. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Summer Frederick, Senior Planner Zoning & Current Development 6W 4 i ll' \ f..12 J 1 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development To: Ashley Cooper; Atwood Architects via email: ashleypa atwoodarchitects.com From: Summer Frederick, Senior Planner Division: Zoning & Current Development Date: February 19, 2008 Subject: SDP2008 -19 Crozet Station /Phase I - Preliminary The Planner for the Zoning & Current Development Division of the Albemarle County Department Community Development will recommend approve the plan referred to above when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed. (The following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.) [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference to the Albemarle County Code.] 1. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(a)] Please provide owner, zoning, tax map and parcel number, and present use of adjacent properties on the southern side of SR 240. 2. [Sec. 18- 32.7.9.11 Due impervious coverage of the site exceeding eighty (80) percent of the gross site area, a landscape plan meeting all requirements of Sec. 18- 32.7.9 is required for preliminary site plan approval. Please provide required information, such as, but not limited to; proposed street tree caliper, evergreen tree heights, planting island square footage, tree canopy calculations. 3. [Sec. 18- 32.7.2(A)] The approved parking structure is subject to all requirements of this Section. Please provide architectural elevations for the parking structure. 4. [SP2007 -26 Crozet Station] Condition of approval #3 states: There shall be no disturbance of the stream buffer. Please remove all construction activity that is shown within the 100' stream buffer shown on plans. NOTE: Approval from the Architectural Review Board is required prior to preliminary site plan approval. It is understood this project is scheduled to be heard at the ARB March 3, 2008 meeting. Please contact Summer Frederick at the Department of Community Development 296- 5832 ext. 3565 for further information. q a e DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Rc,1d ulp .•per. V:rgirra 22701 Vir ;iriaDCT org David S. Ekern, P.E. 00 %1N.t!.3 SICNER February 20` 2007 Mr. Glenn Brooks Department of Engineering and Development 401 McIntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject: Site Review Meeting Comments February ? 1` 2007 site review meeting Dear Mr. Brooks: Below are VDOT's comments on the Site Plans for the February 21"', 2007 Site Review Committee Meeting: SDP - 2008 -00009 Red Hill Water Svstem — Final (Gerald Gatobu) Sight distance needs to be shown on the plan. The grade from route 29 needs to be designed in accordance with the commercial entrance standard CG -1 l . Please show the entrance profile and that it is designed to the CG -1 I standard. It looks like there will be a break in the guardrail at the location of the driveway. Appropriate end treatments need to be installed for a guardrail break. Although this plan does not include the 4" water mains, I noticed that these are proposed in the shoulder of route 29. Typically this location is not permitted for longitudinal utility installations. The applicant should contact the VDOT Charlottesville Residency office to set up a meeting on the proposed installations prior to submitting the pipe plan. NII proposed work within the VDOT ROW needs to be permitted through the VDOT Charlottesk ille office. SDP - 2008 -00012 South Pantops Condominiums - Prel. (Patrick Lawrence A pavement widening joint needs to be shown for rte. 1140 Drainage structure ST -813 will cause complications for future extension of the sidewalk. Drainage easements need to be shown for pipes or structures conveying water away from the state road. Final plans will need to include pavement and drainage calculations. fooYEARSOF RANSPORTATION EXCELLENCE t •J J 6 2 ? 0 6 SDP- 2008 - 00013 Dunlora Gates -Prel. (Megan Yaniglos) Plans need to include a vertical alignment. Final plans need to include pavement and drainage computations. The reduced radius on the cul -de -sac needs approval from the county and emergency services to be acceptable. SDP - 2008 -00011 Gentry Property Nerizon Tier II PWSF -Final The plan shows adequate sight distance on Coles Rolling Road. SDP- 2008 - 00015 Christian Aid Mission /Verizon Tier II PWSF -Final (Gerald Gatobu) Plan should show adequate sight distance along route 250 at driveway entrance. SDP - 2008 -00019 Crozet Station Phase I- Prliminary (Summer Frederick) All phases of the project should be shown to ensure adequate access from route 240 at full build out. The ri turn lane needs to be extended at full width to the cast to tie in to the construction at the hank site. Road and drainage plans need to be included with the final plans. Any work within the VDOT ROW needs to be permitted through the Charlottesville VDOT office. SDP - 2008 -00020 Whitehouse Commercial Site Dev Plan —Prel. (Patrick Lawrence) A profile for the entrance should be shown on the plan. ITE trip generation numbers need to be shown on the plan. SUB -2008 -00022 Bellair #5 Prel. (Megan Yaniglos) Adequate sight lines need to be shown for the connection to the state road. It looks that Edgemont Lane may be relocated from the 25 foot road easement. Will there be a change to that road" SUB- 2008 - 110029 NGIC — Final (Summer Frederick) No comments Please request the applicants provide a written description of revisions with re- submissions. If you have any questions or continents, please contact me prior to sharing these comments w ith the applicants. Sincerely. Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Residency Program Manager VDOT Charlottesville Residency 434-293-0011 cc Bill Fritz, David Benish, Juan Wade, Elaine Echols. Joan McDowell, Judith Wiegand, Margaret Maliszewski, David Pennock, Francis McCall, Jon Sharp, Summer Frederick, Patrick Lawrence. and John Giometti Application #: 001:. Short Review Corr ;£lets Project Name: Crozet Station /Phase 1 - Prel No Sub - Application Type Selected Date Completed: 02/13/2008 Reviewer: Andrew Slack E911 Review Status: No Objection Reviews Comments: NO OBJECTION. Date Completed: 02!06i2008 Reviewer: Jay Schlothauer Inspections Review Status: Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Based on plans dated January 28, 2008. Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 The buildings, including existing buildings, require sprinkler systems. Show water lines for sprinkler system on the plan. Date Completed:02. Reviewer:Max Greene Engineer Z &CD Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:Site does not appear to have adequate area for Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. Please show how construction phasing will adequately address State E &SC law. Please remove all proposed disturbance from the stream buffer as mandated by the special use permit. Please show greenway access area as stated in the special use permit. Please submit SWM computation work sheets for quantity and quality in accordance with the Special use permit. Please provide off -site easements or letters of intent from adjacent property owners. Date Completed:02,'06,2008 Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:This project is scheduled for ARB review on March 3, 2008. Comments will be provided after that meeting. Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 7 yl Service Au TO: Summer Frederick FROM: Gary Whelan, Civil Engineer DATE: February 12, 2008 RE: Site Plan Technical Review for: The below checked items apply to this site. Crozet Station / Phase 1 - Preliminary SDP200800019 TM 56A2 -1 -29 X 1. This site plan is within the Authority's jurisdictional area for: X A. Water and sewer B. Water only C. Water only to existing structure D. Limited service X 2. An 8 inch water line is located on site. 3. Fire flow from, nearest public hydrant, located distant from this site plan, is Gpm + at 20 psi residual. X 4. A 8 inch sewer line is located on site. 5. An Industrial Waste Ordinance survey form must be completed. X 6. No improvements or obstructions shall be placed within existing or future easements. 7. and plans are currently under review. 8. and plans have been received and approved. 9. No plans are required. 10. Final and plans are required for our review and approval prior to granting tentative approval. 11. Final site plan may /may not be signed. 12. RWSA approval for water and /or sewer connections. 13. City of Charlottesville approval for sewer. Comments: Backflow prevention is required. Provide plumbing fixture count to size meters. Residential and commercial interests will have to be metered separately. Show existing and new sanitary connections. Profile sewer showing existing and proposed grades. Remove retaining walls from easements. The site plan does not show or incorrectly shows: meter locations waterline locations sewer line locations easements water line size sewer line size expected wastewater flows expected water demands Page 1 of 2 Summer Frederick From: Ashley Cooper [ashley @atwoodarchitects.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 11:59 AM To: Summer Frederick Subject: FW: Crozet Station - buffer Attachments: Stream Buffer.pdf; 17- 320.doc Hi Summer, I have attached a pdf from our powerpoint presentation to the Planning Commission with our stream buffer exhibit. A couple of things to paint out —the SP we received applies to our property and the discussion of stream buffer was always in the context of our property. As the SP applies to our property, it was very clear to us in discussions that we were not to impact the sliver of land shown in the NE corner of our property (as shown on the attached pdf). As we discussed last week, our approved concept plan does clearly show : ;torrnwater and sanitary facilihes crossing the stream buffer. Also, there are two existing facilities with large structures already within the stream buffer on the adjacent property. I have also attached the code section regarding stream buffers which says that stormwater facilities are allowed within the buffer. Below, you will find more commentary on the Stream Buffer issue at Crozet Station from the project engineer. In response to the County's review comments regarding disturbance of the stream buffer, I want to point out the following items: The preliminary site plan shows an on -site area of disturbance of approximately 100 sq. ft. within the 100 ft stream buffer at the northeast corner of the property. All of this disturbed area is associated with stormwater management facilities, which, per Sec 17 -320 of the Code, is a type of development authorized in a stream buffer. This area includes portions of a storm inlet structure, two water quality BMP structures, and a leveling area to dissipate runoff velocity prior to entering the BMPs. The proposed stormwater facilities are specifically designed to minimize the impact on the stream buffer by eliminating the current condition of untreated, concentrated runoff flowing down a steep slope. Further, water quality treatment is provided to runoff prior to discharge in the buffer. The stormwater facilities and conveyance to the stream proposed on the preliminary site plan will create less disturbance than the pipe proposed on the approved concept plan. The proposed location of the off -site storm conveyance is within existing storm and sanitary easements, and is generally clear of trees, thus minimal impact on existing vegetation is anticipated. Additionally, the vegetated channel with turf reinforcement mat will provide further water quality enhancement and reduce runoff discharge velocity. The location of the on -site area of disturbance within the 100 ft stream buffer is within an area already approved for disturbance associated with the Birchwood Place development on the adjacent property. Although not shown on the approved concept plan, a second stormwater pipe discharges runoff from the site into the buffer. This pipe runs beneath the existing shopping center building. This is clearly a non - compliant condition for storm piping. This pipe will need to be removed as part of the proposed parking deck construction. The preliminary site plan proposes to route runoff previously served by this pipe to a new discharge point at the northwest corner of the property, and will be situated concurrently with the proposed greenway access path. Pathway construction and stormwater management facilities are allowable uses within a stream buffer, and there is no on -site disturbance of the buffer associated with the northwest discharge point. Further, the use of two separate discharge points, rather than one, as shown on the approved concept plan, will improve the stormwater management and water quality by reducing the volume and velocity of runoff at any one point. Finally, after examining the limits of the buffer, it does not appear that a 100 ft offset from top of stream bank will encroach upon the property. At issue is one's interpretation of "top of bank" near the northeast corner. While 3/5/2008 Page 2 of 2 Parrott Creek generally has a well defined bank of 2 to 3 feet in height, the topography flattens out in this area, creating a "bubble" in the general trend of the stream bank. Code allows for the delineation of the buffer to be established by the 'designee ", which is me now. Thank you very much for reviewing this issue as we are very concerned with designing a project that is very sensitive in terms of water quality issues, First and foremost, we do feel we have the right to follow the law and to follow the guidance of our approved concept plan. We would be happy to sit down and discuss this issue with you, engineering and zoning so we might come up with the best solution for this site. Please let me know if there are other items I can provide to assist the discussion. Thanks again, Ashley Cooper 3/5/2008 AL&r' .e r ' Summer Frederick COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 March 17, 2008 Atwood Architects C/O William Atwood 250 West Main Street Suite 100 Charlottesville, Va 22902 RE: ARB2008 -00010 Crozet Station, Phase I Tax Map 56A2, Section 1, Parcel 29 Dear Mr. Atwood: The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board, at its meeting on March 3, 2008, completed a preliminary review of the above -noted request to establish 30 residential units above the IGA shopping center, to construct a parking structure behind the center, and to undertake related site improvements. The Board offered the following comments for the benefit of the applicant's next submittal. Please note that the following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments may be added or eliminated based on further review and changes to the plan. 1. Provide a plant list on the plan, with all standard information. 2. Coordinate the ARB submittal and the other plans provided for County review. 3. Provide trees in the parking lot closest to the Entrance Corridor, or at street level, or provide some alternative. 4. Clarify on the plan the location and design of the planter proposed along the EC. 5. Provide additional detail on the plan to indicate the full extent of planting proposed for the planting areas between the building and the parking lot. (It can be seating for a restaurant and does not all have to be planting.) Clarify what it is and that it is not a huge swath of mulch. 6. Revise the plan to indicate that all chain link that is visible from the EC will be removed from the site. Propose an alternate to the chain link that would have an appropriate appearance for the EC. Include a fence detail on the plan. 7. Provide perimeter parking lot trees, 2 7 / " caliper minimum, 40' on center throughout the site. 8. Add architectural detailing to relieve the blank appearance of the lower portion of the residential elevations above the arcade. Revise the elevations to provide detailing that associates the signs with the arcade portion of the elevations, not the upper window area. Provide details on the signage proposed for the building. Indicate proposed sign type, location, type of illumination, colors, etc. Revise the arcade openings to improve proportions and the relationship to the upper stories. 9. In general the ARB does not object to the 3 -story buildings, but it is the height of the west building and the dormers on the east end that could be modified to reduce the visual scale of the project. 10. Indicate on the plan the location of all three existing freestanding signs and indicate on the plan that all will be removed. Provide for review information on proposed freestanding signs. 11. Provide on the plan complete information on proposed tree /shrub removal and tree protection. 12. Provide on the plan complete information regarding the location of ground equipment, roof equipment, and any other proposed equipment and related elements. Show how existing or proposed architectural elements will screen the equipment from view. 13. Indicate on the plan the proposed color of the concrete in the front parking lot and provide a sample for review. Identify on the plan the impervious and pervious concrete areas. Provide samples for all of the colors. 14. Show the turn lane on the drawings. 15. The ARB requested a full review of the special use permit for phase 1A. 16. Provide at least 3 sections through the EC, the retaining wall, and up to the face of the building. 17. Provide above the elevations (on the same sheet) an outline or plan diagram to clarify the relationship of the different planes of the new structure and to clarify the relationship of the arcade to the fagade(s) behind it. Indicate all changes to existing building facades. 18. Outdoor display that is `ale from the Entrance Corridor requires a c ial use permit and is subject to review. ... 19. Clarify details for railings on the buildings. 20. Clarify and coordinate on the plans the stairs to the parking garage. 21. Provide a street elevation that includes the proposed building, the bank to the east and the US Joiner building, in scale. Dash in the level of the road. 22. The ARB supported the idea of the applicant providing a CAD drive -by for review. 23. Clarify and further articulate and refine the various architectural elements identified as 1 through 12 by Ms. Smith at the meeting. You may submit your application for continued ARB review at your earliest convenience. Application forms, checklists and schedules are available on -line at www.albemarle.org /planning Revised drawings addressing the comments listed above are required. Include updated ARB revision dates on each drawing. Please provide a memo including detailed responses indicating how each comment has been addressed. If changes other than those requested have been made, identify those changes in the memo also. Highlighting the changes in the drawing with "clouding" or by other means will facilitate review and approval. If you have any questions concerning any of the above, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Margaret Maliszewski Principal Planner Cc: Crozet Shopping Center LLC P O Box 129 Crozet Va 22932 Summer Frederick, Zoning and Current Development ARB File