Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201500008 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2016-07-23Summary of Revisions Needed for ZMA2015-008 Adelaide Application plans only apply to planned districts. Since this request is not a planned district, revise all references to "application plan" to be "proffered plan". Comment: Proffer 1: Add at the end of (a) "and housing types". Include the maximum number of units in (d). Also, state the standard under which the trails (i and k) will be constructed per the Engineering Design Standards Manual (pages 20-21). Check with Dan in Parks and Rec for the primitive trail, whether it's desired to be Class B-Type 1 or Class B-Type 2. The multi -use trail along 250 should be a Class A -Type 2. The additional landscaping as shown on the ARB submittal, should be shown on the proffered plan with notation that it will be subject to ARB approval. Two stormwater management facilities are still being shown within the buffer and should be removed. See additional comments from the ARB. Comment: Back in April, the ARB expressed no objection to the rezoning, subject to the following conditions: 1. Remove from the application plan the two stormwater facility options that are located in the buffer along the Entrance Corridor. 2. Provide architectural design of the buildings that acknowledge the frontage on the Rt. 250 Entrance Corridor. The two stormwater facilities in question have been removed from the revised plan, so condition #1 has been satisfied. However, I didn't see anything in the plan or proffers to address condition #2. An additional proffer could resolve this. Anticipating that the ARB's original language may be too imprecise, I asked them for clarification today. Here is alternate language, "For buildings located between Road B and the Rt. 250 Entrance Corridor, all walls facing Rt. 250 shall have the appearance of primary building fronts, or shall incorporate quality materials and details appropriate for the Entrance Corridor, as determined by the ARB." 3. Provide u notation on the proffered plan to state that street trees in accordance with 32.7.9 will be provided along all streets. Comment: addressed. 4. Provide a page that has the plans on Sheet 4 and 5 reduced in scale so that the entire parcel can be captured on one page showing that all of the area to the southwest is being designated as open space and that there will not be improvements within this open space along Route 250. Comment: addressed. 5. Add the following language to Note # 4 on Page 4 regarding the R- 6 Clustering: "The lots once created with a subdivision plat will not require a minimum lot size per the R- 6 Clustering provision." Comment: addressed. 6. The plats reference a total of 19.975 acres (page 3 of the plan), the proffers reference 20.4 acres (page 1 of the proffers) and the proffered plan references 20 acres (page 4 of the proffered plan). Please make sure that the reference to the actual acreage of the properties to be rezoned is the same on all part of the proposal. Comment: addressed. 7. A notation should be added to the proffered plan to state that parking will be relegated to the sides or rear of the buildings. Also, for single family detached with front loaded garages, that the garage will be set back a minimum of 3 feet from the porch or front fagade of the house. ddresse ' 8. Stream buffer and stormwater information should be added to sheet 4 to assure that the area for development is outside of the buffer. Comment: Revise the language to include information that the lots will encroach only in areas where disturbance in the stream buffer is taking place due to stormwater management. See example of condition from West Glen project: Any residential lots and associated streets resulting from the subdivision of the property shall be located outside of the 100 foot stream buffer and preserved slopes on the property. Lots may be permitted to be located within the landward 10 feet of the 100 foot stream buffer only if the lots are adjacent to approved stormwater management facilities located within the landward 50 feet of the stream buffer. Approval of lots located within the stream buffer shall be subject Subdivision Agent approval. 9. A trail way/pedestrian path should be provided from the internal sidewalk system to the property line to the Cory Farm open space, so if in the future a pedestrian network is sought to connect Cory Farm, the path will be in place. Comment: addressed. 10. The multi- use trail along Route 250 should be revised at the Brownsville Road entrance to have the crossing to line up/be within the right of way, so that a future extension can occur fully within the right of way. Comment: addressed. 11. Proffer # 2 - The last sentence should say "... shall be in general accord..." Comment: this proffer was incorporated with new Proffer #1 and states general accord. Addressed. 12. Proffer #3 states that 20% of the land will be green space, however on the plan it states 25% and 25% open space is required for R6 clustered lots. Comment: Addressed. The way that the proffer reads is that 34% of open space will be provided. If you wish to allow some flexibility, you may want to include a range in the chart from the minimum to the 34%. 13. Technical changes to the proffers that were provided by the County Attorney should be addressed. Comment: These appear to be addressed. Have asked the CA to look again since the proffers have been reworded/reformatted to see if he has any additional comments, to date have not heard back. 14. The left turn lanes at the intersection of Route 250 and the primary entrance and Route 250 and the secondary entrance need to account for deceleration. (VDOT) Comment: Shown and will be further addressed at the site plan stage. 15. A minimum right-of-way width in accordance with VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix B(1), is required for the public road access from Brownsville Road. (VDOT) Comment: Response was that this will be addressed during the site plan. If sufficient ROW does not exist, the rezoning/proffered plan may need to amended for this entrance.