Loading...
08SN0285STAFF' S REQUEST ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION 08SN0285 Emerson-Roper Companies, LLC Bermuda Magisterial District Ecoff Elementary, Carver Middle and Thomas Dale High Schools Attendance Zones North line of Chester Village Drive RE VEST: Rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Community Business (C-3) with conditional use to permit multi-family residential use and conditional use planned development to permit exceptions to ordinance requirements. PROPOSED LAND USE: A multi-family residential development consisting of a maximum of sixty-five (65) dwelling units, yielding a density of approximately thirteen (13) dwelling units per acre is planned. The applicant has indicated the development would be an extension of the adjacent Chester Village Green Apartments. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RECOMMEND DENIAL. AYES: Messrs. Hassen, Gulley and Waller. NAYS: Mr. Bass. ABSENT: Dr. Brown. Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service STAFF RECOMMENDATION Recommend denial for the following reason: while the proposed zoning and land uses conform to the Chester Plan which suggests the property is appropriate for neighborhood mixed use including residential uses of varying densities, the proffered conditions do not mitigate project impacts on capital facilities and, thereby would not insure adequate service levels are maintained to protect the health, safety and welfare of County citizens. (NOTE: CONDITIONS MAY BE IMPOSED OR THE PROPERTY OWNER(S) MAY PROFFER.) PROFFERED CONDITIONS The Owner-Applicant in this zoning case, pursuant to Section 15.2-2298 of the Code of Virginia (1950 as amended) and the Zoning Ordinance of Chesterfield County, for itself and its successors or assigns, proffers that the development of the property known as Chesterfield County Tax ID 787-657-6225 from A to C-3 with a CUPD to permit bulk exceptions, and subject to the conditions and provisions as set forth below; however, in the event the request is denied or approved with conditions not agreed to by the Applicant, these proffers and conditions shall be immediately null and void and of no further force or effect. 1. Except as stated herein, the Textual Statement dated June 9, 2008 shall be considered the Master Plan. (P) 2. Except for the timbering approved by the Virginia State Department of Forestry for the purpose of removing dead or diseased trees, there shall be no timbering on the Property until a land disturbance permit has been obtained from the Environmental Engineering Department and the approved devices have been installed. (EE) 3 . Direct vehicular access to Chester Village Drive will be restricted to one (1) entrance exit. (T) 4. There shall be no direct vehicular access from the property to the proposed North- South Arterial adj acent to the property. (T) 5. Trail Easement and Design. The applicant, subdivider or assignee(s) (the "Applicant") shall dedicate a trail easement a minimum of thirty (30) feet wide, parallel to and for the entire length of the western property line, to the County, in conjunction with site plan approval. The exact location, width and design shall be approved by the Parks and Recreation Department at the time of Site Plan review. Said easement shall be permitted to be located within any setback and/or buffer required by the County. Said easement shall not increase the size of any required setback and/or buffer. 2 08SN0285 JUL28-BOS-RPT The Applicant shall construct a ten (10) foot wide trail consisting of a minimum six (6) inch depth of #21 A stone over a compacted sub base with grading and seeding of four (4) foot wide shoulders. The exact design and location shall be approved by the Parks and Recreation Department at the time of Site Plan review. (P&R) 6. Cash Proffers. A. For all dwelling units initially constructed with more than one (1) bedroom the applicant, sub-divider, or assignee(s) shall pay the following to the County of Chesterfield, prior to the issuance of a building permit for infrastructure improvements within the service district for the property: 1. $14,998.00 per dwelling unit, if paid prior to July 1, 2010; or 2. The amount approved by the Board of Supervisors not to exceed $14,998.00 per dwelling unit adjusted upward by any increase in the Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index between July 1, 2009 and July 1 of the fiscal year in which the payment is made if paid after June 3 0, 2010. At the time of payment, the $14,998.00 will be allocated pro-rata among the facility costs as follows: $348 for library facilities, $8,915 for roads, $5,331.00 for schools, and $404 for fire stations. Payments in excess of $14,998.00 shall be prorated as set forth above. B. For all dwelling units initially constructed with one (1) bedroom the applicant, sub- divider, or assignee(s) shall pay the following to the County of Chesterfield, prior to the issuance of a building permit for infrastructure improvements within the service district for the property: 1. $9,667.00 per dwelling unit, if paid prior to July 1, 2010; or 2. The amount approved by the Board of Supervisors not to exceed $9,667.00 per dwelling unit adjusted upward by any increase in the Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index between July 1, 2009 and July 1 of the fiscal year in which the payment is made if paid after June 30, 2010. At the time of payment, the $9,667.00 will be allocated pro-rata among the facility costs as follows: $348 for library facilities, $8,915 for roads, and $404 for fire stations. Payments in excess of $9,667.00 shall be prorated as set forth above. C. Building plans submitted for building permits shall designate the number of bedrooms in each dwelling unit. D. Cash proffer payments shall be spent for the purposes proffered or as otherwise permitted by law. 3 08SN0285 JUL28-BOS-RPT E. Should Chesterfield County impose impact fees at any time during the life of the development that are applicable to the property, the amount paid in cash proffers shall be in lieu of or credited toward, but not in addition to, any impact fees, in a manner as determined by the County. If Chesterfield should adopt a "workforce" or "affordable" housing program which eliminates or permits a reduced cash proffer, the cash proffer for any dwelling unit on the Property that is designated as "workforce" or "affordable" housing, that meets all the requirements of the adopted "workforce" or "affordable" housing program, and for which a cash proffer has not yet been paid shall be adjusted to be consistent with the approved "workforce" or "affordable" housing program. F. Should Chesterfield County adopt a policy or ordinance which eliminates or permits a reduction in the cash proffers for residential dwelling units, the cash proffer for any dwelling unit on the Property that meets all of the requirements of the adopted policy for which a cash proffer has not yet been paid shall be adjusted to be consistent with the approved cash proffer policy at the time the cash proffer is paid. (B&M and BI) GENERAL INFORMATION T ,ncati nn The property is located on the north line of Chester Village Drive, across from Village Creek Drive. Tax ID 787-657-6225. Existing Zoning: A Size: 5.0 acres Existing Land Use: Vacant Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North and West - A; Single-family residential or public/semi-public (Chester Linear Park) South and East - C-3 with conditional use planned development single and multi-family residential 4 08SN0285 JUL28-BOS-RPT T ITTT ,TTTF,~ Public Water System: The request site is within the Chester Water Pressure Zone. There is a twelve (12) inch water line extending along the north side of Chester Village Drive that terminates adjacent to the eastern boundary of the request site, opposite Village Creek Drive. In addition, there is an eight (8) inch water line extending along the west side of Womack Road, approximately 220 feet west of this site. Use of the public water system is required by County Code. To meet the requirement for an additional feed as specified by Utilities Department Design Specification DS-21, extension of a twelve (12) inch water line along Chester Village Drive from Village Creek Drive to Womack Road will be required with development of the request site. Public Wastewater S,, sue: The request site is within the Ashton Creek Sewer Service Area. The public wastewater system currently serves the existing Chester Village Apartments. An eight (8) inch wastewater collector line terminates adjacent to the eastern boundary of the request site. Use of the public wastewater system is required by County Code. ENVIRONMENTAL Drainage and Erosion: The subject property drains to the east through Chester Village Apartments and then via tributaries to Great Branch. There are no existing or anticipated on- or off site drainage or erosion pro ems. The property is currently wooded and should not be timbered without obtaining a land disturbance permit from the Department of Environmental Engineering (Proffered Condition 2). This will insure that adequate erosion control measures are in place prior to any land disturbance. PUBLIC FACILITIES The need for schools, parks, libraries, fire stations and transportation facilities is identified in the Public Facilities Plan, Thoroughfare Plan and Capital Improvement Program and further detailed by specific departments in the applicable sections of this Request Analysis. Fire ~ervice~ The Public Facilities Plan indicates that fire and emergency medical service (EMS) calls are expected to increase forty-four (44) to seventy-eight (78) percent by 2022. Six (6) 5 08SN0285 JUL28-BOS-RPT new fire/rescue stations are recommended for construction by 2022 in the Plan. In addition to six (6) new stations, the Plan also recommends the expansion of five (5) existing stations. The Chester Fire Station, Company Number 1, currently provides fire protection and emergency medical service. Based on sixty-five (65) dwelling units, this request will generate approximately eighteen (18) calls for fire and emergency medical service each year. The applicant has not offered measures to fully address the impact of this development on fire and EMS facilities. (Proffered Condition 6) when the property is developed, the number of hydrants, quantity of water needed for fire protection, and access requirements will be evaluated during the plans review process. It should be noted, Fire Administration supports County Code requirements of two (2) public road accesses for developments with greater than fifty (50) dwelling units. ~chnnlc~ Approximately thirty-three (33) (Elementary: 15, Middle: 8, High: 10) students will be generated by this request. This site lies in the Ecoff Elementary School attendance zone: capacity - 838, enrollment - 724; Carver Middle School zone: capacity - 1,287, enrollment - 845; and Thomas Dale High School zone: capacity - 1,851, enrollment - 2,396. The enrollment is based on September 30, 2009 and the capacity is as of 2009- 2010. This request will have an impact on all schools involved. There are currently two (2) trailers at Ecoff Elementary, three (3) trailers at Carver Middle and fourteen (14) trailers at Thomas Dale High schools. This case combined with other tentative residential developments and zoning cases in the area, would continue to push these schools to capacity. This case could necessitate some form of relief in the future. The applicant has not offered measures to fully address the impact of this development on schools facilities. (Proffered Condition 6) T ,ihrariPC~ Consistent with the Board of Supervisors' policy, the impact of development on library services is assessed countywide. Based on projected population growth, the Public Facilities Plan identifies a need for additional library space throughout the County. The development noted in this case would most likely affect the Chester Library. The Public Facilities Plan identifies a need for additional library space in the Chester service area. The applicant has not offered measures to fully address the impact of this development on library facilities. (Proffered Condition 6) 6 08SN0285 JUL28-BOS-RPT Parks and Recreation: The Public Facilities Plan identifies the need for three (3) regional, seven (7) community and twenty-nine (29) neighborhood parks by 2020. In addition, there is a shortage of community and neighborhood park acreage in the county. The Public Facilities Plan identifies a need for 3 54 acres of regional park space, 252 acres of community park space and 199 acres of neighborhood park space by 2020. The Plan also identifies the need for linear parks and resource based-special purpose parks (historical, cultural and environmental) and makes suggestions for their locations. It also addresses the need for addition of recreational facilities to include sports fields, trails, playgrounds, court games, senior centers and picnicking area/shelters at existing parks to complete build -out and identifies the need for water access and trails along the James and Appomattox Rivers and their major tributaries, Swift and Falling Creeks. Co-location with middle and elementary schools is desired. The applicant has offered to dedicate an easement and construct a trail along the western property line in lieu of cash proffers to address the impact of this development on parks and recreation facilities (Proffered Condition 5). With this provision, the applicant has offered measures to assist in addressing the impact of the proposed development on parks and recreation facilities. Current calculations indicate the value of the trail does not fully mitigate project impact on park facilities. Transportation: The subject property is located adjacent to a proposed north/south arterial (the "North/South Parkway") as identified on the Thoroughfare Plan. The Transportation Department cannot support this request because the applicant has not addressed the traffic impact of the development per the Board of Supervisors' Cash Proffer Policy. Based on the proposed maximum density outlined in the Textual Statement and trip generation rates for apartments, development of the property could generate approximately 450 average daily trips (ADT). These vehicles will be distributed through the Chester Village development to West Hundred Road (Route 10), which had a 2009 traffic count of 37,841 vehicles per day between Chester Road and Harrowgate Road. In September 2007, the Board of Supervisors approved a rezoning request (Case 06SN0244, Branner Station) consisting of approximately 1,615 acres for a mixed use project. With that zoning approval, the Board accepted proffered conditions relative to transportation that, among other things, require the Branner Station developer to construct a four (4) lane divided road, the North/South Parkway, which is located along the western boundary of the subject property. Access to major arterials, such as the proposed North/South Parkway, should be controlled to minimize conflict points and help maintain acceptable levels of service. The applicant has proffered that no direct vehicular access will be provided from the property to the North/South Parkway. (Proffered Condition 4) 7 08SN0285 JUL28-BOS-RPT Area roads need to be improved to address safety and accommodate the increase in traffic generated by this proposed residential development. The applicant has proffered to contribute some money towards mitigating the traffic impact of the proposed residential development; however, the amount is not consistent with the Board of Supervisors' Cash Proffer Policy (Proffered Condition 6). As development continues in this part of the county, traffic volumes on area roads will substantially increase. Cash proffers alone will not cover the costs of the improvements needed to accommodate the traffic increases. There are no projects in this area currently included in the Six-Year Improvement Pro ram. As stated earlier, without the applicant fully addressing the traffic impact of the residential development, the Transportation Department cannot support this request. Financial Imbact on Cabital Facilities: Per Dwelling Unit Potential Number of New Dwelling Units 65.00 1.00 Population Increase 174.20 2.68 Number of New Students Elementary 14.3 0 0.22 Middle 7.80 0.12 High 10.40 0.16 TOTAL 32.50 0.50 Net Cost for Schools $594,295 $9,143 Net Cost for Parks 79,755 1,227 Net Cost for Libraries 19,175 295 Net Cost for Fire Stations 39,910 614 Average Net Cost for Roads 925,080 14,232 TOTAL NET COST $1,658,215 $25,511 ~ Based on a proposed maximum of sixty-five (65) (Textual Statement, F). The actual number of dwellings and corresponding impact may vary. As noted, this proposed development would have an impact on capital facilities. At the time this rezoning application was submitted, the calculated fiscal impact of every new dwelling unit on schools, roads, parks, libraries, and fire stations was $15,648 per unit. Effective July 1, 2009 the maximum per-dwelling-unit cash proffer was increased to $18,966. The applicant has been advised that a maximum cash proffer of $18,966 per unit would defray the cost of the capital facilities necessitated by this proposed development. 8 08SN0285 JUL28-BOS-RPT The applicant has offered cash in the amount of $14,998 per unit for units initially constructed with more than one (1) bedroom to address the development's impact on schools, roads, libraries, and fire stations. The applicant has further proffered $9,667 for each unit initially constructed with one (1) bedroom to address the impact of those units on roads, libraries, and fire stations (Proffered Condition 6). The applicant has also proffered to dedicate an easement and construct a trail to address the development's impact on park facilities (Proffered Condition 5). The cash and improvements, as proffered, are equivalent to paying $15,600 per dwelling unit. These conditions do not adequately address the impact of this development on any of the capital facilities categories. Consequently, the county's ability to provide adequate facilities for its citizens will be adversely affected. Note that circumstances relevant to this case, as presented by the applicant, have been reviewed and it has been determined that it is appropriate to accept the maximum cash proffer in this case. Staff recommends the applicant fully address the impact of this development on capital facilities. The Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, through their consideration of this request, may determine that there are unique circumstances relative to this request that may justify acceptance of proffers as offered for this case. Police Department: The applicant is proposing to build ahigh-density residential project. With the support of the County Administration, the Police Department seeks to have developers of new high- density residential projects implement its recommendations for Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (OPTED) which are planning and designing principles that constitute proactive crime prevention tools. Through OPTED principles, proper design and effective use of the environment can lead to a reduction in the fear and incidence of crime. At time of site plan review, the Police Department will work with the developer to implement OPTED principles. T , ANn T IMF, Comprehensive Plan: The subject property is located within the boundaries of the Chester Plan which suggests the property is appropriate for neighborhood mixed use uses. The Plan notes higher densities are not precluded, provided development is designed to add to the village feel and appearance. Area Development Trends: Adj acent properties to the north and west are zoned, Agricultural (A) and are occupied by single-family residential uses and public/semi-public use (Chester Linear Park). Adjacent property to the south and east was zoned and is being developed as part of the Chester Village Green Mixed Use Development. The subject property is to be 9 08SN0285 JUL28-BOS-RPT incorporated into this development. The Plan anticipates development of a mixed use center in this area. Development Standards: The request property lies within the Chester Village Core area and is subject to Village District standards. Village District standards are intended to recognize unique villages within the County and to maintain and reinforce the character, identity and pedestrian scale by continuing and enhancing existing patterns of development. Where not addressed in the Textual Statement and proffered conditions, development of the site must conform to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance which address, among other standards, access, landscaping, architectural treatment, setbacks, parking, signs, buffers and utilities. Dew: With this proposal, Textual Statement, Item F limits development to a maximum of sixty- five (65) dwelling units. This would yield a density of thirteen (13) units per acre. Chester Village Green Apartments was approved at a density of fourteen (14) units per acre . ~ethack~~ The Zoning Ordinance requires specific setbacks for structures from roads, and property lines for buildings, drives and parking areas. The applicant is proposing no setbacks for building along internal roads, interior private driveways, parking areas and streets (Textual Statement, D). This is consistent with the requirements for the existing Chester Village Green Apartments. The proposed "North/South Parkway" adjacent to the western property line is designated as a maj or arterial. The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum ten (10) foot setback for buildings, drives and parking from this arterial. Parking and Driveways: The Ordinance requires the provision of two (2) off street parking spaces for each dwelling unit. An exception is requested to allow any on-street parking to be counted towards the required number of parking spaces (Textual Statement, A). It should be noted, the Zoning Ordinance allows designated parking spaces in a public right-of way to be counted towards the required number of parking spaces when more than one-half of each space adjoins the site. In addition, the required number of parking spaces may be reduced by ten percent (10%) if the development contains a sidewalk or other pedestrian walkway system that connects to or may be connected to existing or future walkways. In view of this, the requested exception may not be necessary. 10 08SN0285 JUL28-BOS-RPT Landscapes: In an effort to create an extension of Chester Village Green Apartments, the applicants have proffered landscaping consistent with this adjacent apartment complex. (Textual Statement, B) Buildin~ghts and Architecture: Within the Multifamily Residential (R-MF) District, the Ordinance limits the height of buildings to three (3) stories or forty (40) feet, whichever is less, and accessory buildings or structures to half the height of the principal building or twenty-five (25) feet, whichever is greater. The applicant is proposing dwellings that would be a maximum of four (4) stories and accessory buildings or structures half the height of the principal building. (Textual Statement, C) Additionally, in Textual Statement, Item C, the applicant proposes an architectural style the same as that of the adjacent Chester Village Green Apartments. CONCLUSIONS While the proposed zoning and land uses conform to the Chester Plan which suggests the property is appropriate for neighborhood mixed use uses, the proffered conditions do not adequately address impacts of this development on necessary capital facilities, as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the needs for roads, schools, parks, libraries and fire stations is identified in the Public Facilities Plan, the Thoroughfare Plan and the Capital Improvement Program. The proffered conditions as discussed herein do not mitigate the impact of this development on capital facilities and, thereby would not insure adequate service levels are maintained to protect the health, safety and welfare of County citizens. Given this consideration, denial of this request is recommended. CASE HISTORY Planning Commission Meeting (8/19/08): On their own motion, the Commission deferred this case to September 16, 2008. Staff (8/20/08): The applicant was advised in writing that any significant new or revised information should be submitted no later that August 25, 2008, for consideration at the Commission's September 16, 2008, public hearing. 11 08SN0285 JUL28-BOS-RPT Staff (8/27/08): To date, no new information has been received. Planning Commission Meeting (9/16/08): The applicant did not accept the recommendation. There was no opposition present. Mr. Hassen noted the application fails to address the impact on capital facilities and the security concerns expressed by the Police Department. Dr. Brown also expressed concerns about the lack of the security proffer and proffers that fully address the impact on capital facilities. Mr. Waller noted the cash proffer policy needs to be examined with respect to the number of bedrooms and that the Comprehensive Plan could address this issue. On motion of Mr. Hassen, seconded by Dr. Brown, the Commission recommended enia . AYES: Messrs. Bass, Brown, Hassen and Waller. ABSENT: Mr. Gulley. Board of Supervisors' Meeting (10/22/08): On their own motion, the Board remanded this case to the Planning Commission. Staff (10/23/08): The applicant was advised in writing the case would be rescheduled for public hearing before the Planning Commission once it has been amended or at a time as requested by the applicant. Applicant (4/13/09): The applicant advised there would be no amendments to the case and requested the case be scheduled for Planning Commission public hearing. Planning Commission Meeting (6/22/09): The applicant did not accept the recommendation. There was no opposition present. 12 08SN0285 JUL28-BOS-RPT Mr. Hassen expressed concern that the impact on capital facilities had not been fully addressed. On motion of Mr. Hassen, seconded by Dr. Brown, the Commission recommended enia . AYES: Messrs. Gulley, Brown, Bass, Hassen and Waller. Board of Supervisors' Meeting (7/22/09): The applicant did not accept the recommendation. There was no opposition present. There was discussion among the Board relative to a deferral of sufficient time to consider changes to the cash proffer policy; to evaluate in-kind improvements; and to work with Staff to assess where agreement might be reached. On their own motion, the Board deferred this case to their August 26, 2009 public Baring. Staff (7/23/09): The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information should be submitted no later than July 27, 2009 for consideration at the Boards August 26, 2009 public hearing. Staff (7/29/09): To date, no new information has been received. Board of Supervisors' Meeting (8/26/09): At the request of the applicant, the Board deferred this case to November 18, 2009. Staff (8/27/09): The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information should be submitted no later than September 4, 2009 for consideration at the Board's November 18, 2009 public hearing. In addition, the applicant was advised that a $1,000.00 deferral fee must be paid prior to the Board's public hearing. 13 08SN0285 JUL28-BOS-RPT Staff (10/23/09): To date, no new information has been received nor has the deferral fee been paid. Applicant (10/28/09): The deferral fee was paid. Board of Supervisors' Meeting (11/18/09): On their own motion, the Board remanded this case to the Planning Commission. Staff (11 / 19/09) The applicant was advised in writing the case would be rescheduled for public hearing before the Planning Commission once it has been amended or at a time as requested by the applicant. Applicant (3/12/10): The applicant advised staff to advertise the request for the next scheduled Planning Commission public hearing. Applicant (5/24/10): Amendments to Proffered Condition 6 were submitted. Planning Commission Meeting (6/15/10): The applicant did not accept the recommendation. There was support present noting concern about the lack of differential cash proffers in the current Policy that would appropriately fit the request. Mr. Bass indicated that although he had not previously supported the request, the applicant's presentation influenced a change in his position. Mr. Gulley indicated support for development but noted the cash proffer was a Board of Supervisor's Policy; that the Commission had been criticized for previous deviations from this Policy; and that Policy changes should beBoard-driven. 14 08SN0285 JUL28-BOS-RPT Mr. Hassen clarified the basis for the first remand was for possible changes to the Cash Proffer Policy; the second remand was for consideration of an age-restricted development; and that the Policy is based upon averages, not number of bedrooms. Mr. Waller noted the village concept cannot survive without residential uses. He stated that issues of village importance should be addressed with the new comprehensive plan; that the Board needs to address the Cash Proffer Policy; and reluctantly that he could not support the case. On motion of Mr. Hassen, seconded by Mr. Gulley, the Commission recommended denial of this request. AYES: Messrs. Hassen, Gulley and Waller. NAY: Mr. Bass. ABSENT: Dr. Brown. The Board of Supervisors, on Wednesday, July 28, 2010, beginning at 6:30 p.m., will take under consideration this request. 15 08SN0285 JUL28-BOS-RPT EMERSON-ROPER COMPANIES, LLC TEXTUAL STATEMENT June 9, 2008 This is a request for a rezoning from A to C-3 with a Conditional Use to permit RMF and a Conditional Use Planned Development (CUPD) to permit bulk exceptions to ordinance standards. General Requirements and Exceptions. (A) Parkin. 1. If on-street parking is permitted, those spaces shall be counted towards the required number of parking spaces for all uses. 2. The Applicant shall provide parking for residential uses based on 2 spaces per dwelling unit. (B) Landsca e. Landscaping shall be consistent with the adjacent Chester Village Apartments property. (C) Architectural Standards. 1. The maximum height for all buildings shall be four (4) stories. The maximum height of accessory buildings and structures within all Tracts shall be one-half (1/2) the height of the principal building. 2. The development shall have the same architectural style as the adjacent Chester Village Green Apartments. (D) Setbacks. All buildings (including accessory structures) along internal roads, interior private driveways, parking areas and streets shall have zero (0) foot setback requirement for front, side, corner side, rear, and through lots. (E) Minimum parcel size. There shall be no minimum parcel size or maximum density per acre for RMF uses. (F) Number of dwelling units. The maximum number of dwelling units shall be 65. (G) Permitted Uses. Permitted uses shall be limited to: (1) Uses permitted by right or with restriction in the Residential Multi-family (RMF) District. (2)Storage units/Garages shall be permitted so long as they are similar to those storage units/garages located on the adjacent property commonly known as Chester Village Green Apartments. Applicant/Agent 1 1.~ ~ T W ~ Z ~ ~ 0 Z , S ~~ ~ ~~~~ J U W ~ ,~ Z Q ~ ' ~ ~ • W J ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ `~ • 0 ~ ~~ ~ , P ' ` W ~ ~2 ~ 5~ •Q .,~ •~ ~ o o -- ~ ~. v~'~ i ~ ~ ~ / ~ ' ~ __- i~ ~ • G J _. ~ ~ ~ / QW y W ~ U ~a ~ '' ~ i ~ r ~~ PIS j Z z • ~ ~ ~ ~s~j~ W vP ~ " ~ ~ ' ~ ~~/ z ~ ^ ~ ~ M ~ ~ a. ~ ~ W ~ J~ 1 N ~ ~~ w ~ W a ~ ~ I ~` T V N J \~~ V ~ 'I ~ I ~ ~ .........:::::::::.. w ........................ z ~ ...................... ~ I~ ~ N U S lyj~b, ~ ~ ~Q J N ~ ~iWQ U ~~ ~ \ ~ I ~ W ~ 0 ~M 1 ~ ~~ ~ 1 ~~ w ~ ` } ~ 18 Z (~ ~~~ ~ ~ f i ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~Q . . ~ f j / , ~ ~ ` W ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ D `~ ~ ~ M W Y ~ i ° ~ ~ ~ QQ ~ , (,~ ~ ~ a 1 _ ~ /~ ~ UN O o ~~. ~ V ~ `- ~ ~ z -_ ~ ~ 3 J ~ ~Q o ~ r ~ Q J N •• ~ ~ w O N y LL ~ y ~ ~ Z o 0 ~ o ~o~ , ~ N ~ ~~ O ~ ~ 1 Z~ ~ / ~ ~¢ ~ r / W z r-.~ . ~..i . ~..i W c~ a~ 0 0 H \ a, Oa, ~'~Q'~ , Grp ~ ~\ \ ~a\~toa i~ `~' a ., / ], L ~) ^L I..L U N -~ ~ ~~ ,, r~r , ~ ''' ~ i,~~ ~~i~~'~~d ~ pap~^~p a -_- __ u~nos~4~ao U~~~~~ N aan~n `~,~ o. 0 .,,~~~a//o ~ .c '''•~,,,,'••~a,h~h~ Q 0 U W ~~ ~ 08SN0285-1