HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201800005 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2018-10-03vjRGI13SQ`
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
October 3, 2018
John C. Wright, P.E. — Bohler Engineering VA, LLC
28 Blackwell Park Lane, Suite 201
Warrenton, VA 20186
jwright&bohlereng com / (540)-349-4500
Mike Sweeney — PT Hotel LLC
2000 Ware Bottom Spring Road
Chester, VA 23836
michael(&shaminhotels.com / (804)-777-9000
RE: Review Comment Letter #2 / ZMA-2018-00005 (Pantops Hotel — State Farm Boulevard)
Mr. Wright and Mr. Sweeney:
Members of Albemarle County staff and our partner agencies have reviewed your resubmittal
application materials (submitted 9/4/2018) for Zoning Map Amendment ZMA-2018-00005, which
requests approval of an Application Plan for an existing planned development district to allow the
development of a 130-room hotel on Tax Map Parcels #78-64 and #78-65.
Review comments are provided below, organized by Department, Division, or agency. Community
Development Department (CDD) staff believe the various review comments should be addressed
through a resubmittal of application materials, prior to scheduling a public hearing with the
Planning Commission. However, you have the right to request a public hearing without revision
and resubmittal, or to otherwise determine your course of action. (Please note: the "Action After
Receipt of Comment Letter" document will be provided to you in the immediate near future; it is
currently being revised in response to the recent adoption of zoning text amendments to Section 33
of the Zoning Ordinance which affect the review process timing and procedures).
As always, CDD staff remain available to provide assistance and discuss this comment letter, and
any other aspect(s) of your applications, at your request.
Planniniv
The following CDD-Planning review comments are organized as follows:
How the proposal relates to the Comprehensive Plan
The Neighborhood Model analysis
Additional Planning comments
Page 1 of 12
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 Planning
Commission review, and may change based on direction from the Commission and/or with
subsequent submittals.
The property is located on Tax Map Parcel #78-64 and #78-65, which are within the Neighborhood 3
(Pantops) Comprehensive Plan Area within the Development Area. The future land use designations
for these properties, as specified in the Pantops Master Plan ("Master Plan"), is as follows:
Urban Mixed Use —
The front portions of these parcels along State Farm Boulevard are designated "Urban Mixed Use"
which envisions (future) "retail, commercial services, office, and a mix of residential types based
on the Urban Density land use category. This mixed use land use category is expected to have
equal parts of residential and commercial uses."
Parks —
The rear portions of these parcels are designated "Parks" which envisions (future) "public and
semi-public parks, greenways, and more active recreation areas."
Page 2 of 12
In summary, the proposed hotel is consistent with the Urban Mixed Use future land use
designation. In general, the proposal does not develop or otherwise utilize the majority of the areas
of the subject property(s) designated for (future) "Parks" use(s).
Proposal —
The proposal is to develop a 130-room hotel on two undeveloped parcels. The project proposal and
application plan provide additional details.
Neighborhood Model:
In 2001, the County adopted the Neighborhood Model. The Neighborhood Model was
developed to guide the "form" of development. The Neighborhood Model recommends that
the Development Areas and new development have these characteristics:
12 Principles of the Neighborhood Model:
1. Pedestrian Orientation
2. Neighborhood Friendly Streets and
Paths
3. Interconnected Streets and
Transportation Networks
4. Parks and Open Space
5. Neighborhood Centers
6. Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale
7. Relegated Parking
8. Mixture of Uses
9. Mixture of Housing Types and
Affordability
10. Redevelopment
11. Site Planning that Respects Terrain
12. Clear Boundaries with Rural Areas
General comments on how well the proposed development meets the principles of the
Neighborhood Model are provided below. More detailed comments may be provided at a later date
if changes are made and/or after more detailed plans are provided.
Pedestrian
• Sidewalk and two crosswalks are proposed to provide safe, convenient
Orientation
pedestrian connection to the sidewalk along State Farm Blvd.
• Sidewalks are also proposed around the entirety of the structure.
• Street trees are proposed between the front property line and the curb/front
drive aisle.
• Landscape walls are proposed along a portion of the property's frontage, which
should contribute to a sense of spatial enclosure and enhance the pedestrian
orientation of the development (without bringing the primary structure any
closer to the ROW).
Principle is met.
Mixture of Uses
The land use designation of Urban Mixed Use anticipates a mixture of residential and
commercial uses in this area including retail, office, and service. A hotel would
contribute to a mixture of uses in this area.
Principle is met.
Page 3 of 12
Neighborhood
The development relates to the employment centers of State Farm Insurance and
Centers
Martha Jefferson Hospital. Proposal includes sidewalks and crosswalks from the front
hotel entrance designed to contribute to safe, convenient pedestrian connectivity
between the proposed hotel and nearby neighborhood centers in both directions of
State Farm Boulevard.
Principle is met.
Mixture of Housing
This principle is not immediately applicable — the proposed project is a hotel.
Types and
Principle is not applicable.
Affordability
Interconnected
The application plan provides a future interparcel connection to TMP #78-66 (to the
Streets and
southwest) to allow for future interparcel vehicular access and connectivity.
Transportation
Principle is met.
Networks
Multi -modal
Bicycle racks on the site could support and advance the use of alternative
Transportation
transportation modes, primarily in support of hotel employees and potentially in
Opportunities
support of visitors/tourists.
Principle is not met.
Parks, Recreational
Portions of the rear areas of these two parcels are designated as "Parks" in the
Amenities, and Open
Pantops Master Plan. The application plan proposes minimal disturbance or
Space
development of the managed steep slopes within the "Parks" future land use
designation; the large majority of these managed steep slopes would remain
undeveloped.
More specifically, the application plan designates approximately 2.0 acres in the rear
portions of the subject properties as a "Proposed Easement for Future Park" in
support of the "Parks" designation on the future land use plan. The project narrative
includes a section titled 'Proposed Proffer to Address Impact" which states that "The
owner will reserve an easement over the northern 2.0 acres (final area to be
determined at site plan). At time of certificate of occupancy, owner will transfer
property to County for a future park."
Additionally, in connection with ongoing County efforts to update the Pantops Master
Plan, staff ask the applicants to evaluate the feasibility of reserving or dedicating
(future) public access along the northeastern side yard of the development to the
area designated for "Parks" future land use in the rear of the subject property(s).
Principle is met.
Page 4 of 12
Buildings and Space
When applied to this proposed project on the subject properties, this principle should
of Human Scale
be embodied by: a building situated close to, and having a spatial relationship with,
the public ROW; a building with an articulated facade and non -monumental massing;
and parking spaces relegated to the sides and rear of the building.
With the resubmittal materials provided on 9/4/2018, the proposed height of the
structure has increased from sixty (6o) feet to approximately seventy-four (74+/-)
feet. This proposed height is not permissible per Zoning Ordinance Sections 25A.6
and 21.4; the maximum height is sixty-five (65) feet.
This proposed building height (with no front stepbacks, as shown on the rendering
presented to the Pantops CAC on 7/23/2018) would likely be overwhelming to the
public ROW if the main portion of the structure was located within the maximum
front yard setback (30'). However, the application plan shows the main portion of the
structure set back between 75' and 85' from the front property boundary, with the
port cochere being located approximately 32' from the front property boundary. This
combination of (proposed) setback and (proposed) height and (proposed) massing
(no stepback) prevents the building from creating an imposing or overwhelming
presence along the public ROW.
Additionally, the application plan now includes several landscape walls along a
portion of the property's frontage, which should contribute to a sense of spatial
enclosure and enhance the pedestrian orientation of the development (without
bringing the main portion of the structure any closer to the ROW).
However, staff have concerns about the overall size and massing of the proposed
hotel - at this increased height, and without any front stepbacks. Multiple renderings
and/or a digital model were supposed to be provided with the resubmittal
applications for use in the evaluation of this proposal; however, no such materials
have been received to date. Therefore, staff have not been able to fully evaluate the
proposal, or reach any conclusions about the appropriateness of the proposed hotel's
size and massing.
Importantly, as indicated above, please note that the proposed building footprint
location, height, and massing are not compliant with the stepback, setback, and
building height requirements or with other applicable Zoning Ordinance
requirements (and are not otherwise properly addressed through this ZMA
application) - see "Additional Planning Comments" #1, #2, and #3, below.
Principle is not met.
Relegated Parking
As noted in the project proposal dated 6/18/2018, the application plan was revised
(in response to staff comments made in connection with the pre -application meeting)
to eliminate some parking between the primary structure and the public ROW.
Specifically, the application plan dated 6/18/2018 retains four (4) universal access
spaces and seven (7) additional spaces on the "hotel side" of the front drive aisle; but
the parking spaces originally proposed on the opposite side of the front drive aisle
(closer to State Farm Boulevard ROW) were eliminated, to allow the hotel to be sited
closer to the street. Staff acknowledge this compromise.
Principle is partially met.
Redevelopment
The subject properties are currently undeveloped.
Principle is not applicable.
Page 5 of 12
Respecting Terrain
The rear portions of the parcels contain Steep Slopes (Managed) as well as a small
and Careful Grading
portion of Steep Slopes (Preserved) overlay districts. No preserved steep slopes are
and Re -grading of
impacted. The proposal does not impact or disturb a significant portion of these
Terrain
managed steep slopes, and terraced retaining walls are proposed for the portion
which is disturbed.
Principle isgenerally met.
Clear Boundaries
The subject properties are not adjacent to a Rural Area boundary.
with the Rural Area
principle is not applicable.
Additional Planning Comments:
1. Stegbacks: A front stepback is required for the proposed structure per County Code Chapter 18
("Zoning Ordinance") Sections 25A.6, 21.4, and 4.20(a). Staff acknowledge that Note 2 on
Sheet 3 of the Application Plan states that "The applicant is requesting that the County allow
the building to have no front stepbacks."
However, this proposed modification to the front stepback requirements must be formally
requested through a written submittal of a request for waiver or modification, pursuant to
Zoning Ordinance Section 8.2(b)(1), inclusive of your justification for the proposed waiver or
modification relative to the findings that must be made per Zoning Ordinance 8.2(b)(3).
Therefore, the proposal should be revised and resubmitted (either by complying with the front
stepback requirements, or by proposing to establish an alternative stepback requirement via the
process described above) prior to being taken to the Planning Commission for a public hearing.
2. Setbacks: The proposed primary structure is subject to minimum setback requirements and
maximum setback requirements per Zoning Ordinance Sections 25A.6, 21.4, and 4.20(a).
The proposal appears to comply with the applicable minimum setback requirements ("10 feet
from the right-of-way or the exterior edge of the sidewalk if the sidewalk is outside of the right-
of-way; for off-street parking or loading spaces, 10 feet from any public street right-of-way.").
However, the proposal is not compliant with the applicable maximum setback requirements
("30 feet from the right-of-way or the exterior edge of the sidewalk if the sidewalk is outside of
the right-of-way...").
Staff acknowledge that Note 3 on Sheet 3 of the Application Plan states that "The applicant is
requesting the County allow a minimum front building setback of 10' and an max front building
setback of 35' (to port cochere)." And staff are generally supportive of the revised site layout
you have provided on the Application Plan dated 9/4/2018, particularly in regards to the
revisions made to eliminate some parking spaces and bring the drive aisle, port cochere, and
main portion of the propose hotel closer to the public ROW. This is viewed as an acceptable
compromise which responds to the previous review comments regarding the Neighborhood
Model Principles, while still providing for the programmatic needs of your project.
However, this proposed modification to the maximum front setback requirements must be
formally requested through a submittal of a written request for waiver or modification, pursuant
to Zoning Ordinance Section 8.2(b)(1), inclusive of your justification for the proposed waiver
or modification relative to the findings that must be made per Zoning Ordinance 8.2(b)(3).
Therefore, the proposal should be revised and resubmitted (either by complying with the front
stepback requirements, or by proposing to establish an alternative stepback requirement via the
process described above) prior to being taken to the Planning Commission for a public hearing.
Page 6 of 12
3. Building Height, Viewsheds, and Visibility: The proposed hotel's height and location
(topographically prominent site) combine to create concerns about impacts to viewsheds from
State Farm Boulevard and from other locations in Pantops, as well as potential impacts to the
viewshed from Monticello. With the resubmittal materials provided on 9/4/2018, the proposed
height of the structure has increased from sixty (6o) feet to approximately seventy-four (74+/-)
feet. This proposed increase in building height increases the concerns referenced above.
Furthermore, the proposed height is not permissible per Zoning Ordinance Sections 25A.6 and
21.4; the maximum height is sixty-five (65) feet. Any proposal to modify or waive the building
height regulations must be requested through a submittal of a request for waiver or modification
pursuant to Zoning Ordinance 8.2(b)(1), inclusive of your justification for the proposed waiver
or modification relative to the findings that must be made per Zoning Ordinance 8.2(b)(3).
Staff also request and strongly recommend that the applicants provide some type of visual
analysis of the proposed hotel (as viewed from multiple locations along State Farm Boulevard,
and as viewed from multiple locations within the Pantops neighborhood), as requested by
members of the Pantops Community Advisory Committee during the community meeting on
7/23/2018. This type of visual information would be very helpful in the County's evaluation of
this proposal, and specifically in determining the appropriateness of the proposed height,
massing, and location.
Staff acknowledge the recent coordination with Ms. Liz Russell with the Thomas Jefferson
Foundation to understand what concerns (if any) the Foundation has, and to discuss potential
mitigation techniques (as may be applicable).
4. Proffer Statement: Proposed proffers should not be provided solely as a Note on the
Application Plan or as a statement in the Project Narrative. Specifically, per Zoning Ordinance
Section 33.22(B), all proffers must be provided in a separate "proffer statement" signed and
notarized by all applicable owner(s) or authorized agent(s).
Such a proffer statement would include any voluntary commitments to: develop the property in
general accord with the Application Plan (with a reference to the plan date); provide an
easement, dedication of land, or similar to the County for public use, regarding the area that is
outside of the development envelope and is designated as "Parks" on the future land use
designation; or provide any other commitments to address potential impacts.
5. Review Process: Staff believes the questions, issues, and concerns identified in this comment
letter should be addressed through revision and resubmittal of the proposed application plan and
project narrative, to demonstrate compliance with County Code requirements or to otherwise
demonstrate a commitment to addressing and mitigating the potential impacts associated with
these questions, issues, or concerns.
Specifically, any requests to waive or modify the setback requirements, stepback requirements,
and/or building height regulations should be included in the resubmittal, as well as any
renderings or other digital models which help illustrate the proposed building's physical
characteristics in the context of it's physical location.
Due to the Board of Supervisors' action on 9/5/2018 to adopt zoning text amendments to
Section 33 of the Zoning Ordinance which affect the timing of review processes, it appears that
your application must be deferred until you resubmit revised application materials. More
information will be provided to you in the immediate near future regarding the new procedural
requirements for resubmittals and deferrals.
Page 7 of 12
6. Required ParkinSpaces: Staff acknowledge that the number of proposed parking spaces have
been reduced to accommodate previous review comments relating to Neighborhood Model
Principles, such as "Relegated Parking" and "Interconnected Streets and Transportation
Networks." For the proposed parking reduction for the hotel use, please provide a written
analysis and justification for the proposed use of a ratio of 0.92 parking spaces per guest room
(as opposed to using the standard ratio of 1.0 space per guest room, as otherwise required by
Zoning Ordinance Sections 25A.6, 21.3, and 4.12.6).
Specifically, any proposal to modify or waive the minimum number of required parking spaces
must be requested through a submittal of a request for waiver or modification pursuant to
Zoning Ordinance 8.2(b)(1), inclusive of your justification for the proposed waiver or
modification relative to the findings that must be made per Zoning Ordinance 8.2(b)(3).
7. (Advisory) Additional Future Permitting Requirements: If this ZMA application is approved,
the proposed hotel development would be subject to approval of a Site Plan and Water
Protection Ordinance (WPO) Plan / VSMP Plan.
Engineering:
The following CDD-Engineering review comments (below) were provided by County Engineer
Frank Pohl, P.E., C.F.M. on 7/10/2018; the County Engineer has indicated that these review
comments can be addressed at the site plan and VSMP review process.
1. VSMP permitting will be required [through the preparation and submittal of a Water Protection
Ordinance (WPO) Plan application, separate from the Site Development Plan application].
2. Consider discharging stormwater at one of the rear corners to avoid piping under 4 retaining walls.
3. Consider providing interparcel connection to TMP 78-63.
The following additional CDD-Engineering review comments (below) were provided by County
Engineer Frank Pohl, P.E., C.F.M. on 9/28/2018:
A. I now realize the pipe discharging stormwater at the rear of the property contains water from the
public right of way. This pipe will need to be located in a public drainage easements, and such,
cannot be piped under the retaining walls. This comment can be addressed during the VSMP
review process.
B. [9VAC25-870-66(B)] - "Channel Protection. Concentrated stormwater flows shall be released into
a stormwater conveyance system..." Applicant will need to show there is a channel at the outlet
location, or may need to extend the outlet to the channel located near the rear property line. This
comment can be addressed during the VSMP review process.
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA):
The following comments (below) related to public utilities have been provided by Richard Nelson,
P.E. on 7/18/2018:
• No Objection.
The following additional comments (below) related to public utilities have been provided by
Richard Nelson, P.E. on 9/25/2018:
• No Objection.
Page 8 of 12
Albemarle County Fire & Rescue:
The following comments (below) have been provided by Deputy Fire Marshall Shawn Maddox on
7/16/2018:
1. VSMP permitting will be required [through the preparation and submittal of a Water Protection
Ordinance (WPO) Plan application, separate from the Site Development Plan application].
2. Consider discharging stormwater at one of the rear corners to avoid piping under 4 retaining walls.
3. Consider providing interparcel connection to TMP 78-63.
The following additional comments (below) have been provided by Deputy Fire Marshall Shawn
Maddox on 9/19/2018:
A. Previous comments were not acknowledged on the resubmittal. There must be a 26' travel way
along at least one entire side of the structure due to the building height. The 26' travel way
should be a minimum of 15' and a maximum of 30' from the structure and be parallel to the
structure.
Action after Receipt of Comments:
After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified in the "Action After Receipt
of Comment Letter." As noted above (page 7), due to the Board of Supervisors' action on 9/5/2018
to adopt zoning text amendments to Section 33 of the Zoning Ordinance which affect the timing of
review processes, it appears that your application must be deferred until you resubmit revised
application materials.
More detailed information (including a revised "Action After Receipt of Comment Letter") will be
provided to you in the immediate near future, regarding the new procedural requirements for
resubmittals and deferrals.
Resubmittal:
If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. The resubmittal date schedule is provided
for your convenience.
Notification and Advertisement Fees:
Prior to scheduling a public hearing with the Planning Commission:
$ 406.00 = Cost for newspaper advertisement
$ 215.00 = Cost for notification of adjoining owners (minimum $200 + actual postage/$1 per owner
after 50 adjoining owners)
$ 621.00 = 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.
$ 406.00 = Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing
$ 1,027.00 = 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.
Page 9 of 12
Please contact me if you would like to set up a meeting to discuss this comment letter or any other
aspect of your proposed project, or to share any questions or requests for assistance you may have.
My phone number is (434) 296-5832, x. 3088, and my email address is tpadalinogalbemarle.org.
Sincerely,
U
Tim Padalino, AICP
Senior Planner
Planning Services
Page 10 of 12
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP # or ZMA #
I'ir Amount S Dan Paid By who? RC CipS Ck# By:
Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit or � u
Zoning Map Amendment i``l�ir��
PROJECT N[NIBER: ZMA 7..4 Ooae 5} PROJECT NAME; i IZOFOSBD iT G
Resubmittal Fee is Required ❑ Per Request ❑ Resubmittal Fee is Not Require-d
Community Development Project Coordinator
Signature Tate
Name of Applicant
Signature
FEES
Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit — original Special Use Permit fee of $1,475
❑ First resubmission
❑ Fach additional resubmission
Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $2,150
❑ First resubmission
❑ Each additional resubmission
Phone Number
Date
FRLE
5538
S I .[)75
Resubmittal fees fur uriginal Zoning Map Amen dmcr)t fee of $2,088
LJ First resubmission FREE
XEach additional resubmission $1,344
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,763
Q First resubmission
❑ Each additional resubmission
13 Deferral ofseheduled Dublic bearing at annlicant's reunest —Add'[ notice fees will he required
FREE
$1.881
$294
To be paid after. staff review for public notice:
Ntost applications for Special Use Perni is and Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission
and one public hearing by the Board of Supervisors- Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing
a legal advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. 'Therefore, at least two fees for public notice
arc required before a Zoning Nlap Amendment may be heard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public notice will he
provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the application is heard by a public body.
MAKE CHECKS TO COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE1PAYMENT AT COO
Preparing and mailing or dclivcring up to fifty (50) notices
Y' Preparing and mating ur delivering wch notice after fifty (50)
r Lcgal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public Rearing)
ITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTER
S215 1 actual opst of filr -class pottage
S 1.00 for each additional notice -1 actual
cost of first-class postage
Actual cnsL
[mini1 nilTT1 of 5280 for total of 4 publications
County of Albemarle Department of Community De- eiopment
401 11' eWire Toad Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 290-5832 Coax: (434) 972-4126
1..2A+17 Pago 1 oft
Page 11 of 12
Albemarle County, Virginia
2018 Submittal and Review Schedule
Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendments
Resubmittal
Schedule
Resubmittal Dates
Comments to applicant
for decision on whether to
proceed to Public Hearing
Payment Due for Public
Hearing Legal Ad
Planning Commission Public
Hearing Date*
No sooner than
Monday
Wednesday
Friday
Tuesday
Dec 18 2017
Jan 17
Jan 26
Feb 20
Wednesday, Jan 3
Jan 31
Feb 9
Mar 6
Tuesday, Jan 16
Feb 14
Feb 23
Mar 20
Jan 29
Feb 28
Mar 16
Apr 10
Feb 05
Mar 7
Mar 16
Apr 10
Tuesday Feb 20
Mar 21
Mar 30
Apr 24
Mar 5
Apr 4
Apr 6
May 1
Mar 19
Apr 18
Apr 27
May 22
Apr 2
May 2
May 18
Jun 12
Apr 16
May 16
Jun 1
Jun 26
Apr 30
May 30
Jun 1
Jun 26
May 7
Jun 6
Jun 15
Jul 10
May 21
Jun 20
Jun 29
Jul 24
Jun 4
Jul
Jul 13
Aug 7
Jun 18
Jul 18
Jul 27
Aug 21
Jul 2
Aug 1
Aug 10
Sep 4
Jul 16
Aug 15
Aug 31
Sep 25
Jul 30
Aug 29
Aug 31
Sep 25
Aug 6
Sep 5
Sep 14
Oct 9
Aug 20
Sep 19
Sep 28
Oct 23
Tuesday Sep 4
Oct 3
Oct 5
Oct 30
Sep 17
Oct 17
Oct 19
Nov13
Oct 1
Oct 31
Nov 9
Dec 4
Oct 15
Nov 14
Nov 20**
Dec 18
Oct 29
Nov 28
Dec 21
Jan 15 2019
Nov 5
Dec 5
Dec 21
Jan 15 2019
Nov 19
Dec 19
Dec 21
Jan 15 2019
Dec 3
Jan 2 2019
Jan 4 2019
Jan 29 2019
Dec 17
Jan 16 2019
Jan 25 2019
Feb 19 2019
Jan 72019
Feb 62019
Feb82019
Mar 52019
2019 Dates are tentative; shading indicates a different year
*Public hearing dates have been set by the Planning Commission; however, if due to unforeseen circumstances the
Planning Commission is unable to meet on this date, your project will be moved to the closest available agenda
date.
"Off -date to accommodate holidays.
Dates in bold italics fall on a Tuesday due to a holiday.
Page 12 of 12