HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201900004 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2019-05-31�jRGINS�'
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
May 31, 2019
Charlie Armstrong
170 South Pantops Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22911
CharlesAksouthern-development.com / (434)-245-0895
RE: Review Comment Letter #1 / ZMA-2019-00004 (Breezy Hill)
Mr. Armstrong:
Members of Albemarle County staff and our partner agencies have reviewed your application
materials for Zoning Map Amendment ZMA-2019-00004, which is a request to rezone a total of
approximately 84 acres from Rural Areas zoning district (which allows residential uses at a density of
0.5 unit/acre) to R4 Residential (which allows residential density of 4 units/acre, with the potential for
additional units if bonus factors are applied). The proposed 200 (maximum) dwelling units would
result in this proposed development having a gross density of 2.38 units/acre.
Review comments are provided below, organized by Department, Division, or agency. Community
Development Department (CDD) — Planning staff strongly suggest scheduling a Work Session with
the Planning Commission (PC) in order to review the proposal and to discuss relevant Comprehensive
Plan language and recommendations, without the PC taking any action on the proposal. However, you
have the right to revise and resubmit your application, to request a public hearing without revision and
resubmittal, or to otherwise determine your course of action (please see the attached "Action After
Receipt of Comment Letter" document for detailed information).
As always, CDD staff remain available to provide assistance and discuss this comment letter, potential
next steps, and/or any other aspect(s) of your application, at your request. Thank you.
Respectfully,
Tim Padalino, AICP
Senior Planner I Community Development Department I Planning Division
tpadalino&albemarle.org 1(434)-296-5832 x 3088
Page 1 of 14
CDD—Planning (Review Status: "Requested Changes" — 5/31/2019)
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
• Conclusion
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.
Breez Hill ZMA - Future Land Use Plan
93A1-4R7
g0-
;y`'�
Legend
80- 0B
n-
P-,l IN.
80.55B
ge n n gp' 80•S Q2
80-62
❑ P-1i
cwrc plan[ and P. IN.
80-53
ti q-5 0-59B1
8D
Gaipel—ive Plen Arees
80 5d v 80-58
9 �9 0-$96
VbWmM—M.—Plen Lend
Wghhorl W DenyiN Re9ld-A I
g@'�
pasieannai
M55C
80-55
Oh
_ T—Wil ow
■ haGhairanN
80-
■ PaM1saM Green Systerns
by
ST
s-sa
`'
sa-5rA
-48A
80-63A
Sy
80-56B
80-63B
0.6d �
y 80.49
80-55 80-56A1 80-56A
m
�
6
�O
'yam
/
80•fi5
gti
� 8F
y1
94-4
94-46
94-3
!y�
94-SA 94-a
99-47A 908
a
d-47B sph
�
a v
�C• 1
1
y �'�•,qy Sri w -
C
94.5 a AQ94
d
�`
rn � C
� ��c0' 94•d6A
94-6
94-7 94-8C¢
A}P�
93A4-H4 a.
Nye
9 A4-51-2 .y
9d-SF
9s 94-8E
4-14
g39
94-7A L fl 94-d R1
...
S
94-9 94.BD
q
9d-46A2 t _
5 w
94-10 94-51 84-4 R �
94-12C
f?l 9q �1a
94-11A
n✓' ff O
47l m
O
N
750 ft 7, 4` 94-57 94-12C1
a�-q..0.2-48 eff
wswee
93A4--Q2-5 g30.6
�qY 94-58
r0q 94-103
�ia.q�
iaen sawess
r aai.�,..s� a ��anr a�a. o� air avr�� �� cnr®ra�mvo.e,�ma.c�r.ma, a� oo.daaaa . ��, w�em m���-asrw,Q+r:�nsna� �m.�a a, oe �oR amr�,oa. v�.,rrnr m.mo�mama io rea. Pan.w r<��,noca aam ne�.�m,� Ma �s.;a�a
The "subject property" for this ZMA application includes eight properties identified as Tax Map #94,
Parcels #1A, 5, 6, 8, 8A, 8C, 48, and 48A, which are within the Village of Rivanna Comprehensive
Plan Area within the Development Area. The subject property is designated for "Neighborhood Density
Residential — Low" uses (shown in pale yellow) and also "Parks and Green Systems" uses on the
Future Land Use Map in the Village of Rivanna Master Plan (Master Plan).
The following comments relate to aspects of your proposal which are not clearly consistent with the
Page 2 of 14
Comprehensive Plan and/or Village of Rivanna Master Plan:
I. (Growth Capacity): County policies and recommendations (as well as community expectations)
regarding the capacity for additional land development and population growth in the Village of
Rivanna have been established in the Master Plan. Concerns exist regarding the Master Plan
language regarding the necessity of completing certain infrastructure improvements (relating to
transportation and sewage treatment plant) prior to approving rezoning proposals within the
Village of Rivanna.
Specifically, the following language establishes the (potential) appropriateness of rezoning land in
the Village of Rivanna as being dependent on the completion of certain infrastructure
improvements and upgrades:
a. Implementation — Population Capacity and Future Rezonings (Master Plan p. 43):
"Additional development in the Village currently is limited by Rural Areas zoning on
most undeveloped parcels and the capacity of the sewage treatment plant which was
installed for the Village. Although the treatment plant is currently operating at a little
more than a third of its capacity, dwelling units which have already been approved
plus the non-residential uses in the Village Center will use much of the remaining
capacity. The actual number of additional units which may be approved for
development in the future depends on the capacity of the sewage treatment plant. An
additional 300 to 400 new units may be possible, if water and sewer usage in the
Glenmore development continues at the same usage. Monitoring of available capacity
is essential for any future development. If in the future, the Board of Supervisors
decides that additional capacity is needed in this Development Area, then major
upgrades will be needed for the sewage treatment facility.
In addition to sewer limitations, approval of any development by rezoning will be
predicated on the completion of a number of transportation improvements, which are
identified in the tables in this chapter. These improvements are needed to improve the
volume to capacity ratio of US 250 between Route 22 (Louisa Road) and the City of
Charlottesville. "
b. Implementation — Transportation (Master Plan p. 43): "Addressing traffic issues on US
250 is the highest priority for the Village of Rivanna. Several regional projects
identified in the next few pages are necessary to address future growth in a larger
area, but also affect the Village of Rivanna. It is essential that all of the US 250
improvements be constructed before new development occurs in the Village.
c. Timing of Development (Master Plan Executive Summary p. 7): "Approval of future
development proposals should occur simultaneously with or follow provision of
adequate infrastructure. " ... "Approval of future development should be monitored in
conjunction with improvements to US 250 and available sewer capacity so that
approval of new units or uses does not exceed capacity of the sewage treatment plant
or the road system. "
d. The transportation improvements referred to in the above excerpts include the following
list of projects (below), as identified on Master Plan page 38. Please note the [staff
commentary] for each project, regarding current project status and other remarks;
commentary is subject to additional detail and/or clarification by the Transportation
Planner and/or VDOT. Please also note that additional "Transportation Implementation
Projects" are listed and described in more detail on Master Plan pages 47-48.
i. "Interchange improvements at I-64 and US 250 East" [incomplete, but funded]
Page 3 of 14
ii. "Six -lane US 250 from Free Bridge east to the I-64 interchange" [partially
complete, with continuous right turn lane and continuous center turn lane;
improvements to the few remaining exceptions are not funded]
iii. "Four -lane US 250 from the US250/I-64 interchange to Route 729 (Milton Road)
and, possibly, Glenmore Way [not complete; not funded; previously identified as
not feasible]
iv. "Intersection improvements at US 250 and Route 729 (Milton Road) [not complete,
not funded; not prioritized]
v. "Bridge improvement or replacement over railroad at Route 22 (Louisa Road)"
[complete]
vi. "Addition of eastbound left turn and westbound right turn lanes on US 250 at Route
616 (Black Cat Road)" [project requires additional evaluation for confirming this
recommendation or removing this recommendation]
vii. Project C I Not identified as a County priority; not funded; etc.
e. Clarification is needed (from the PC, CDD staff, and VDOT) in order to determine how
to interpret and administer these policies, in consideration of the varying degrees of
feasibility for the numerous projects contained in the plan.
f. Clarification is needed (from ACSA and/or RWSA) regarding the sewage treatment
plant's current capacity and available capacity.
i. Note: Staff acknowledges the statement in the project narrative which explains
"The Developer has had extensive meetings with [ACSA]. Adequate water and
sewer capacity currently exists for the proposed density."
2. Densi : The proposed density exceeds the recommended density as articulated in the Village of
Rivanna Master Plan.
a. Future Land Use Plan (Master Plan p. 31): The future land use designation for the subject
properties is "Neighborhood Density Residential — Low" which recommends residential
development (2 units or less/acre), with supporting (accessory) uses such as places of
worship, schools, public and institutional uses. With the application materials showing the
subject properties being 84 acres in size (aggregate total), this recommended density
equates to a maximum of 168 dwelling units (max).
Even with the proposed proffer to limit the total unit county to 200 total units (max), that
would still produce a density of approximately 2.38 units/acre, which exceeds the
recommended density in the Master Plan.
b. Future Land Use — Residential Areas (Master Plan pp. 25-26): The Master Plan identifies
the Breezy Hill subject property as being in "Area B" and recommends a "possible"
density of 1 unit/acre for this portion of the Village of Rivanna. The following "key
recommendation" in the Master Plan provides the underlying concept for the relatively low
recommended residential density in this portion of the Development Areas: "Density will
radiate from the Village Center with the lowest densities at the edges of the Development
Area." (Executive Summary, page 5; and Future Land Use — Residential Areas, page 25)
In addition, the following recommendation further articulates the expectations for a
gradient of development, with lower density development in the area that contains the
subject properties for this proposal: "Developed land on the east side of Carroll Creek is
not expected to change in character, as it provides for a transition to the Rural Areas."
(Future Land Use — Residential Areas, page 25)
Page 4 of 14
Although this recommended "possible" density of 1 unit/acre represents development at
twice the density of the Rural Areas zoning district (which is 0.5 units/acre max), it would
still be relatively low density for the Development Areas, and would be a lower density
than other residential developments approved in the Village of Rivanna Development
Area.
Clarification is needed (from the PC and CDD staff) in order to determine which Master
Plan recommendation should be considered primary:
i. The Future Land Use insert, which designates "Area B" as having the "lowest
density of this Development Area" and further recommends a residential
density of 1 unit/acre; or
ii. The Future Land Use Plan designation of "Neighborhood Density Residential —
Low," which recommends a residential density of 2 units/acre (max).
3. (Consistency): Staff has identified an apparent discrepancy between language in the
"Development Areas" chapter of the Comprehensive Plan and language in the Village of Rivanna
Master Plan, as described below.
a. Village of Rivanna Master Plan —Recommendation for Transition: The Master Plan
includes a "key recommendation" for residential density to "radiate" (decrease) from
the Village Center towards the Village edges, and also contains language identifying
"land on the east side of Carroll Creek ... [as] a transition to the Rural Areas. "
b. Comprehensive Plan — Recommendation for Distinction: The Comprehensive Plan
strategy to establish clear, distinct boundaries between the Development Areas and
Rural Areas by promoting (comparatively) dense development within the Development
Areas that extends to the edge of the Rural Areas.
Specifically, Strategy 2r in the Development Areas chapter states "Promote use of
Development Area land up to the boundary with the Rural Area. Do not require
transitional areas between the Rural Area and Development Areas." Supporting
language further states that "In most circumstances, development in the Development
Areas should extend to the Rural Area boundary in order to use the full potential of the
Development Areas and not have to expand into the Rural Area. Transitions of large -
lot subdivisions at the boundary are discouraged, as they are neither rural nor urban.
They are too small for agricultural uses and muddy the edge. "
c. Clarification is needed (from the PC and CDD staff) in order to review this apparent
contrast, and to determine which recommendations are more pertinent:
i. The language in the Village of Rivanna Master Plan that calls for residential
development intensity to gradually decreases from the Center in the Village of
Rivanna to the edges of the Development Area; or
ii. The language in the Development Areas Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan
that recommends a consistent development density and intensity throughout the
Development Areas, continuing to boundaries with adjoining Rural Areas.
The following comments (below) relate to aspects of your proposal which appear to be consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan and/or Village of Rivanna Master Plan. Additional review may result in
identification of additional examples of consistency.
1. Trail/Multi-Use Path proposed along US 250, as recommended in the Future Transportation
Network section of the Master Plan.
Page 5 of 14
2. Semi -Public Open Spaces are proposed along Carroll Creek and its tributaries, as recommended
in the Parks and Green Systems Plan in the Master Plan.
3. Vehicular entrances from US 250 and Running Deer Drive are generally sited in locations
recommended on the Future Land Use Plan (Detail Map 2) in the Master Plan.
4. Two future interparcel connections are proposed, including one in a location that is
recommended on the Future Land Use Plan (Detail Map 2) in the Master Plan.
Neighborhood Model:
In 2001, the County adopted the Neighborhood Model (NM), which consists of twelve different
recommended characteristics to guide the form of proposed development projects within the
Development Areas.
Initial comments on how well the proposed development meets the principles of the Neighborhood
Model are provided below, to the extent that NM analysis can be conducted at this time with the
materials provided to date. More detailed comments will be provided at a later date in conjunction
with the preparation of a staff report.
Pedestrian
The proposal includes pedestrian infrastructure, including primitive nature trails and
Orientation
a multi -use path along US 250.
Principle met.
Mixture of Uses
This proposal is for residential uses only (with associated infrastructure and
amenities). The Master Plan does not recommend other uses in this area.
Principle is not immediately applicable.
Neighborhood
The Master Plan recommends a Village Cetner to the west of the subject property.
Centers
The proposal includes future interparcel connections and a multi -use path that would
facilitate connectivity between the proposed residential development and center.
Principle met.
Mixture of
The project narrative appears to indicate that only single-family detached dwellings
Housing Types
would be included in this proposal. Separately, an affordable housing proffer cannot
and Affordability
be considered or discussed at this time.
Evaluation pending/incomplete.
Interconnected
The proposed street network contains a partially interconnected street network, but
Streets and
relies significantly on a layout comprised of cul-de-sac streets and blocks. The
Transportation
proposal includes on -site pedestrian connections. The proposal also includes two
Networks
proposed future interparcel connections as well as a multi -use path along US 250.
Principle is partially met.
Multi -modal
No information is provided regarding transit or bicycle infrastructure or services;
Transportation
however, connectivity to the Village Center is incorporated into this proposal, which
Opportunities
will help provide access to multi -modal transportation opportunities.
Principle is partially met; further evaluation pending.
Parks,
The proposal includes an open space system comprised of pocket parks, trails, and
Recreational
undisturbed conservation areas.
Amenities, and
Principle is met.
Open Space
Page 6 of 14
Buildings and
Evaluation pending.
Space of Human
Scale
Relegated
Evaluation pending.
Parking
Redevelopment
Principle is generally not applicable.
Respecting
It appears that effort was made to situate the improvements into the existing
Terrain and
landscape without creating unnatural large, flat plateaus (or "pads"). However,
Careful Grading
several proposed improvements (such as stream crossings) appear to propose
and Re -grading of
substantial re -grading - including instances in proximity to critical slopes.
Terrain
Evaluation incomplete.
Clear Boundaries
As noted above in comment #3 within the Comprehensive Plan section of this
with the Rural
comment letter (p. 5), clarification is needed in order to interpret and apply this
Area
principle to this proposal and property.
Evaluation pending.
Additional Planning Comments:
(Draft) Proffer Statement:
"Proffered Plan "
a. Please review the referenced date to the "General Development Plan" (June 10, 2013),
and correct as may be necessary.
b. This commitment should identify the "major elements" of the proffered plan (such as
entrance locations, street networks, interparcel connections, buffers and/or setbacks,
site layout and/or block layout, density limits, limits of disturbance, or other elements).
c. The proposal to reserve permission for future Variances to Site Plans or Subdivision
Plats is not acceptable; any language to this effect should be removed.
2. `Density Limit"
a. Staff acknowledge this voluntary commitment to develop a maximum of 200 dwelling
units. This commitment should be incorporated into the "General Accord with General
Development Plan" proffer as a "major element" of that proffered plan.
3. "Cash Proffer for Capital Imporvement Projects "
a. Staff acknowledge this voluntary commitment to contribute approximately $4M to be
used towards unfunded transportation improvements that are identified as being
necessary prerequisites for any potential rezoning approvals in the Village of Rivanna.
However, at this time the County is not able to accept such a proffer, and County staff
cannot currently engage in communications regarding this proposed proffer.
4. `Affordable Housing"
a. Staff acknowledge this voluntary commitment to help support and advance certain
policies and recommendations in the Comp Plan as well as other County policies
relating to affordable housing. However, at this time the County is not able to accept
such a proffer, and County staff cannot currently engage in communications regarding
this proposed proffer.
Transportation:
1. Please see comment #1 within the Comprehensive Plan section of this comment letter (p. 3) for
important information regarding transportation infrastructure capacity and planned
Page 7 of 14
transportation improvements.
2. In consultation with the Transportation Planner and VDOT, staff recommends expanding the
scope of the TIA to include additional intersections to the west.
3. Please see review comments from Kevin McDermott, Principal Planner, CDD-Planning /
Transportation. kmcdermottgalbemarle.org
4. Please see review comments from Adam Moore, PE, Assistant Resident Engineer — Land Use,
VDOT. adam.moore&vdot.virginia.gov
Concept Plan:
1. Please clarify the distinction(s) between the "General Development Plan" document (dated
4/23/2019), which is referenced in Proffer 1, and the "Conceptual Layout / General
Development Plan" document (dated 3/30/2018), which is not referenced in Proffer 1.
2. Please consider consolidating all proffered plans into one document, and consolidating all
remaining "conceptual" plans that have been submitted "for informational purposes" into a
second, supplemental document.
3. The Breezy Hill site is in a portion of the Rt. 250 East EC that is non -arterial, and as such the
EC regulations are not currently being applied along that segment. However, the concept plan
shows a stormwater facility adjacent to Rt. 250. Even if the street is not an EC, maintaining the
rural character along the street is important. Moving the stormwater facility away from the
street and maintaining a landscape buffer between the street and the facility would support
this. Please note that this recommendation is subject to revision, based on the type and size of
the stormwater facility proposed in this prominent area.
Conclusion:
Staff recommends that the applicant engage the Planning Commission in a Work Session, which
would provide an opportunity to openly discuss these issues with the Commission and staff without
any subsequent action being taken by the Commission, and to otherwise gain a clearer understanding
of the Commission's interpretations of the Comp Plan and Master Plan policies and recommendations
regarding the various issues identified in this comment letter.
In addition to consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, please also be advised that all zoning map
amendment applications are evaluated relative to the "factors to be considered" specified in County
Code § 18-33.27(B).
CDD—Natural Resources Manager (Review Status: "See Recommendations" 5/28/2019)
David Hannah, Natural Resources Manager, provided the following review comments:
Based on a review of GIS data, below are some observations about the parcels identified in the ZMA
application:
Carroll Creek forms much of the western boundary of the project area. Two intermittent streams
originate in the project area and flow westward into Carroll Creek, both have ponds/lakes
associated with them. Wooded riparian buffers cover much of the property. National Wetlands
Inventory shows potential wetlands associated with Carroll Creek and the lakes/ponds on the
intermittent streams. No hydric soils are present. There are some steep bluffs adjacent to Carroll
Creek and also in some areas along both intermittent streams. Carroll Creek and part of the
northernmost intermittent stream do not meet state water quality standards for aquatic life. They
were designated as impaired for aquatic life by Va DEQ, in their 2016 assessment of waters
statewide.
Page 8 of 14
Assuming the GIS information is accurate, I would make the following recommendations:
• Since Carrol Creek is an impaired waterway, land disturbance should not occur near it. The woody
riparian buffer along Carrol Creek should be maintained and left undisturbed.
• A buffer width of more than 100' (as required by the WPO) is recommended.
• Preventing land disturbance and maintaining or creating wooded riparian buffers along the two
intermittent streams is also highly recommended. This will help protect Carroll Creek as well as
the section of the northernmost intermittent stream that is impaired for aquatic life.
• Preventing land disturbance and maintaining wooded buffers will help conserve areas of steep slope
and possible wetlands that are in close proximity to Carroll Creek and the intermittent streams.
CDD-Zoning:
Written review comments have not been received; any written review comments provided by CDD-Zoning
staff will be promptly forwarded upon receipt.
CDD-Engineering (Review Status: "See Recommendations" — 5/29/2019)
Frank Pohl, PE, CFM, County Engineer provided the following review comments:
These comments can be addressed during subdivisionNSMP reviews.
1. The limits of floodway and base flood elevation must be determined by the applicant prior to
VSMP, subdivision or site plan approval [18-30.3.13(C)l]. Grading, even for a pedestrian trail,
cannot occur within the regulatory floodway unless it will be maintained by the County; however, a
primitive trail is allowed in the floodway.
2. It is recommended that proposed grades do not exceed 3:1.
3. Documentation that existing ponds meet current SWM construction standards may be required.
Albemarle County Service Authority / ACSA (Review Status: "See Recommendations" — 5/15/2019)
Written review comments from ACSA are provided below:
ALBEHIAME COUNTYCOMnnUNI7YDEVELOPMENT—Infom7ation from Service Providers
To be filled DU it by ACSA far ZMA's and 5P's
ij Is this site in the jurisdictional area far water and/ar sewer? Water and Sewer
2) What Is the distance to the closest water and sewer Ilne, If In the Jurlsellctional area? Previous
meetings discussed a water main extension alone Running Deer Lane. Sewer is along Glenmore.
j Are Cher-ewater pressure Issues which may affect the prorm d use as shown oar plan?
4) Are them major upgrades needed tv the water distributiuR or sewer collection system of which the
applicant and staff should be aware?
5) Are there other service provi3ion issues such as the need for grinder pumps? Unknown
6) Which issues should he resolved at the SP/ZMA stage and which issues can be resolved at the site
plan/plat stage?
7) If the project is a large water user, what long term impacts or impiicat-ions do you farsee?
9) Addlt1onel Comments? There may be offsite credits for ek"kidlm water main aipng Running beer.
Full water and sewer connection fees apply.
Albemarle County Fire & Rescue (Review Status: "See Recommendations" — 5/13/2019)
The following comments (below) have been provided by Deputy Fire Marshall Shawn Maddox:
Fire Rescue has no objections to the Zoning Map amendment as submitted but will offer the following
Page 9 of 14
comments that will be addressed during the site plan review process:
1. Prior to the issuance of the 31 st building permit the second entrance/exit shall be completed.
2. Travel ways must provide a minimum of 20' clear travel width, on street parking arrangements
should take this in to account.
3. Adequate fire flow based on building square footage will be required along with a fire flow test
prior to final acceptance.
4. Minimum turning radius shall be 25'
5. Any cul-de-sac or turn arounds will be required to meet current fire code requirements.
Action after Receipt of Comments:
After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified on the following pages titled
"Action After Receipt of Comment Letter."
Resubmittal:
If you choose to resubmit, please submit revised application materials on one of the formal resubmittal
dates. There is no fee for the first resubmittal. The resubmittal date schedule for 2019 is attached.
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. As noted
above, my phone number is (434) 296-5832 x. 3088, and my email address is 1padalinogalbemarle.org.
Page 10 of 14
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ACTION AFTER RECEIPT OF COMMENT LETTER
FIRST SET OF COMMENTS
Your project has been scheduled for a public hearing by the Planning Commission (PC) for July 30,
2019, which is 90 days from the date your application was accepted for review. State Code requires
a 90-day review by the PC unless the applicant requests deferral. As you will read in this comment
letter, staff recommends changes to your project to help you achieve approval. Without these
changes, staff cannot recommend approval to the PC.
If you would like to address the comments you must request deferral by Friday, June 28.
(Instructions for requesting a deferral are outlined below.) Please note that you can submit
revisions, and continue to receive review comments from County staff, even if you defer your
application.
If you choose not to request deferral, staff will take your project to the Planning Commission for a
public hearing on July 30, 2019 as originally submitted, but without a recommendation of approval.
No later than Friday, June 28, 2019, please do one of the following:
(1) Resubmit in response to review comments by the date noted above
(2) Request deferral pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 33.52
(3) Proceed to Planning Commission public hearing on July 30, 2019
(4) Withdraw your application
(1) Resubmittal in Response to Review Comments
Due to the 90-day review by the Planning Commission as required by State Code, there is not a
resubmittal date available between the date of this letter and the date of the July 30, 2019 PC Public
Hearing.
However, if you choose to defer and then resubmit (see option (2), below) please be sure to include
the resubmittal form on the last page of vour comment letter with vour submittal.
The application fee which you paid covers staff review of the initial submittal and one resubmittal.
Each subsequent resubmittal requires an additional fee.
(2) Deferral requested
To request deferral, you must submit a request in writing to defer action by the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors. The request may be made by email. You may request a
deferral for up to 36 months from the date your application was accepted for review, which is April
Page 11 of 14
15, 2022. However, all outstanding information necessary for PC action must be submitted no later
than January 15, 2022, according to the published schedule. (See Section 18-33.52 of the Albemarle
County Code.)
(3) Proceed to Planning Commission Public Hearing on July 30, 2019
At this time, you may request that your application proceed to public hearing with the Planning
Commission on July 30, 2019. With this option, staff will take your project to the PC as originally
submitted, but without a recommendation of approval.
(4) Withdraw Your Application
If at any time you wish to withdraw your application, please provide your request in writing.
Resubmittals
As stated above, a deferral does not preclude you from resubmitting the application to address
changes based upon the comments. If you would like to resubmit after you defer, you may do so in
accordance with the resubmittal schedule. Be sure to include the resubmittal form on the last page
of vour comment letter with vour submittal.
The application fee which you paid covers staff review of the initial submittal and one resubmittal.
Each subsequent resubmittal requires an additional fee.
Failure to Respond
An application shall be deemed to be voluntarily withdrawn if the applicant requests deferral
pursuant to subsection 33.52(A) and fails to provide within 90 days before the end of the deferral
period all of the information required to allow the Board to act on the application, or fails to request
a deferral as provided in subsection 33.52(B) or (C).
Fee Payment
Fees paid in cash or by check must be paid at the Community Development Intake Counter. Make
checks payable to the County of Albemarle. Do not send checks directly to the Review Coordinator.
Fees may also be paid by credit card using the secure online payment system, accessed at
http://www.albemarle.org/department.asp?department=cdd&relpage=21685.
Page 12 of 14
019 S u bmittal and Review Schedule
Special Use Permits and Zoning Flap Amendments
l' esubmittal Schedule
Resubmittal Dates
I ornments given to the
Applicant
Applicant requests PCB
Public Hearing AND
Payment Due for Legal
d (no additional
re submittals)
Planning
Commission Public
Hearing No sooner
t7an" COS Auditorium
Monday
Wednesday
Friday
Tuesday
Dec 'f 7 2018
Jon 1$
Jan 25
Feb 1
Jan 07
Feb 06
Feb O#3
Mar 05
Tue Jan 22
Feb 20
Feb 22
Mar19
Feb 04
Mar 06
Mar 1 v
Apr 09
Tore Feb 19
Mar 20
Mar 29
A r 23
Mar 04
Apr 03
Apr 12
May OT
Mar 18
A r i7
Apr26
May 1
Apr 01
May 01
Ma 1D
Jun 04
A r 15
MaX15
Max31
Jun 25
Apr 29
Ma 29
May 31
Jun 25
MO 06
Jun 05
Jun 14
Jul D9
Ma 20
Jun 19
Jun28
Ju123
Jun 03
Jul 03
Jul 12
Aug06
Jun 17
Jul 17
Jul 26
Aug20
Jul D1
Jul 31
Aug09
Sep 03
Jul '15
Aug14
Aug30
Sap 24
Jul 29
Aug29
Sep 13
Oct Da
Au2 05
Sep 04
Sep 13
Ocl D8
Aug19
Sep 18
Sep 27
Oct 22
Tue Sep 03
Oct 02
Oct 18
Nov 12
Sep 16
Oct 16
Oct 18
Nov 12
$e 30
Oct 30
Nov 08
Deg 03
Oct 47
Nov 0£
Nov 08
D^ 03
Oct 21
Nov 20
Nov 1g
Dv:; 17
Nov DA
Dec 04
Dec 20
Jar. 14 20 G
Nov 13
Dec 18
Dec 20
Jan 14 2020
Dec 16
Jan 15 2020
Jan 24 2020
F�-h, his 2020
Dec 30
Jan 29 2020
Feb 07 2020
Mar 03 2020
Jan 06 2020
Frb 05 2020
Feb 07 2020
Mar 03 2020
Sold italics = submittallme otina ex l5 dtfferent due Co a holiday,
Dates with shaded background are not 2019.
2020 dates are tentative,
'Public hearing dates have been set by the Planning C-ornrnission; 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.
Page 13 of 14
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP # or ZMA #
Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt 4 Clot BY:
Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit or `'�
Zoning Map Amendment ,�:,�.
PROJECT NUMBER: ZkA&-2rv1 J • 0000k PROJECT NAME: f&gVWW,
❑ Resubmittal Fee is Required ❑ Per Request Resubmittal Fee is Not Required
11M _FADAL440 Aar
Community Development Project Coordinator Name of Applicant Phone Number
5 3l Zt41
Signature Date
Signature
FEES
Date
Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit e original Special Use Permit fee of $1,075
❑ First resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
$538
Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $2,150
❑ First resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
$1,075
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,688
❑ First resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
$1,344
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,763
XFirst resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
$1,881
❑ Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request —Add'I notice fees will be required
$194
To be Maid after staff review for public notice:
Most applications for Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public bearing by the Planning Commission
and one public bearing 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
are required before a Zoning Map Amendment may be heard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public notice will be
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 ALBEMARLE/PAYMENT AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTER
Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices
$215 + actual cost of first-class postage
Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50)
$1.00 for each additional notice+actual
cost of first-class postage
Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing)
Actual cost
minimum of $290 for total of 4publications)
County of Albemarle Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126
1i24i17 Page I of I
Page 14 of 14