HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201800005 Review Comments 2018-12-04 • Aln,'l
4Elef,
�IRGiI31A
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,North Wing
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126
(AN) Greco.}- rvnn 1.44t/ See' p ylef 5, (v,rl
John C. Wright, P.E. —Bohler Engineering VA, LLC
28 Blackwell Park Lane, Suite 201
Warrenton, VA 20186
iwright(cr�,bohlereng.com/(540)-349-4500
Mike Sweeney—PT Hotel LLC
2000 Ware Bottom Spring Road
Chester, VA 23836
michaelAshaminhotels.com/(804)-777-9000
RE: Review Comment Letter#3 /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 10/29/2018) 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.
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. Please call me to discuss anything
contained in this letter, or the project or review process in general.
Planning:
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 11
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.
r �/t 8304- - c i% ''''- 241. `;
.915\- 825 )(• \' /r ' O\,•� 1434
\ 1. "1,•f ? 1900 1926 %
• D^? 241 �, o t•\ �
'\\ 905+(-11 _} ','Ff 1938 O r 1,0►•i i tm nt o11tioto)—
1956, •
)15 '' 1�-�� A\ � •',1986 2044 �� n—)11" „://‘\\\,X, ,
r»t'-ci-1\•-• �� 41858 'Pantops
\__________,
Ems. �rrJJ"..$55 will \ -.—_-__ 300 / ,.., ,\\ \ �/j�-.R.
.\
oZ��i — Ga • '�"t,
• ,\N,., 2�',30 - - fir' s' .3 7.07 y
{
1240 1250 1650+ `",�F
P
4.01220 - \ �� 014 7-'
iP2
f/
/ /
.,.P •. z/K7e\
.i \ ,
.1:111,;.:: .
"t25+. �� �`� 011101c.::7--
rs�J C �
42
)'-- - CP4' '''S, --- --''`'''---- -- -'1.411' / :
360+ yT �o'
-j1� //).0...p
/ o / -. 3,
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 11
• 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 6. Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale
2. Neighborhood Friendly Streets and 7. Relegated Parking
Paths 8. Mixture of Uses
3. Interconnected Streets and 9. Mixture of Housing Types and
Transportation Networks Affordability
4. Parks and Open Space 10. Redevelopment
5. Neighborhood Centers 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 11
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 Staff acknowledge that bicycle racks have been proposed on the application plan.
Transportation Principle is met.
Opportunities
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 11
When applied to this proposed project on the subject properties,this principle should
be embodied by: a building situated close to, and having a spatial relationship with,
the public ROW;a building with an articulated façade and non-monumental massing;
and parking spaces relegated to the sides and rear of the building.
With the resubmittal materials provided on 10/29/2018,the proposed height of the
structure has been shown to be compliant with Zoning Ordinance Sections 25A.6 and
21.4 which provide a maximum building height of sixty-five (65) feet.The
resubmittal materials also show that the setback requirements are satisfied through
the location of the porte cochere relative to the front property line.
The application plan also 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).
owever,staff does not agree with the applicants that the proposal (as contained in
e resubmittal materials submitted on 10/29) meets the front stepback
quirements or intent.Staff have concerns about the proposed massing of the hotel
ithout any front stepbacks; and have additional concerns about the design and
pearance of the proposed northeast facade.See Additional Planning Comments#1
nd#3.
inciple is not met;front stepbacks are not provided, and no request or justification to
aive or modify the front stepback requirements has been submitted with this ZMA
pplication.
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.
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 is generally 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: •
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 does not agree with the
applicants that the proposal (as contained in the resubmittal materials submitted on 10/29)
meets the front stepback requirements or intent. The reliance on the porte cochere to satisfy the
front stepback requirement is not acceptable,per the definition of Stepback in Zoning
Ordinance Section 3 ("Definitions") or per the technical requirements for front stepbacks in
Zoning Ordinance Section 4 ("General Regulations"), subsection 4.20(a). None of the proposed
stories which would begin above 40 feet in height or above the third story have been stepped
back from the stories below.
Therefore, staff believe the proposal should be revised and resubmitted prior to being taken to
the Planning Commission for a public hearing—either by complying with the front stepback
requirements, or by proposing to establish an alternative stepback requirement through a written
submittal of a special exception 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).
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 putside of the right-
of-way; for off-street parking or loading spaces, 10 feet from any public street right-of-way.").
Additionally, staff acknowledge that the application plan submitted on 10/29 shows the porte
cochere (which is technically considered to be part of the "structure") to be 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...").
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 State Farm Boulevard 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.
he 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.
Staff acknowledges the information specified on the revised Application Plan (dated
10/29/2018)which demonstrates that the proposed hotel's height (64' 11.5") would be in
compliance with the maximum building height regulations (65' max).
Staff also acknowledges the renderings (dated 10/26/2018) provided with the resubmittal
application materials. Thank you for providing additional detailed information about the
proposed hotel's appearance within the context of this site on Pantops.
Staff also acknowledges the recent coordination with Ms. Liz Russell, Manager of Planning and
Projects with the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, to understand what concerns the Foundation
has and to discuss potential mitigation techniques. It is the understanding of Community
. Development Department staff that the Foundation has unresolved concerns about potential
impacts to the viewshed from Monticello relating to building size/height,building
materials/color palette, and parking lot visibility(and more specifically to unmitigated visibility
of vehicles which can produce long-distance glare when sunlight if reflected off of vehicles).
Specifically, on 8/30/2018, Ms. Liz Russell shared the following comments:
"...I have approximated the site of the proposed hotel and the line of sight from the North
Terrace of Monticello. Based on what I know about visibility of Pantops, this is going to be the
most "viewable"spot on the Mountaintop towards the site.
What this tells me is that we will—at certain times of the year—be viewing the hotel and
parking lot's south corner and façade. However, based on the distance from Monticello, I feel
that with appropriate use of muted colors (on façade and roof), impacts to historic views can be
minimized. I have attached comments on the rendering—can you share the color palate for
exterior materials?I am concerned that light gray may read as white and be highly visible.
Please include proposed roof color as well. "And "...glare from vehicles in the parking lot can
be reduced via trees. Are there any trees planned at the corner of the site or along State Farm
�
Way. "
CDD staff requests updated information regarding the coordination with the Thomas Jefferson
Foundation, relating to the questions and concerns identified by Ms. Russell.
111
addition to (and separate from)the comments, questions, and concerns identified by the
omas Jefferson Foundation, CDD staff also believe the design of the façade on the northeast
de of the proposed building(facing towards the US 250/Richmond Highway Entrance
orridor) should be improved, as it appears to be a six-story wall that is devoid of any
chitectural elements on floors 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. Based on the two most recently-submitted
nderings (dated 10/25/2018 and 10/26/2018), it also appears that the façade on the southwest
de of the building may be a similar or identical design.
lthough the design is still conceptual at this stage, additional information on proposed
aterials and additional design details would be beneficial, as staff believe that such a blank
all in that location has an inappropriate appearance.
3. 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).
Staff acknowledges submittal of a(draft)proffer statement dated 10/29/2018. Thank you.
4. Review Process: Staff acknowledge the request for deferral (pursuant to County Code §18-
33.52) received 11/8/2018.
Moving forward, 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.
More specifically, the primary unresolved items involve: a.)the front stepback requirements;
b.)the building's appearance,visibility, and impact on viewsheds; and c.)justification for the
proposed reduction in parking requirements (please see comment#5,below).
However, you may request a date for a public hearing with the Planning Commission if you •
wish to proceed without further revision.
Please review the attached Action After Receipt of Comment Letter memo for more
information about potential next steps. And please contact me to coordinate your preferred
course of action; I will be available to promptly respond and assist.
5. Required Parking Spaces: 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).
CDD-Zoning staff have reviewed the email provided with the resubmittal application materials
(dated 10/29/2018, and sent from Mr. Peter Rudiwicz, Vice President, Architecture, Design&
Construction for Hilton—Focused Service Brand), and have determined that more information
is necessary in order to make a favorable finding. In seeking County approval to reduce the
minimum required number of parking spaces for this proposed hotel, additional information and
justification beyond"A parking ratio of 92% is approved for this project"would be necessary.
6. (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:
County Engineer Frank Pohl, P.E., C.F.M., provided a review status of No Objection on
11/6/2018.
Please be advised of Mr. Pohl's prior review comments (dated 9/28/2018), which he indicated can
be addressed at the site plan and VSMP review process:
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 stonnwater 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):
Mr. Richard Nelson, P.E., has previously indicated a review status of No Objection (on 7/18/2018
and again on 9/25/2018).
Page 8 of 11
Albemarle County Fire & Rescue:
Deputy Fire Marshall Shawn Maddox provided a review status of No Objection on 11/21/2018,
stating that"Fire Rescue has no objections to the ZMA as submitted."
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."
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.
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 tadalino@albemarle.org.
Sincerely,
----r:swt, A, 1 ,1.1,-,
Tim Padalino, AICP
Senior Planner
Planning Services
Page 9 of 11
FOR OFFICE USE.ONLY SP#or MIA#
Fee Atnuunt S Dale Paid By who? Receipt it Cks By:
.Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit or Ilion'c
Zoning Map Amendment ®'
PRO.1 N:C'T NUMBER:-2 MR 20113 tx>oo PROJECT NAME: ? POD t+trIst., ( (7kurn?S)
l"l Resubmittal Fee is Required 0 Per Request ❑ Resubmittal Fee is Not Required
LIM QA'Dhlfit• i kitp _
Community Development Project Coordinator Name of Applicant Phone Number
/AA- (ZtLZ--a------
1214Jig _
Signature Date. Signature Date
J
FEES
Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit --original Special Use Permit fee of$1,075
G First resubmission FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission S538
Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of S2.150
❑ First resubmission FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission $1075
,Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of S2,688
❑ First resubmission FREE
I I
Each additional resubmission / $1.344
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning,Map Amendment fee of$3,763 .
J First resubmission FREE
• Fach additional resubmission I SI.88I
J Deferral of scheduled public hearing at pplicaut's request—Add'I notice fees will he required S I 04
To be paid after staff review for public notice:
Most applications for Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission
and one public hearing by the Board of Supervisurs. Virginia State Code requires that notice tirr public hearings be made by publishing
a legal adsertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. Therefore,at least two fees fur public notice
arc required before a Zoning a lap Amendment may.he heard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee fur 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 COL N IN OF ALBF_\lAR1.N:+PAYMENT AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTER
I'rcp:t urt.trul mailing or delivering up to'ifty t 5Ut nottccs S215+acur..,J L,,,I i,i lit tit-class postage
$I.O(1 for each;;dd`tionu'notice• actual
r Prepariii and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty(50) cost of first-class postage
I Actual cost
Y
I ' Lcgat advertisement(published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing) (minimum of$280 for total of 4 publications)
County of Albemarle Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434)296-5832 Fax:(434)972-4126
1'2417 Page I of I
Page 10 of 11
Albemarle County, Virginia
2018 Submittal and Review Schedule
Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendments
Resubmittal Schedule
Resubmittal Dates Comments to applicant Payment Due for Public Planning Commission Public
for decision on whether to Hearing Legal Ad Hearing Date*
proceed to Public Hearing 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 Jul5 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 7 2019 Feb 6 2019 Feb 8 2019 Mar 5 2019 1
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 11 of 11
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
(ii
,.1
ACTION AFTER RECEIPT OF COMMENT LETTER
RESUBMITTAL
Within 10 days, please do one of the following:
(1) Request a Planning Commission public hearing date be scheduled
(2) Rcgue t d'{oral (deferral already requested on 11/8/2018;see below)
(3) Resubmit in Response to Review Comments
(4) Withdraw your application
(1) Request a Planning Commission public hearing date be scheduled
You may request that your application to be scheduled for public hearing with the Planning
Commission.
(2) Request Deferral
A written request for deferral of ZMA201800005 (pursuant to County Code Section §18-33.52) was
submitted by Mrs. Valerie Long of Williams Mullen and received on 11/8/2018, as follows (in part):
"...on behalf of our client PT Hotel, LLC, the applicant of ZMA 2018-00005, we request a limited
deferral solely to eliminate the 90-day timeline for PC hearing and recommendation, as required by
Code, and conditioned upon your written assurances that such a deferral will not stop, delay, or
otherwise impact the overall application review process. "
Therefore, requesting a deferral is not an option, as the application is already currently deferred (in
order to allow the review process to continue beyond the 90-day review timeline for formal action by
the County, which would otherwise be required without a deferral.)
(3) Resubmittal in Response to Review Comments
Make sure that the resubmittal is on or before a resubmittal date as published in the project review
schedule. The full resubmittal schedule may be found at www.albemarle.org in the "forms" section at
the Community Development page. Be sure to include the resubmittal form on the last page of your
comment letter with your submittal.
The application fee which you paid covers staff review of the initial submittal and one resubmittal.
Each subsequent resubmittal requires an additional fee. (See attached Fee Schedule.)
Revised 10-9-18 MCN
(4) Withdraw Your Application
If at any time you wish to withdraw your application, please provide your request in writing.
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.
Revised 10-9-18 MCN