Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201900016 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2020-03-16�pF AL COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4176 March 16, 2020 Chris Fuller 92 Oak Forest Circle Charlottesville, VA 22901 chris(athehousin lg ab.org / (248) 535-6088 RE: Review Comment Letter #2: ZMA-2019-00016 2231 Bamboo Grove Mr. Fuller: Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for the zoning map amendment, ZMA201900016 Bamboo Grove. We have questions and comments which we believe should be addressed before we can recommend favorably on your ZMA request. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss these issues. Our comments are provided below: General Application Comments: 1. Project narrative: i. The narrative states that two units of affordable housing and a greenway dedication will be proffered. However, no draft proffer statement has been submitted for review. A proffer statement conforming with the County Attorney's office template for proffer statements needs to be prepared and submitted in order for any official proffers to be proposed. A copy of the template has been attached and can be edited as necessary. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. See Housing Planner comments attached for necessary revisions to the proffer statement. ii. The proffer related to the greenway dedication should include stipulations regarding the timing for dedication of the proposed greenway area. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. iii. The proffer related to affordable housing should incorporate the information and parameters specified by the County's housing planner, Stacy Pethia. See the attached comments from Ms. Pethia for additional information. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. See Housing Planner comments attached for necessary revisions. iv. Please consider adding a proffer that restricts the types of uses that can occur on the property. Since the concept plan isn't being proffered, the potential to do any of the by -right uses under Section 15.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance will be possible if the ZMA gets approved. Since the applicant knows that they want to do a single-family detached bonus level cluster development, a proffer should be provided stating which use types under Section 15.2.1 will be allowed and which will be restricted. This will provide a level of certainty to staff, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors about what the actual development will end up being should the ZMA be approved. Please contact Planning staff if you wish to receive more guidance on how to word/write the language for this proffer. Rev. 1: Comment response from applicant has been acknowledged. Applicant desires to retain flexibility of housing types such as single-family detached and duplexes. Staff understands this, but please be aware that the future staff report may mention that certain dwelling unit types such as quadraplexes are arguably out of character with adiacent residential units. These would still be permitted by -right under the requested R-4 zoning. To be clear, staff agrees with the applicant that single family attached, detached, duplexes, and townhomes are appropriate unit types even considering adjacent uses. V. See comment #6 under the "Concept Plan" section of this letter and comments from the transportation planning reviewer, Dan Butch. If a proffer statement is provided, please include a proffer stating that a new sidewalk within the public right of way of Orchard Drive will be provided along the entire property frontage along Orchard Drive at time of development. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. See transportation planner comments attached. 2. Staff has evaluated the density calculation shown throughout the application and has noted the note under Proposed Development Summary (Zoning) on Sheet 2 of the concept plan. Please be aware that since staff must evaluate proposed rezoning's for consistency with the net density recommendations specified in the Comprehensive Plan and Master Plans, the proposed 9 du/acre will be noted as a factor unfavorable with this application in future staff reports for public hearings. This is because the maximum recommended density specified by the Crozet master Plan is 6 du/acre net density. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 3. Please be aware of the issue related to the parking special exception requests as outlined in the Zoning Division comments. Revisions to the site layout may be necessary in order to provide the minimum amount of required parking. Pending applicant response to the Zoning Division's comments on these exceptions, additional comments from Planning may be forthcoming. Rev. 1: Comment addressed, see Zoning Division comments attached. Should the rezoning be approved, a Homeowners Association must be established in order to create an entity that will be responsible for maintaining the proposed on -street parking to the minimum standards required by County Code. Concept Plan Comments: Based on the statement on Sheet 2 of the application, the conceptual drawings provided are for reference only as an example of how the site could be developed in the future. This layout is not being proffered. Please verify. If the applicant chooses to not proffer the plan, development of the site will be held to the location of major elements as shown, per Section 33.17 of the Zoning Ordinance. See Zoning Division comment #4 for more information. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Applicant acknowledLyes that the concept plan is not being proffered and understands that future development will still be held to the maior elements per Section 33.17. a. Should the applicant choose to proffer the plan, a proffer statement will need to be provided that includes a proffer outlining what elements/major elements of the plan are being proffered. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Plan is not being proffered. 2. Please explain the "connection if approved" trail that is shown connecting southward to TMP 55-68A. Does this mean a connection will be made if approved by the County with this ZMA? That property is under separate ownership and potential improvements that may be made between that property and Bamboo Grove need to be worked out by both property owners privately. Staff does not feel comfortable having the connection shown on the concept plan since that property owner did not sign the ZMA application. Staff suggests removing the connection from the drawing. A connection can still be made in the future during site plan/subdivision plat review phases of the project, subject to an agreement between the property owners and a potential easement for the trail connection. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 3. Please provide clearer identification of the boundaries of the proposed greenway trail dedication area, and the remaining open space that will be privately maintained (Open Space 1 and Open Space 2) on Sheet 2 of the concept plan. It is difficult to differentiate where the boundaries of these features begin and end. For example, is the entire Open Space 1 area going to be dedicated to the County for public use, or only a portion of it? Rev. 1: Comment addressed. a. In the labels on Sheet 2, please state the square footage/acreage of Open Space 1 and 2 so that staff can verify it matches the sizes listed in the Open Space calculation notes. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 4. Under Existing Zoning Summary on Sheet 2 of the concept plan and page 5 of the project narrative, the calculation for Comprehensive Plan Net Density needs to be revised. The Comp. Plan states a density range of between 3-6 dwelling units per acre. Please state the minimum and maximum dwelling units range permitted based on the Comprehensive Plan future land use designation. The calculation currently only states the high end. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 5. Please provide more details on how the 0.67 acre net residential area available within the site was determined. a. Based on a staff measurement using Albemarle County GIS of the WPO stream buffer and Greenspace future land use designation on the properties, these features measure approximately 0.65 acres. Has a survey been done to determine the true extent of the stream buffer, and that is the 0.67 acres stated on the plans? Rev. 1: Staff believes the wording of this comment may have been confusing — staff agrees with the applicant's original calculation that 0.67 acres of net density is available based on GIS. We measured the geenspace and WPO buffer, and those areas came out to 0.65 acres, leaving 0.67 available for net density calculations. We simply wanted the applicant to verify the source used to identify the acreage available. Staff highly suggests revising the acreage figures in the narrative and on the concept plan to state that 0.67 acres is available, this helps bring the application closer to consistency with the Master Plan recommended density. 6. Under "Proposed Development Summary (Zoning)" and "Lot Sizes" on Sheet 2 of the concept plan and page 5 of the project narrative, please state "per Section 15.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 7. Under "Zoning Bonus and Cluster Factors" on Sheet 2 of the concept plan and page 5 of the project narrative, please revise the final calculation. As specified in Section 15.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, the maximum gross density of dwelling units for a Bonus level Cluster Development in the R4 District is 6 du/acre. The total possible number of units on this site with the proposed bonus factors, should it be rezoned to R4 Residential, is 5.8 dwelling units, not 7. See Zoning Division comment #2 for more information. 1: Comment addressed. 8. Upon evaluation of the proposal, a revised pedestrian network would make this request more consistent with the Crozet Master Plan's recommendations for street cross -sections in this area. Specifically, the new sidewalk along the proposed private street should be extended all the way to the Orchard Drive right-of-way (ROW). It should also be provided along the entire length of the property frontage within the ROW of Orchard Drive. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. a. The new trail should connect to the sidewalk within the Orchard Drive ROW at the north end of the site. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. b. Due to the requests for special exceptions related to parking, there may be a higher number of residents within the proposed development seeking to use pedestrian modes of travel instead of personal vehicles. Please explain why the concept plan does not show the sidewalk connection extending south to connect to the existing sidewalk within the ROW of Orchard Drive — it seems like this could be done without having to obtain permission from the neighboring property owner for a sidewalk connection. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Special Exception for Offsite Parking Please see comments from the Zoning Division on this request. This development will require 12 total parking spaces based on the 6 dwelling units proposed. A waiver to reduce the minimum number of parking spaces cannot be approved for residential development, per Section 4.12.2 (c). A minimum of 12 spaces (two per lot) must be provided. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Stand-alone parking is not a permitted use under Section 15.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Zoning staff believe that street parking, in accordance with Section 4.12.9, is the only possible alternative that could be provided with this development that will enable 12 parking spaces to be provided. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. The concept plan should be revised to demonstrate that the minimum number of spaces (12 overall) can be provided in locations consistent with the Zoning Ordinance (either two per lot within proposed parcel boundaries, or a combination of spaces on individual lots and some on -street parking) to the satisfaction of Zoning staff. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Private Street Authorization Request Due to the response needed for the requested parking waiver, staff cannot make a definitive statement about whether the private street authorization request can be supported. If on -street parking will be provided in order obtain the minimum amount of parking needed for the six detached single-family dwelling units, staff would need to see and review the updated street design before making a determination on this request. Please address the parking issues in the next submittal, and staff will revisit the private street authorization request. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Special Exceptions to Private Street Design Standards There are three special exceptions being requested related to the design of the proposed private street: Section 14-410 (I) — Variation to curb and gutter along north side of proposed private street; Section 14-422 (E) — Variation to sidewalk requirement along north side of proposed private street; Section 14-422 (F) — Variation to planting strip design along north side of proposed private street. Due to the response needed for the requested parking waiver, staff cannot make a definitive statement about whether the requested variations can be supported. If on -street parking will be provided in order obtain the minimum amount of parking needed for the six detached single-family dwelling units, staff would need to see and review the updated street design before making a determination on this request. Please address the parking issues in the next submittal, and staff will revisit the requested special exceptions. Rev. 1: Please see comments from the County Engineer regarding size of the parking spaces. Parking is shown as 9' x 16' which requires a 2' overhang at the end of the parking spaces. Landscaping is not allowed within the 2' overhang. Please confirm that no landscaping will be located in this area. Rev. 1: See County Engineer's comment regarding curbing on the north side of the street. County staff do not support the request to waive the curbing requirement along the north side of the private street. This comment can be addressed by providing curbing on the north side of the street per Section 14-410 (I). If the applicant chooses not to provide parking, please be aware that staff will not recommend approval of that special exception request. One comment that can be identified relates to the planting strip design — in effect, the request implies that a planting strip will be provided along the north side of the road with the stormwater management devices/bioswales. Can the applicant verify that an area at least 6' wide can be located between the street pavement and the bioswales? If so, please revise the justification statement for the variation request so that it states that an area 6' wide can be provided along the north side of the street, which is consistent with the planting strip design requirements specified in Section 14-422 (D). Rev. 1: Please see comments from the County Engineer regarding size of the parking spaces. Parking is shown as 9' x 16' which requires a 2' overhang at the end of the parking spaces. Landscaping is not allowed within the 2' overhang. Please confirm that no landscaping will be located in this area. Planning Planning staff s comments are organized as follows: • How the proposal relates to the Comprehensive Plan • The Neighborhood Model analysis • Additional comments from reviewers (See attached) 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. a� 1213 Legend lj 556--0A-6 55C.-GA-4 55C-03--A1 PA;l i.ro 55C--OA-2 P_r clap Phan "e usa Inri Growl Master Plan WM Ilse Neighborhood 1-1i1 ResitlenM1al L NiigM1bpr OR..iiq Raiidenfial 1269 ■urban oensrty Resin meal � rAuaa.uw ■ ocxnm.m i I Inililn u llghl Mumstnal SSC--OA-1 5fi-115 ■ si�c�at luai,e�ia. rea 1205 5986 55-67A 55-6 E ff 56-7 I 55-68 B 55-57C ifL 1193 1192 R 5974 5964 55-686 1190 / 130 f / 55-70 55-70B1 55-70B 55.70G2 (aui asiesz The subject parcels are identified as Tax Map Parcels (TMP) 05500-00-00-068CO and 05500-00-00-068D0. Both properties are located in the Crozet development area. TMP 55-68C measures 0.8810 acres and is zoned R2 Residential. There are no zoning overlay districts that apply to the property. The property is undeveloped and features a mix of mature trees and other vegetation. TMP 55-68D measures 0.3560 acres and is zoned R2 Residential. There are no zoning overlay districts that apply to the property. The property is undeveloped and is primarily grass with a few trees spread across the parcel. The Land Use Plan contained in Chapter 4 of the Crozet Master Plan designates two future land use classifications on portions of both parcels: 1. Neighborhood Density; 2. Greenspace. The Crozet Master Plan explains that the Neighborhood Density classification represents "residential areas with a desired density of 3 — 6 residential units per acre." • Housing in this designation should primarily be single-family detached with some single-family attached/townhouses. • Non-residential uses include institutional uses, such as places of worship, public and private schools, and early childhood education centers (daycare centers and preschools). The Greenspace classification applies to all existing and proposed public parks, public open space, environmental features and active park areas. It also contains important environmental features and privately -owned park and recreational areas which may be active or passive. Sensitive environmental features including stream buffers, flood plains, and adjacent slopes are included in this category. Typically, only passive recreation and greenway trails will occur in the sensitive environmental areas, while active recreation is planned for other areas. 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). This evaluation will be written in the staff report to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors once the application moved forward to public hearings. Neighborhood Model Projects located within the Development Areas are typically reviewed for consistency with each of the Neighborhood Model Principles found in the Comprehensive Plan. Comments are provided below on relevant aspects of the Neighborhood Model. More detailed comments may be provided after more detailed plans are provided. Pedestrian Orientation This principle is partially met but could be strengthened. The conceptual site plan is not being proffered and this is the only part of the application that shows the layout for the proposed public trail within the site. Please provide additional information on this — will a public greenway/trail access easement be platted over the general trail route as shown on the concept plans? Will the 0.28 acres being dedicated to the County include the entire length of the trail as shown on the concept plan? Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Furthermore, the application should provide a new sidewalk within the Orchard Drive right-of-way along the entire property frontage. See transportation planning staff comments for more information. Please revise the concept plan to reflect this. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. The proposed trail should connect to the new sidewalk within the Orchard Drive ROW. See transportation planning staff s comments for more information. Please revise the concept plan to reflect this. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Mixture of Uses This principle is met. The properties are not located within a proposed land use center of the Crozet Master Plan, so commercial use types are not appropriate on this site. The proposal includes new residential dwelling units as well as a public trail/greenway dedication. This mixture of residential and recreational/open space satisfies this principle. Neighborhood Centers This principle is not applicable to the request. The Crozet Master Plan does not call for any land use centers near the subject parcel. Mixture of Housing Types This principle is primarily met but could be strengthened. and Affordability The project proposes three different dwelling unit types, identified by the project narrative as "A," "B," and "C." Staff supports this variation in size and price of new units and believes this represents a sufficient mix of unit types. Additionally, the proposal has managed to stay consistent with the Crozet Master Plan recommendation that new residential development adjacent to existing neighborhoods should be compatible in housing types. Parcels immediately adjacent to the site feature single- family detached dwellings, which is what the Bamboo Grove ZMA is proposing. As noted in the project narrative, the applicant is proposing to proffer affordable units. However, no proffer statement was provided with the first submission. Please provide a proffer statement so staff can review the proposed affordable unit proffer. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. See comments from Stacy Pethia regarding the proffer statement revisions. Relegated Parking This principle is partially met. A remote parking area is shown adjacent to the proposed new street, with buildings in front of it and partially blocking its view from Orchard Drive. However, comments from the Zoning Division related to the requested special exceptions for parking have raised several concerns. See Zoning Division comments for more information. Depending on how the site layout is revised to address Zoning staff concerns, parking areas may become visible from Orchard Drive, which would be inconsistent with this principle unless the application meets some if the strategies specified in the Comprehensive Plan related to this principle. For example, if parking spaces will be provided on individual lots, the plan could be revised to state that dwelling units will have relegated garages. See the images of relegated garages in the Comprehensive Plan for reference. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Interconnected Streets and This principle is primarily met but could be strengthened through revisions. Transportation Networks No new streets are called for within the subject parcels by the Transportation Plan in the Crozet Master Plan. The proposal is consistent with this aspect of the Master Plan. The application shows that a new greenway trail will be provided for public dedication, and the route shown is consistent with the recommended trails called for by the Crozet Master Plan Parks & Green Systems Plan. This principle could be strengthened if a proffer statement is provided that states the acreage, location, and timing of the greenway dedication to Albemarle County. The proffer for the trail/greenway should also state that the developer will design and construct the proposed trailway during subdivision/site plan stage. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. The proposed trail should connect to the new sidewalk within the Orchard Drive ROW. See transportation planning staff s comments for more information. Please revise the concept plan to reflect this. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Additionally, more information is needed on the requested street design and special exceptions before staff can make a final determination on whether the internal street meets this principle. Rev. 1: Please see the County Engineer's comment regarding curbing along the north side of the private street. Please provide curbing where requested. If the applicant chooses not to provide curbing, please be aware that staff will not be recommending approval of that special exception request. Furthermore, the application should provide a new sidewalk within the Orchard Drive right-of-way along the entire property frontage. Please revise the concept plan to reflect this. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Multimodal Transportation This principle will be met if a proffer statement is provided that sufficiently addresses Opportunities the comments under the Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks principle. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Parks, Recreational This principle is primarily met but could be strengthened through revisions. This Amenities, and Open Space principle could be fully met if a proffer statement is provided that states the acreage, location, and timing of the greenway dedication to Albemarle County. The proffer for the trail/greenway should also state that the developer will design and construct the proposed trailway during subdivision/site plan stage. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Buildings and Spaces of This principle is met. ARB staff have no comments or objections about the proposed Human Scale architecture. Redevelopment This principle is not applicable to the request. Respecting Terrain and This principle is met. Careful Grading and Re- grading of Terrain Clear Boundaries Between This principle is not applicable to the request. The subject property is located within the the Development Areas and Crozet Development Area. No improvements or changes in use near any boundaries the Rural Area with the Rural Area are proposed. Department of Community Development — Zoning Division No objection see attached advisory comments from Kevin McCollum, kmccollum(c-r�,albemarle.org. Department of Community Development - Planning Division- Transportation Planning No objection. See attached from Dan Butch, dbutchkalbemarle.org. Department of Community Development — Housing Requested changes, see attached comments from Stacy Pethia, spethia(cr�,albemarle.org. Department of Community Development — Engineering Division Requested changes, see attached comments from the County Engineer, Frank Pohl, fpohl(c-r�,albemarle.org. VDOT VDOT review is not yet complete. County staff will forward any comments or approvals from VDOT to the applicant upon receipt. Please contact Adam Moore at adam.moore(cr�,vdot.vir ig nia gov for more information about the status of the VDOT review. Action after Receipt of Comments The applicant requested deferral of PC and Board action on this ZMA after the first review. Board can take action on the ZMA anytime up to August 4, 2022. Staff recommends that the requested changes be addressed prior to requesting a public hearing with the Planning Commission. Staff also recommends that the applicant wait until Engineering Division and VDOT reviews have been completed before requesting a public hearing. If VDOT and/or Engineering have substantial changes needed in order for them to recommend approval, additional revisions may be needed as staff will need to review those. After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified on "Action After Receipt of Comment Letter" which is attached. Resubmittal If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is a fee for the next resubmittal, see attachment. The resubmittal date schedule is provided for your convenience. Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is blan ig llegalbemarle.org. Sincerely, Cameron Langille Senior Planner Planning Division, Department of Community Development enc: ZMA201900016 Action After Receipt of Comments 2020 Zoning Map Amendment Resubmittal Schedule Zoning Map Amendment Resubmittal Form Review Comments for ZMA201900016 Project Name: BAMBOO GROVE Date Completed: Fnday, March 13, 2020 DepartmentlaivisionlAgency: Review sus: Reviewer: Kevin MccolIum CDD Zoning No Objection The following comments are provided as input from the Zoning Division regarding the above noted application(s)- 1- Parking In accordance with Section 4.12_8 and 4.1 _9 the project has proposed 8 street parking spaces to accommodate the parking needs for 4 of the proposed dwelling units_ This waiver is not requesting a reduction of parking spaces, but simply the use of street spaces to count instead of the required on -site parking standards_ Provided the proposed shared parking easement and establishment of an HOA for maintenance, Zoning has no issues with this proposal_ The other two proposed dwelling units will have adequate parking in their driveway or in their garages_ No further comments_ Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: Fo71 2020 0 Review Comments for ZMA201900016 Project Name: BAMBOO GROVE Date Completed: Friday, March 13, 2020 DepartmentlDivisionlAgency: Review Sys: Reviewer: LDaniel Butch CBB Planning No Objection No objection, revisions address all previous comments_ Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: Fo71 2020 0 Cameron Langille From: Stacy Pethia Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 11:55 AM To: Cameron Langille Subject: ZMA-2019-16 Bamboo Grove Comments Hi Cameron, My comments related to the affordable housing proffer are below. Section 1(A) • Line 5: Replace 'Housing Office' with 'Community Development Department' • Line 9: 'VEDA' should read 'VHDA' Section 1(A)(1) • Replace all references to 'Housing Office' with 'Community Development Department' Section 1(B)(1) • Replace all references to 'Housing Office' with 'Community Development Department' Section 1(B)(3) • Replace all references to 'Housing Office' with 'Community Development Department' Thanks, Stacy Stacy R. Pethia, PhD Principal Planner -Housing Department of Community Development County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Ph: 434.296.5832 x3240 1 Cameron Langille From: Frank Pohl Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 10:55 AM To: Cameron Langille Subject: Planning Application Review for ZMA201900016 BAMBOO GROVE. The Review for the following application has been completed: Application Number = ZMA201900016 Reviewer = Frank Pohl Review Status = See Recommendations Completed Date = 03/16/2020 This email was sent from County View Production. Engineering Comments: - REPEAT COMMENT: The plan still does not include curbing along the north side of the parking lot/street. The applicant requested a waiver from this requirement but I do not support this request. Curb should be provided to prevent vehicles from backing into the stormwater facility and from parking along the edge of pavement. - The applicant revised the plan to include 9'x16' parking spaces. A 2-ft overhang is required, which cannot include landscaping. This can be addressed during the site plan review. - I have no objections to the private street request. - I have no objections to the request to waive the requirement for a sidewalk on the north side of the street. - I have no objections to the offsite parking request. - NEW COMMENT: The application plan indicates that SWM will be provided onsite. However, I recommend making this a condition of approval. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 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) Resubmit in Response to Review Comments (3) 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. Please note, once a Planning Commission date is requested, no additional information, revisions, documents, etc. will be accepted for review and analysis. (2) 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. In your comment response letter with your resubmittal, please indicate whether or not you would like to proceed straight to the Planning Commission without getting comments back, or if you prefer to have comments. If you choose to go straight to the Planning Commission, please note that no additional information, revisions, documents, etc. will be accepted after your resubmittal. 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.) (3) Withdraw Your Application If at any time you wish to withdraw your application, please provide your request in writing. Failure to Respond Revised 9-17-19 MCN 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 9-17-19 MCN 2020 Submittal and Review Schedule Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendments Mandatory Preapp must be held no later than this day to file application by Deadline for Filing Deadline for Filing (3 P.M.) First Set of Written Comments Due to Applicant EITHER Planning Commission Public Hearing if No Resubmittal is Necessary No sooner than OR Resubmittal Deadline" PLEASE SEE THE RESUBMITTAL SCHEDULE Monday Monday Friday Tuesday Monday Jan 06 Tue Jan 21 Mar 06 May 05 ** Feb 03 Tue Feb 18 Apr 03 Jun 02 ** Mar 02 Mar 16 May 01 Jun 16 ** Apr 06 Apr 20 Jun 05 Aug 04 ** May 04 May 18 Jul 02 Sep 01 ** Jun 01 Jun 15 Jul 31 Sep 22 ** Jul 06 Jul 20 Sep 04 Oct 20 ** Aug 03 Aug 17 Oct 02 Dec 01 ** Sep 07 Sep 21 Nov 06 Jan 05 ** Oct 05 Oct 19 Dec 04 Feb 02 2021 ** Nov 23 Dec 07 Jan 22 2021 Mar 23 2021 ** Dates with shaded background are not 2020. SPs for offsite or electric message signs follow the Variance schedule for the BZA. 2021 dates are tentative. * Board of Supervisors' worksessions and public hearings will be scheduled after the Planning Commision's action on applications. ** Resubmittals are accepted on ANY resubmittal Monday listed after the date of the written comments to the applicant. The PC public hearing date is the earliest date at which the request may be heard after the corresponding resubmittal deadline date. These schedules provide basic information. Please consult with the Planning Division for more details regarding schedules and processing 2020 Submittal and Review Schedule Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendments Resubmittal Schedule Resubmittal Dates (1st, 3rd, and 5th Monday of the month) Comments given to the Applicant Applicant requests PC Public Hearing AND Payment Due for Legal Ad (no additional resubmittals) Planning Commission Public Hearing No sooner than* COB Auditorium Monday Wednesday Friday Tuesday Jan 06 Feb 05 Feb 14 Mar 10 Jan 21 Feb 19 Feb 28 Mar 24 Feb 03 Mar 04 Mar 13 Apr 07 Feb 18 Mar 18 Mar 27 Apr 21 Mar 02 Apr 01 Apr 10 May 05 Mar 16 Apr 15 Apr 24 May 19 Mar 30 Apr 29 May 08 Jun 02 Apr 06 May 06 May 08 Jun 02 Apr 20 May 20 May 22 Jun 16 May 04 Jun 03 Jun 12 Jul 07 May 18 Jun 17 Jun 26 Jul 21 Jun 01 Jul 01 Jul 10 Aug 04 Jun 15 Jul 15 Jul 24 Aug 18 Jun 29 Jul 29 Aug 07 Sep 01 Jul 06 Aug 05 Aug 07 Sep 01 Jul 20 Aug 19 Aug 28 Sep 22 Aug 03 Sep 02 Sep 11 Oct 06 Aug17 Sep 16 Sep 25 Oct 20 Aug 31 Sep 30 Oct 16 Nov 10 Sep 08 Oct 07 Oct 16 Nov 10 Sep 21 Oct 21 Oct 30 Nov 24 Oct 05 Nov 04 Nov 06 Dec 01 Oct 19 Nov 18 Nov 13 Dec 08 Nov 02 Dec 02 Dec 18 Jan 12 2021 Nov 16 Dec 16 Dec 18 Jan 12 2021 Dec 21 Jan 20 2021 Jan 29 2021 Feb 23 2021 Jan 04 2021 Feb 03 2021 Feb 05 2021 Mar 02 2021 Bold italics = submittal/meeting day is different due to a holiday. Dates with shaded background are not 2020. 2021 dates are tentative. *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. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP # Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # Ck# Bv: Resubmittal of information for k» Zoning Map Amendment .N PROJECT NUMBER THAT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED: Owner/Applicant Must Read and Sign I hereby certify that the information provided with this resubmittal is what has been requested from staff Signature of Owner, Contract Purchaser Print Name FEES that may apply: Date Daytime phone number of Signatory ❑ Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request $194 Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,688 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission (TO BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF) $1,344 Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,763 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission (TO BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF) $1,881 To be Daid after staff review for Dublic notice: Most applications for a 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 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. ➢ 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) $1.08 for each additional notice + actual cost of first-class postage ➢ Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing) Actual cost (averages between $150 and $250) County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126 Revised 11/02/2015 Page 1 of 1