HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA202000007 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2020-09-24COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone(434) 296-5832 Fax (434)972-4176
September 16, 2020
Ms. Valerie Long
Williams Mullen
321 E. Main St., Suite 400
Charlottesville, VA 22902
vlong@williamsmullen.com / 434-951-5709
RE: ZMA202000007 RST Residences; 2°" Submittal
Dear Ms. Long:
Staff has reviewed your second submittal for the zoning map amendment, ZMA202000007, RST Residences. We have a
number of 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.
Review comments are provided below, organized by Department, Division, or agency. Our comments are provided below
Planning — General ZMA Comments
1. It appears that the only frontage for this property is from U.S. Route 29, Seminole Trail. How does the applicant
intend to reach the subject property from Ashwood Boulevard, including the construction of the proposed
entrance? There is a parcel of land owned by the Commonwealth of Virginia located between the Ashwood Blvd.
public right-of-way and TMP 46-109. The applicant will need to either own that land or otherwise have an
easement or some other right of access for the proposed entrance to cross that parcel, as this parcel is not a part of
the right-of-way. Staff has found a deed that appears to apply to that parcel, TMP 46135-1D (see attached deed),
which also includes additional restrictions and conditions on the use of that property. Also, note that TMP 46135-
1 D is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development, and may be subject to an application plan. Provide legal
documentation from the Commonwealth of Virginia granting the applicant the right to cross the Commonwealth's
property (TMP 46135-1D) in order to access the applicant's parcel (TMP 46-109), whether this is a Deed of
Bargain and Sale, a Deed of Easement, or some other documentation. Otherwise, remove the entrance proposed
off of Ashwood Boulevard, and provide another entrance in a different location.
2. ZO 18-19.7: In the PRD zoning district, any building over 40 feet in height or three stories, whichever is less,
requires a stepback of 15 feet, as provided in 18-4.19. The "two -over -two" townhouse units are described as being
four stories in height. These units will require a stepback of 15 feet, or a special exception request will need to be
submitted to waive or modify that requirement. Submittal of Special Exception request acknowledged. Comments
regarding the special exception request are listed below, in a separate section.
3. Provide more information on the design of the "two -over -two" townhouse units. The narrative says that these
units contain garages for each unit. Does each individual unit, the top unit and the bottom unit, have its own
garage space? In addition, is the garage its own story/level of the building? Or is the bottom unit's kitchen and
living room on the same level as the garages? Thank you for providing the floor plans and elevations for these
town -house units.
4. ZO 18-19.6.2/ ZO 18-4.16: Provide more information on the recreational facilities proposed to be included in this
development. Recreation requirements mandate a minimum of 200 square feet be provided per dwelling unit.
With 370 units proposed, 74,000 sq. ft. of recreational space is required. It does not appear that this requirement is
met with the amenity space shown on the application plan.
a. Separate out the calculations of the proposed recreational space from the other open space areas, such as
the vegetative buffers, so it is more clear what amenities and open space are being provided and where
(there can be some overlap), and to ensure there is space to accommodate the minimum 25% required.
b. Identify the locations of the required recreational facilities. The proposed amenity spaces do not appear
large enough to accommodate these facilities. According to 18-4.16.2, a minimum of eight tot lots of at
least 2,000 sq. ft. each is required and a minimum of four %-court basketball pads of 30 ft. by 30 ft. each
is required.
c. Submit substitution requests if other facilities are desired so that staff can evaluate to ensure adequate
facilities are provided.
The cover sheet identifies 4.53 additional open space area. Clarify what this additional space is referencing, as it
does not appear to be labelled on the plans. It would also be helpful to provide estimates of the acreage/square
footage of the various amenity and open space areas that are identified throughout the plan.
It is still not clear that there is sufficient space provided to accommodate the required amenities mentioned above
Without a substitution request being provided and more detail on the proposed amenities, staff must review the
ZMA based on the required amenities of 8 tot lots and 4 half -court basketball courts. These amenities should be
shown conceptually to indicate that this requirement can be met.
In addition, not all amenities can overlap with open space. For example, an indoor fitness center cannot be
counted as open space. Also, a dog park is repeatedly referenced in the narrative; however, no such facility is
identified on the plan. Provide more information on what is proposed for amenities and what is proposed for the
25% open space.
Is the proposed stormwater management area that overlaps the amenity area near the Ashland Townhouses
property proposed to be underground? A SWM facility cannot be counted as an amenity.
5. Provide the acreage of the cemetery delineated on the property. Is the cemetery a separate parcel? Comment
addressed.
6. Depict the Managed Steep Slopes across all sheets of the application plan. Managed Slopes are a zoning district,
and staff needs to have a clear understanding of their location in order to adequately review the plan, as there are
design requirements for areas of managed slopes. See ZO 18-30.7. Comment addressed.
7. It is indicated that the proposed "two -over -two" units will be sold as condos. Be aware of ZO 18-4.5 for
requirements regarding condominiums. Comment addressed.
8. Is there any proposed subdivision that will occur with this development? Any lots created by subdivision will
need to meet the requirements of ZO 18-4.6 and the Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter 14.
It is likely that a boundary line adjustment (BLA) plat would be needed to vacate the property line between TMPs
46-108 and 46-109. (This vacation is not required at the rezoning stage but is something to be aware of at the site
planning stage if the zoning map amendment is approved.) Comment addressed.
9. Is the open and amenity space proposed to be privately owned (such as by an HOA) or dedicated to public use? If
this application is approved by the Board of Supervisors, documents establishing the HOA, such as a declaration
of covenants and restrictions, will need to be submitted and reviewed by County staff at the site planning and
subdivision stage in order to identify such elements as the responsibility of maintenance for shared items like
open space, amenities, and any private travelways, among others.
10. Remove the parking and building envelopes from the areas of preserved steep slopes on the application plan
sheets. Preserved steep slopes cannot be disturbed.
In addition, several of the retaining walls and associated grading appear to be very close, or even directly adjacent
to, areas of preserved steep slopes. These retaining walls need to be of a sufficient distance away from the
preserved steep slopes so that the slopes are not disturbed during grading activities. It appears that several parking
lot areas will need to be moved farther away from the preserved steep slope areas.
The proposed retaining wall, on sheet 4, in the northwest comer of the site next to the 100-11 buffer does not
appear to provide sufficient space for grading next to the preserved steep slopes. In addition, the retaining wall in
the northeast corner of that parking lot cuts off the comer of one parking space, which will not be permitted at the
site planning stage.
11. Private streets in the development areas require private street requests to be submitted. Public streets are preferred
in the development areas of the County. Comment still applies. However, staff acknowledges that the designation
of private streets vs. public is addressed at the site planning stage. There is a potential connection provided to the
north of the property; however, this proposed connection is shown much farther to the east that what is shown in
the Places29 Master Plan. With the streets in the RST development proposed to be private, is there a plan for
access along the street to ensure that this proposed connection is usable by residents and property owners and will
not be closed off? Interconnections are not helpful if there are barriers preventing their use. Also, why was a 24'
access easement decided upon?
12. There is a lack of pedestrian orientation across the whole development. Sidewalks and planting strips should be
provided along both sides of all streets of the development. Safety features such as crosswalks should also be
provided. Sidewalks and planting strips should be provided along both sides of all streets in a development to
encourage the pedestrian connections identified in the neighborhood model principles. There do not appear to be
any planting strips provided, or sufficient space identified. In addition, there are no pedestrian connections on the
north side of the Route 29 entrance, along the west side of Road B, or along several of the roads around the
townhouse units.
13. What do the labels and line Land Bay 1 and Land Bay 2 stand for? Is this line separating the parking that is
provided for the multi -family units vs. the two -over -two units? Comment addressed.
14. The parking areas must meet the requirements of ZO 18-4.12. Parking design and the number of parking spaces
will be determined at the site plan stage, if the zoning map amendment is approved, based on the final designation
of uses and number of units. Comment addressed.
15. How will waste management be addressed at this development? Is it only the proposed trash compactor?
Comment addressed.
16. ZO 18-19.4: Provide in the project narrative and on the application plan both the gross density and the net density
for this project. It appears that only the gross density has been provided. Without the net density, staff cannot
adequately determine if this proposal is consistent with the recommendations of the Urban Density Residential
land use designation and the Places29 Master Plan. Comment addressed.
17. Identify the structure that is being provided in the central amenity area. Also, how is this amenity area proposed to
be accessed? It appears to surrounded by Building 1 on two sides, and a terraced retaining wall on the third side.
This retaining wall appears to create a significant barrier to access of that amenity area. Comment addressed.
18. Clarify whether the proposed entrance from Ashwood Blvd. aligns with the Brookhill entrance across the street.
These entrances would need to align with one another. Comment addressed.
19. Has a Phase 1 environmental impact statement been done on this property previously? Can you provide a copy of
this Phase 1 enivrommental impact statement for the file?
20. Revise sheet 2 of the Project Narrative. The property designated for Institutional uses appears to be owned by the
County. There may be some confusion between this parcel and the parcel directly adjacent to the subject parcels,
which is owned by the Commonwealth of Virginia. Comment addressed.
21. In the project narrative, on sheet 5, provide more clarification on how the project would improve the public road
network, as all of the streets in the development are currently proposed to be private streets. As private streets,
there is the potential to block them off, preventing their use as a connection by the general public. No new public
street connections are shown on the application plan for this project. Please clarify how the public road network is
proposed to be improved with this project, as no public roads are being proposed within this development
allowing for a more interconnected public road network. Is the improvement that entrances to the property will be
in better locations than where they are currently? (Please also see comment # 1 above about the entrance onto
Ashwood Boulevard.)
22. Sheet 5 of the narrative states that the project is designed to avoid encroachment on preserved slopes. However,
there are several locations on the application plan where the building/parking envelopes are shown to be
overlapping areas of preserved slopes, as well as retaining walls that are abutting those slopes, indicating that
there would be some disturbance. Please see comment #10.Otherwise, comment addressed.
23. On sheet 5 of the narrative, provide more detail on the "variety of recreational and other amentities" available for
use," as no amenities are identified on the application plan other than a few small areas of green space. See
comment #4 above.
24. On sheet 6 of the project narrative, provide more information on the expected number of students to be generated
by this proposed development. 370 dwelling units is a significant number of units that could produce many
additional students. Both Hollymead Elementary and Albemarle High are currently over -capacity. Thank you for
providing the additional information, and for the correction from my comment above that Hollymead Elementary
is currently under -capacity. However, it is important to note that with the expected 46 elementary -age students to
be generated by this development, the capacity level for Hollymead Elementary will nearly be reached. In
addition, Albemarle High School is already over -capacity and will remain so with this development. A net of 81
additional students overall (84 expected to be generated minus the 3 stated to already live on the property) is a
significant increase. Please be aware that school capacity levels have historically been closely considered by the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
25. On the cover sheet of the application plan:
a. Provide the application number — ZMA2020-00007
b. Provide the tax map numbers in the center of the sheet, or remove that heading.
c. In the "Total Residential Units," provide a maximum, minimum, or range of proposed units, so that staff
can accurately calculate the proposed density of the site. +/- does not provide enough level of certainty for
density calculations. Providing a range is fine if the final number of proposed units has not been
determined at this time.
d. Where is the required amount of 700 parking spaces coming from? Parking space counts are based on the
number of bedrooms per unit, and it does not appear that that information is provided on the cover sheet —
only a rough estimate of the total number of units.
e. In the "Steep Slopes" note, indicate that Managed Slopes are also present.
f. Provide both gross and net density of the proposed project.
Comments addressed.
26. On the application plan, show the existing multi -use paths. Also, why is there a proposed pedestrian connection
path shown along the 29 frontage of the property? Isn't there already a multi -use path existing in that location?
Comment addressed.
27. In note #6 on sheet 3 of the application plan, it is mentioned that "garage units may be installed in parking
areas... " Provide more information on what it means by "garage units"? Would these garages be separate
structures from the dwelling units they serve? If so, a special use permit may be required. Are the garage units
connected to any buildings? Standalone parking structures require special use permits.
28. Ensure the retaining walls do not disturb the cemetery location. In addition, the pedestrian connection to the
cemetery does not appear to connect to anything on the other end. Comment addressed.
29. Is any type of barrier or blockade proposed to be put up to prevent residents from using the Ridgewood Drive
entrance off of U.S. 29? The plan depicts the parking lot continuing to connect to that remnant drive, allowing for
an additional access to 29. Comment addressed.
30. The cross-section #3 on sheet 5 does not match what is shown on sheet 4. The cross-section indicates that there is
130' +/- from the residential units to the Ashwood Blvd. pavement. When measuring on sheet 4, that same area is
approximately only 115' from unit to pavement. Clarify the discrepancies. The cross-section for the Ashwood
Boulevard entrance does not match what is shown on the plan. A planting strip is depicted on the cross-section;
however, no planting strip is shown on the plan.
31. There are no dimensions provided in the two bottom cross -sections on sheet 5. Comment addressed.
32. What is the oval -shaped area of grading located within the vegetative buffer directly to the north of the Seminole
Trail entrance to the site? Comment addressed.
33. A community meeting has not yet been held for this rezoning application, although one is scheduled for Monday,
July 20, 2020. Please be advised that additional comments may arise based on discussion that occurs at this
meeting. Community input is taken into consideration by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
Comment addressed. A community meeting has been held for this application. Comments from community
members have previously be provided to the applicant.
Additional Comments
34. Add the garage setbacks to the "Required Setbacks" note on the cover sheet, as garage units are mentioned as
potentially being included within the development.
35. In the project narrative, page 4, under Neighborhood Center, it is stated that Brookhill amenities will be a "short
walk" from the proposed RST development. How far is this exactly?
36. If this application is approved by the Board, a shared parking agreement may be needed at the site planning stage,
depending on how the ownership of this development is set up. The required number of parking spaces in Land
Bay 1 (which appears to be the apartments) is two more than what is actually being provided; however, two
spaces more than what is required are being provided in Land Bay 2 (which appears to be the townhouses). Of
course, these calculations would also depend on the final unit count in the development.
37. The length from Ashwood Boulevard to the closest building and parking envelope is labelled differently on sheet
3 (70 feet) than on sheet 4 (68.1 feet)
Planning— Special Exception Application Comments
1. The request for a special exception for the stepback requirements indicates that the building for which the
stepback waiver is being requested (Building 1) is above the 40-foot height limit where stepbacks are required.
However, it does not say how tall Building 1 is proposed to be or how many stories are proposed? Provide this
information so that staff has a better understanding of the proposed building's height and how much of a stepback
waiver is being requested. The proposed heights of Building 1 and the townhouse structures do not appear to be
identified in the special exception request narrative. The third paragraph only says that they will exceed three
stories, thus requiring the special exception. However, no proposed height is given. A stepback waiver request for
a six -story building (which could be permitted based on the allowable height in the PRD) may be reviewed
differently by staff than a request for a four-story building, because of their differences in scale and intensity.
2. A special exception request is also required to be submitted for the proposed "two -over -two" units, as it is
indicated that they are four stories, if a stepback is not provided for those structures. Comment mostly addressed.
The final page of the special exception request narrative does not appear to mention the townhouse structures at
all.
Comprehensive Plan
Initial comments on how your proposal generally relates to the Comprehensive Plan are provided below. Comments on
conformity with the Comprehensive Plan are provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of
the staff report.
1. These properties are designated as Urban Density Residential in the Places29 Master Plan, which recommends a
maximum building height of four stories or 45 feet. The requested zoning district of PRD, Planned Residential
Development, permits a maximum height of 65 feet, which is not consistent with the Master Plan
recommendations. Also, Building 1 at the center of the property, appears to be five stories in height according to
the architectural renderings provided. This proposed height is in excess of what is recommended in the Master
Plan. In your response to this comment, you mention that "all other buildings within the project will be four
stories... " If the other buildings will be four stories, they all will need to be included within the special exception
request as well, or stepbacks will be needed. Please clarify, as some of the renderings depict them as three stories.
Is Building 1 proposed to be five stories?
Please note, the proposed building heights may comply with the 65-ft. limit allowed by the requested zoning
district of PRD. However, compliance of the actual buildings with zoning height limits is something that would be
addressed at the site planning stage. For this Zoning Map Amendment, the height limit permitted in the requested
zoning district (65 feet) is not in conformance with the height limits as recommended in the Places29 Master Plan
for this property's land use designation of Urban Density Residential, which is 45 feet.
2. Pedestrian orientation is a Neighborhood Model principle and the Master Plan notes (on page 7-2) that "all streets
in the Places29 area are expected to have a sidewalk or pedestrian path on both sides of the street, except where it
is not physically possible to do so. Separation between the pedestrian path or sidewalk and the street will be
provided by planting strips, either grassy strips with trees or paved areas with trees in grates." See Comment #12
above. Sidewalks have not been provided along both sides of all proposed streets. In addition, it does not appear
that planting strips have been provided along any of the streets.
3. Chapter 6 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends that affordable housing units be both for -rent and for -sale,
along with a variety of housing types provided at different price points. Clarify whether the proposed 15%
affordable housing will include both rental and for -sale units, or rental units only. The narrative and the
application plan should match. It is my understanding that if the affordable housing applies only to the for -rent
units, then only the multi -family units in this development would fall under that category, as the "two -over -twos"
are proposed to be for -sale condo units. Comment acknowledged.
4. This project, with 370 dwelling units proposed, will likely generate significant impacts on the surrounding area,
including on facilities such as transportation infrastructure and schools. This project is not in a priority area of the
Places29 Master Plan and is evaluated using the criteria identified on page 8-8 of the Master Plan (in Chapter 8).
Comment acknowledged.
Planning Division — Transportation
Review pending; comments will be forwarded to applicant upon receipt by Planning staff. Transportation Planning
contact — Daniel Butch, Transportation Senior Planner, dbutch@albemarle.org.
Planning Division — Architectural Review Board (ARB)
No objections at this time. Margaret Maliszewski, ARB Staff Planner (Chief of Resource Planning),
mmaliszewskia,albemarle.org.
Zoning Division, Community Development Department
Review pending; comments will be forwarded to applicant upon receipt by Planning staff. Zoning Division contact —
Francis MacCall, Principal Planner, finaccall&albemarle.org.
Engineering & Water Resources Division, Community Development Department
The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by the County Engineer, Frank Pohl,
fpohl@albemarle.org:
- Graded slopes must meet design standards [18-4.3.3]. Retaining walls cannot exceed 10-ft in height [18-4.3.3-A]. 2:1
slopes must include a reverse bench if slope is greater than 20-ft (vertical) [18-4.3.3-C].
E911 (Geographic Data Services) Division, Community Development Department
The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by Brian Becker, GIS Specialist,
bbeckergalbemarle.org:
Critical Issues: The five proposed private roads will each require road names.
Comments: The private roads designated will require road names, per the Albemarle County Road Naming and Property
Numbering Ordinance, Sec. 7-200, Part B (page 2 of the PDF):
"It is intended by this article that all roads within the county which serve or are designed to serve three (3) or more
dwelling units or business structures shall be named... "
Please provide this office at least three alternative road names for the each of the proposed roads for review, in case your
first choices are not acceptable. The Albemarle County Master Road Names Directory can be accessed at the link in the
Resources section.
Resources
A PDF version of the Ordinance and Manual can be found here:
https://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Geographic_Data—Services/Forms/Road Naming —
and PropertyNumbering_Ordinance_and Manual.pdf
Albemarle County Master Road Names Directory: http://www.albemarle.org/albemarle/upload/imagestwebapps/roads/.
Housing Division, Community Development Department
Review pending; comments will be forwarded to applicant upon receipt by Planning staff. Housing Division contact —
Stacy Pethia, Principal Planner for Housing, spethia&albemarle.org.
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA)
Review pending; comments will be forwarded to applicant upon receipt by Planning staff. ACSA contact — Richard
Nelson, melson@serviceauthority.org.
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
Please see the attached memorandum with comments from VDOT plans reviewer Adam Moore,
adam.moorekvdot.vir iginia.gov.
Resubmittal
If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is no fee for the first resubmittal. The resubmittal date
schedule is provided for your convenience online at:
https://www.albemarle.org/home/showdocument?id=358
Notification and Advertisement Fees
It appears that the Public Notice Requirement fees have already been paid for this application.
Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place in which adjoining owners need to be
notified of a new date.
Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is
areitelbach@albemarle.org, and my phone number is 434-296-5832 east. 3261.
Sincerely,
Andy Reitelbach
Senior Planner
Planning Division, Department of Community Development
enc: Memorandum from the Virginia Department of Transportation
Zoning Map Amendment Resubmittal Form
(Z)
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Stephen C. Brich, P.E. 1401 East Broad Street
Commissioner Richmond, Virginia 23219
September 14, 2020
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Andy Reitelbach
Re: RST Residences
ZMA-2020-00007
Review #2
Dear Mr Reitelbach:
(804) 786-2701
Fax: (804) 786,2940
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section, has
reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Bottler, dated 17 August 2020, and find it to be
generally acceptable. The following items will need to be adequately addressed prior to site plan
approval:
1. The access plan shown is reliant on the acquisition or encumbrance of land owned by the
Commonwealth of Virginia". Has the developer contacted VDOT's Right of Way division to
begin the process of surplus property evaluation?
2. Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) comments :
Synchro Files:
• Build AM plan has split timings that do not match the existing coordination split timings plan. As
stated in the previous set of comments in response to the I" submittal, if signal -timing
modification is deemed necessary to accommodate the development, the modified signal timings
should be added to the recommendation section for review. Furthermore, any signal timing
modification to this intersection may require updating the entire coordination system along US 29
corridor.
• For the Build PM model:
o The TIA states the following as one of the recommendations for the southbound left
movement "Increase the maximum split for the southbound left -turn movement in
the PM peak hour from 20 seconds to 30 ". The TIA did not state that this increase
of the SBL split timing would decrease the signal split timing for northbound
through movement on U.S. 29 by 10 seconds (from existing 90 seconds to
proposed 80 seconds). Decreasing the green bandwidth for northbound US. 29
leads to creating additional delays and building longer queues for northbound
U.S. 29 during the PM peak. Furthermore, any changes to the signal split timing
at this intersection would skew the offset time for upstream and downstream
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
intersections and skew the coordination plan. If the developer desires to change
the signal timing at this intersection, traffic signal coordination models and
analysis for the entire corridor of U.S. 29 need to be developed and submitted to
VDOT/ Culpeper District Traffic Engineering and Staunton Traffic Operation
Center for review and approval. In addition, the modified coordination plans need
to prove that the signal operation would have sufficient green bandwidth to
accommodate the traffic volume along the entire corridor.
o Alternatively, maintaining the existing split timing, clearance interval and offset
leads to a 95 a percentile queue of #332-ft; as a result, the southbound left turn
lane needs to be extend to a minimum 350-ft to accommodate the length of the
queue without spilling over U.S. 29.
3. Note that the final plan must show conformance with the VDOT Road Design Manual
Appendices B(1) and F, as well as any other applicable standards, regulations or other
requirements.
If further information is desired, please contact Max Greene at 434-422-9894.
A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The
owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section at
(434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process.
Sincerely,
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP #
Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # Ck# By:
Resubmittal of information for
Zoning Mau Amendment
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 blchearin at applicant's request
$194u
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