Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA202100001 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2021-03-05COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone(434) 296-5832 Fax (434)972-4176 March 5, 2021 Mr. Steve Edwards Edwards Design Studio 4936 Old Boonsboro Rd. Lynchburg, VA 24503 steve@edwardsdesienstudio.com / 434-531-7507 RE: ZMA2021-00001 Willow Glen Dear Mr. Edwards: Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for the zoning map amendment, ZNIA202100001, Willow Glen. 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. Provide the total acreage of Phase 1 of the development in the project narrative so that staff can better analyze the overall density of the development and the proposed amendments from ZMA2006-00019. 2. Revise the density calculations on sheet 2 of the narrative — it appears that 308 units divided by 19.27 acres would be approximately 15.98 DUA, not the 15.20 that is identified. 3. Include the net density of the development in both the project narrative and on the application plan. (It does appear, however, that it will likely be the same as the gross density since there are no environmental features located on the property.) 4. The project narrative states that some buildings may be four stories. Provide more information on the building heights and which buildings may be of that height. Any building that exceeds three stories, or 40 feet, in height, whichever is less, must have a stepback of at least 15 feet. However, a special exception application can be submitted instead to request that the Board of Supervisors waive or modify the requirement for the 15-11. stepback. 5. 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. The proposed heights of the buildings should be identified on the application plan. 6. Revise the information on impacts to the school system in the project narrative. The narrative states that this project is located within the Hollymead Elem. School district. However, it appears that this development is instead in the Baker -Butler Elem. School district. Baker -Butler is already over -capacity and is expected to remain so over the next ten years of enrollment projections, as is Albemarle High School. This proposal will generate additional students at the elementary and high school levels, while decreasing middle school students at Sutherland, which is currently under -capacity. This proposal does not appear to address the impacts from the additional students expected to be generated by the requested increase in density. 7. The project narrative does not provide any information on potential impacts of the project on public facilities such as the police department and the fire -rescue department. Anticipated impacts on these facilities should be discussed in the narrative. 8. There is also no discussion in the narrative about potential impacts on the transportation network in the surrounding area. This information should be provided. In addition, no TIA was provided for this development, so staff is unable to analyze the potential impact this proposal may have on the transportation network. 9. Interconnectivity is being reduced with this proposal. 10. These properties are near a designated Neighborhood Service Center (the intersection of Dickerson and Towncenter Dr.). How is this development proposed to relate to this Center for the community? 11. 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. 12. If this ZMA is approved, it is likely that a boundary line adjustment (BLA) plat will be needed to vacate the property line among the three parcels that compose this request. (This vacation is not required at the rezoning stage but is something to be aware of at the site planning/subdivision stage if the zoning map amendment is approved.) 13. Sheet Z6 mentions one -car garages. Where are those proposed to be located? They do not appear to be identified on the plan. 14. Why are the setbacks being reduced from what is shown on the existing approved plan, especially in the northern comer where Buildings 9 and 10 are proposed? These structures appear to be very close to existing single-family homes in the Deerwood subdivision, and no buffer is being proposed in this location. This does not promote the "appropriate and harmonious physical development" intended with the PRD zoning district. 15. Areas of Managed Steep Slopes should be depicted on the plan sheets for staff to analyze potential impacts. 16. On the cover sheet of the application plan: a. Provide the application number — ZMA2021-00001. b. Remove the Urban Mixed Use (in centers) designation in the comp plan section. This property is not designated for that land use. 17. Also include the application number for this amendment on the project narrative. 18. Has a Phase I environmental impact statement been done on this property previously? 19. How will waste management be addressed at this development? Is it only the proposed compactor in the northwest comer of the site? 20. 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 360 units proposed, 72,000 sq. ft. of recreational space is required for both phases. It does not appear that this requirement is met with the rec spaces shown on the application plan. a. Planned Residential Developments should provide an "improved level of amenities" (see ZO 18-19.1). Identify how this is being accomplished. b. Separate out the calculations of the proposed recreational space from the other proposed open space areas, such as the pond and buffer areas, 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. c. Identify the locations of the required recreational facilities. The proposed rec 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. The square footage of the recreational facilities identified on sheet Z8 does not meet the square footage required by the ordinance. See instead comment 21 below for another course of action since an exception request was submitted. d. Include Phase 1 in this calculation as well, since it is also a part of the development and the open space areas and rec facilities are to be shared across both phases. e. Identify any amenities provided with the stonnwater management pond. The pond by itself cannot be included as open space. 21. As an exception request was submitted, revise the request to identify the requirements of the ordinance, as mentioned above, and then identify what is being proposed to be replace the ordinance requirements, including both square footage and the facilities/equipment. The proposed facilities should also be depicted on the application plan. 22. How will the open space and rec facilities be owned and operated? More information should be provided. As they are part of the same development, the open space and facilities in both Phases 1 and 2 must be open to residents of the other phase. 23. Neighborhood Model Principles 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 (see attached document Consistency with Neighborhood Model) on relevant aspects of the Neighborhood Model principles. It is recommended that these comments and questions be addressed as well, as many of them expand on the comments listed above. 24. Community Meeting A community meeting has not yet been held for this rezoning application, although one is scheduled for Thursday, March 11, 2021. 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. Planning— SE2021-00007 — Recreational Requirements Comments 1. See comments 20-22 above regarding the open space and recreational requirements of this development. 2. Also see the comments from Zoning for more information. Planning — SE2021-00008 — Parking Requirements Comments 1. The narrative states that the development encourages mixed uses. There are no mixed uses proposed within this development. Clarify. 2. Identify the walking distances from this development to the services referenced in the narrative. 3. There is currently no transit service in this area. Furthermore, there is no accommodation provided for future transit surface with this development as proposed. 4. No parking studies or information was provided with this request, as was referenced in the narrative. Planning Division — Transportation The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by Kevin McDermott, Chief of Planning, kmcdermott@albemarle.org: A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for this project needs to be provided for staff to review. Without a TIA, staff can not recommend approval of the ZMA to the PC if you decide to move forward. Planning Division — Architectural Review Board (ARB) The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by Margaret Maliszewski, ARB Staff Planner (Chief of Resource Planning), mmaliszewski@albemarle.org: No objections at this time. This property does not fall within the EC Overlay District. Zoning Division, Community Development Department Please see the attached memorandum with comments from Zoning reviewer Rebecca Ragsdale, Principal Planner, rraesdale(aalbemarle.ore. 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: 1. Applicant is proposing to remove the offsite connection to Shannon Glen Court included in the previous rezoning. This may result in Shannon Glen Ct. being ineligible for VDOT acceptance, or, may require additional improvements to Shannon Glen Ct. to allow VDOT acceptance. If this application results in Shannon Glen Ct. not being eligible for VDOT maintenance, a private road request including required documents (plat, road maintenance agreement, etc.) may be required. Confirm if VDOT will still accept Shannon Glen Ct. if it is a dead end street and any improvements required to remain a public street. 2. Sheet Z8, Additional Notes - Trails must meet one of the design standards as identified in the County Design Standards Manual, Section H. Trail Standards. Please identify the trail standard(s) to be used for this project. If deviations are proposed, please identify such deviations (i.e. 4-ft width instead of 5-ft). 3. Considering land disturbance commenced on Phase 1 prior to July 1, 2014, the project shall remain subject to the Part II C technical criteria until the end of the current permit cycle, which expires on June 30, 2024. After such time, portions of the project not under construction shall become subject to any new technical criteria adopted by the board [9VAC25-870-47.B]. The active DEQ CGP permit number is VAR10P048. E911 (Geographic Data Services) Division, Community Development Department The following comments regarding this proposal have been provided by Elise Kiewra, GIS Specialist, ekiewragalbemarle.org: No objections at this time. However, see the attached memorandum from Elise Kiewra for advisory comments regarding this application. Building Inspections Division, Community Development Department No objections at this time. Betty Slough, Plans Reviewer, bslough@albemarle.or Albemarle County Fire -Rescue Review pending; comments will be forwarded to applicant upon receipt by Planning staff. Shawn Maddox, Fire & Rescue plans reviewer, smaddox akalbemarle.org. Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Please see the attached memorandum with comments from ACSA plans reviewer, Richard Nelson, melson(a)serviceauthoritv.ore. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Please see the attached memorandum with comments from VDOT Area Land Use Engineer, Adam Moore, adam.moore@vdot.virginia.gov. Action after Receipt of Comments 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 no fee for the first resubmittal. The resubmittal date schedule is provided for your convenience online at: https://www.albemarle.org/home/shQWublisheddocurnent?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 ext. 3261. Sincerely, Andy Reitelbach Senior Planner Planning Division, Department of Community Development enc: Consistency with Neighborhood Model Memorandum from Rebecca Ragsdale, Zoning Division Memorandum from Elise Kiewra, GDS Division Memorandum from Albemarle County Service Authority Memorandum from Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) ZMA202 1 -00001 Action After Receipt of Comments Zoning Map Amendment Resubmittal Form ZMA2021-00001 Willow Glen Amendment Staff Analysis of Application's Consistency with Neighborhood Model Principles Pedestrian Orientation Mixture of Uses Neighborhood Centers IW.IAIY.G V. I IVYJ...y Types and Affordability There are pedestrian facilities provided throughout the site. However, most of the sidewalks are adjacent to large expanses of parking. Landscaping is important to provide greater pedestrian orientation in this development. There is a trail provided on the southern side of the property; however, no similar facility is provided for the buildings and residents on the north side of the property. In addition, safety features such as crosswalks do not appear to be provided. This principle is partially met. The application provides for only one type of housing in Phase 2, reducing the mix from the existing greater range of housing types that are approved for this property. However, with Phase 1 included, there are additional housing types. This property is designated as Urban Density Residential, so residential is the primary use recommended. This principle is partially met. Strategy 2f in Chapter 8 of the Comprehensive Plan identifies neighborhood centers as having four components: 1) a centralized park or outdoor amenity which is surrounded by 2) a ring of commercial or mixed uses with 3) surrounded by medium to high density residential uses and a final 4) outer ring of low density residential. There does not appear to be a visually defined neighborhood center in this development. Many of the recreational facilities are proposed to be located on the outskirts of the site. There are two club buildings, but it is unclear what is proposed to be located in each, and there is not a centralized park or gathering area. In the greater area, the intersection of Dickerson and Towncenter is a designated Neighborhood Service Center. There do not appear to be any proposed connections with that area to promote connectivity with it as this area continues to develop in the future. This principle does not appear to be met. The proposal does provide multiple types of housing when including Phase 1. However, it reduces the mix of housing types in Phase 2, which currently includes a wide range of types, including condos, single-family detached, townhouses, and duplexes, to only multi -family housing. The overall mix of housing types is being reduced. The applicant is providing 15 percent affordable housing, per the Housing Policy in the Comprehensive Plan. This principle is partially met. Interconnected This application proposes to sever the approved vehicular connection between Streets and Phase 1 and Phase 2 of this development. Interconnected streets are an Transportation important feature to provide access and reduce congestion on the surrounding Networks road networks, especially in the development areas. In addition, no interparcel connections are proposed with the other adjacent parcels, several of which are currently undeveloped or may be redeveloped in the future, providing the opportunity for future interconnections. There are also no proposed connections toward the area around the intersection of Dickerson Road and Towncenter Drive, which is a designated Neighborhood Service Center in the Places29 Master Plan. The application plan states that the private roads are to have public access easements over them. These public access easements would be important for future interconnections. This principle does not appear to be met. Multi -modal This development appears to be mostly automobile -centric. There are internal Transportation sidewalks among the buildings. However, there do not appear to be any bike Opportunities facilities, except for the one hybrid trail on the southern side of the development. What is the surface of this trail proposed to be? No bike lanes or accommodations for future transit service are provided on the site. No pedestrian paths are provided along the Dickerson Road frontage of this property. This principle does not appear to be met. Parks, Recreational More information needs to be provided regarding the open space and Amenities, and Open recreational areas. As a PRD, there should be an improved level of amenities Space over the minimum required by the ordinance (ZO 18-19.1). Identify the open space and recreational areas in Phase 1 as well, because if these requirements are not currently met in Phase 1, they will have to be met in Phase 2. For example, there do not appear to be any tot lots or recreational areas/equipment in Phase 1. The stormwater management pond cannot by itself be included in the open space calculations. Are there any proposed features or amenities that would allow greater use of the pond or make it a desirable amenity for the community? How is the ownership of the open space areas and recreational facilities proposed to be handled? As a part of the same development, the open space in both Phases 1 and 2 must be available for use by residents of each phase. Demonstrate that the minimum recreational requirements can be met, including the number of tot lots and asphalt recreational areas. Or, in the special exception request, clearly identify each required recreational area/equipment as stated in the ordinance, and what is being proposed to replace it. Provide more information on the dog spa and what will be provided. Why is the dog spa not near the dog park? The northern side of the development has a dearth of recreational areas compared to the southern part of the development. Why are there two club buildings? What is the difference between the two? What is proposed to be located in those buildings? This principle does not appear to be met. Buildings and Space lear how tall the proposed buildings are. The narrative states that the of Human Scale buildings will be mostly three stories tall. However, there is no indication on the application plan stating the proposed height of the buildings. The only reference to height appears to be the maximum height permitted in the zoning district, of 65 feet. However, this height exceeds what is recommended for residential structures in the Urban Density Residential land use designation in the Places29 master plan, which is 4 stories, or 45 feet. Stepbacks will be required for buildings over three stories. In addition, two of the proposed buildings, B9 and B10, are very close to existing single-family homes in the Deerwood subdivision. There is no indication of their height, and no buffer is proposed between the new and existing structures to help provide a transition with the existing neighborhood. This principle does not appear to be met. Relegated Parking Much of the proposed parking appears to be in front of the buildings. Is any parking proposed to be located underneath any of the buildings? There are significant areas of surface parking. This principle does not appear to be met. Redevelopment The requested rezoning would permit redevelopment of the property, which is currently largely vacant, with a few older houses located on it. This principle appears to be met. Respecting Terrain and Careful Grading and Re -grading of Terrain Clear Boundaries with the Rural Area The property contains areas within the Managed Steep Slopes Overlay Zoning District. Pursuant to Section 18-30.7.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, Managed Steep Slopes can be disturbed if the design standards of Section 18-30.7.5 are adhered to. This disturbance includes grading and the construction of future buildings, parking areas, retaining walls, and other improvements. Compliance with this section of the ordinance will be reviewed by the County Engineer at the site planning stage if this rezoning request is approved. This principle appears to be met at this time. Although adjacent properties are zoned Rural Areas, the subject property does not border the Rural Areas as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. All surrounding properties are located within the Community of Hollymead of the Places29 Master Plan area. This principle does not apply. County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Andy Reitelbach, Senior Planner II -Planning From: Rebecca Ragsdale, Principal Planner -Zoning Division: Zoning Date: March 2, 2021 Subject: Zoning Review Comments-ZMA202100001 Willow Glen Narrative, Application Plan, and proffers last revised SE202100007-Waive/Substitute requirements of Section 4.16 SE202100008-Parking Modification Sheet Z4- • Sheet Z5 does not seem necessary and should be deleted as information on that sheet is repeated on other sheets. • Parking and Building regulations- Is there a reason why notes and setbacks are proposed that differ from the ordinance? Regulations in Section 4 related to setbacks and allowable encroachments apply unless expressly modified. If you wish to modify the setbacks, a written request and justification, with the specific section cited, must be submitted and acted on as part of this rezoning request. • PRD requires setbacks and stepbacks as provided in Section 4.19. This table and notes should be removed and include only the reference to Section 4.19. • Section 4.11.1 specifies allowable encroachments: o Covered porches, balconies, chimneys, eaves and like architectural features may project not more than four feet into any required yard; provided that no such feature shall be located closer than five feet from any side lot line in a non-infill development within the R-1, R-2, R-4, R-6, R-10, R-15, PRD, or PUD districts, and no closer than six feet to any lot line. • Refer to Section 4.11.2 for regulations pertaining to accessory structures in required yards. • Notes 3, 4, 7, and 8 need to be deleted or modified to address the comments above. • Why is Note 6 included when townhouse and single family lots are not proposed with this phase? • Patios are not structures and are not subject to setback requirements. • Notes that restate ordinance requirements or definitions must be deleted. This includes notes 5 and 9. SE202100007-Waive/Substitute requirements of Section 4.16 and Sheet Z8 • Zoning does not support the reduction in tot lots from 7 to 1. There should at least be a second tot lot conveniently located and accessible for Phase 1 in addition to the one proposed near Dickerson Road. One suggestion is the area near the dog spa. • This is not a Neighborhood Model zoning district but PRD. Amenities are a term used only for NMD. • Sheet Z8 must be updated to confirm requirements of 4.16 will be met and the term amenity updated to recreational area for consistency with Section 4.16. For 360 units, 72,000 square feet of recreational area must be provided. Substitutions/reductions must be expressly granted with the special exception request. For example, list out the required tot lots and recreation required by 4.16, beside each indicate whether you propose an equivalent substation or to waiver the requirement. • What are the minimum features to be provided for a dog spa or dog park? • PRD requires 25% in common open space. The percentage of area in common open space for the entire PRD must be added to sheet Z8. • Minimum design standards for the pedestrian/bike connection need to be provided. SE202100008-Parking Modification and Sheet Z6 • No data has been provided to support this request (ITE, parking studies from similar complexes in the area). "Empirical data" was referenced but not provided. • Staff does not support reductions based on transit as transit is currently not provided to the site or within walking distance. • If it would be helpful, staff can provide an example of such a reduction request. Proffers • This rezoning proposes to eliminate the currently applicable proffers approved with ZMA200600019. • Staff is still awaiting information necessary to evaluate and comment on impacts attributable to this rezoning, which proposes an increase in the number of units previously approved and change in unit type. • For informational purposes, if Willow Glen built out according to the approved unit type mix an estimated $1,733,885 would be paid in cash proffers for the CIP based on 2020 adjusted amounts. 2 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 r PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS - E911 APPLICATION#: ZMA202100001 DATE: 3/4/2021 FROM: Elise Kiewra ekiewra(a)albemarle.org Geographic Data Services (GDS) https://www.albemarle.org/ (434) 296-5832 ext. 3030 As this is a ZMA no road names are currently needed. However at the site/subdivision stage we would require road names for any roads that serve 3 or more addressable structures so you might want to check out the ordinance below and be thinking of those. Resources A PDF version of the Ordinance and Manual can be found here: https:Hgisweb.albemarle.org_//gisdata/Road Naming and Property Numbering_ Ordinance and Manu al.ndf Albemarle County Master Road Names Directory: https:Hlfweb.albemarle.org/Fonns/RoadNainelndex Parcel and mapping information can be found here: http://aisweb.albemarle.org/ If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT— Information from Service Providers To be filled out by ACSA for ZMA's and SP's 1) Is this site in the jurisdictional area for water and/or sewer? Yes 2) What is the distance to the closest water and sewer line, if in the jurisdictional area? Located in Phase 1. 3) Are there water pressure issues which may affect the proposed use as shown on plan? Water pressures in the area are high. A PRV will be required. 4) Are there major upgrades needed to the water distribution or sewer collection system of which the applicant and staff should be aware? Specified sewer segments will be over capacity with the proposed flow. It will be the responsibility of the developer to upgrade these segments, prior to contributing sewer flow to the system. There is a sewer upgrade agreement in place currently for the previous Willow Glen Ph2 site plan. An updated sewer agreement may be need if the site plan number changes. 5) Are there other service provision issues such as the need for grinder pumps? N/A 6) Which issues should be resolved at the SP/ZMA stage and which issues can be resolved at the site plan/plat stage? 7) If the project is a large water user, what longterm impacts or implications do you forsee? 8) Additional comments? COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Stephen C. Brich, P.E. 1401 East Broad Street Commissioner Richmond, Virginia 23219 March 04, 2021 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attn: Andy Reitelbach Re: Willow Glen — Rezoning Amendment ZMA-2021-00001 Review # 1 Dear Mr. Reitelbach: (804) 7862701 Fax: (804) 7862940 The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Edwards designStudio, dated 19 January 2021, and offers the following comments: 1. If this plan is approved phase I will require an approved SSAR connectivity exception or the streets may not be eligible for acceptance. 2. Please provide TIA data, that's mentioned in the transmittal letter. Please provide two copies of the revised plan along with a comment response letter. If further information is desired, please contact Willis Bedsaul at 434-422-9866. 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 VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTION AFTER RECEIPT OF COMMENT LETTER FIRST SET OF COMMENTS Your project has been scheduled for a public hearing by the Planning Commission for May 4, 2021, which is 90 days from the date your application was accepted for review. State Code requires a 90-day review by the Planning Commission unless the applicant requests deferral. As you will read in this comment letter, staff recommends changes to your project to help you achieve approval. Without these changes, staff cannot recommend approval to the Planning Commission. If you need more time to make these changes, and if you prefer to move forward to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for approval, you must request deferral. If you choose not to request deferral, staff will take your project to the Commission as originally submitted, but without a recommendation of approval. Instructions for requesting a deferral are outlined below. Within one week please do one of the following: 1) Request deferral, as required by Section 33.52(A)1, if you will resubmit, but would like to receive comments on the revised submittal, and understand the Planning Commission date will be later than May 4, 2021. 2) Proceed to Planning Commission public hearing on May 4, 2021. 3) Withdraw your application. (1) Deferral requested To request deferral, you must submit a request in writing to defer action by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The request may be made by email. You may request a deferral for up to 36 months from the date your application was accepted for review, which is February 3, 2024. (This is based on the Board of Supervisors' September 5, 2018, action.) However, all outstanding information necessary for Commission action must be submitted by October 6, 2023, according to the published schedule. (See Section 18-33.52 of the Albemarle County Code.) (2) Proceed to Planning Commission Public Hearing on May 4, 2021 At this time, you may request that your application proceed to public hearing with the Planning Commission on May 4, 2021. With this option no additional documents will be accepted, and staff will take your project to the Commission as originally submitted, but without a recommendation of approval. Revised 9-17-19 MCN (3) Withdraw Your Application If at any time you wish to withdraw your application, please provide your request in writing. Resubmittals As stated above, a deferral does not preclude you from resubmitting the application to address changes based upon the comments. If you would like to resubmit after you defer, you may do so following the resubmittal schedule. 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.) 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 9-17-19 MCN 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: ZMA2021-00001 Willow Glen 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