HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCP201400001 Application 2014-02-18 ciiiI. )
Albemarle Cv in ty Community Development Department
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902-4596
Planning Application Voice: (434)296-5832 Fax:(434)972-4126
'PARCEL / OWNER INFORMATION
TMP 04500-00-00-17300 Owner(s):
CMA PROPERTIES INC
Application # CCP201400001
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Legal Description ACREAGE PARCEL A GREENFIELD MOBILE HOME PARK
Magisterial Dist. Rio Land Use Primary Residential -- Mobile home
Current AFD Not in A/F District Current Zoning Primary R6 Residential
APPLICATION INFORMATION
Street Address Entered By
Judy Martin
Application Type Comprehensive Plan Compliance 02/18/2014
Project CMA Properties Rezoning
Received Date 02/18/14 Received Date Final Submittal Date Total Fees
Closing File Date Submittal Date Final Total Paid
Revision Number
Comments
Legal Ad
SUB APPLICATION(s)
Type 1 Sub Applicati Comment
'APPLICANT/ CONTACT INFORMATION
ContactType Name Address CityState Zip Phone PhoneCell
Owner/Applicant CMA PROPERTIES INC }P 0 BOX 7823 CHARLOTTESVILL :22906-78
Signature of Contractor or Authorized Agent Date
Application for Y"
:
Comprehensive Plan Compliance .�Nve
„.. fi-
PROJECT NAME:(how should we refer to this application?): 1i r 1 P 4 'o�r fi a f�t,zel 'l r tvl
PROPOSAL(use separate sheet,if needed): sec a. 1 J
eat
COMPREHENSIVE COMP PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: (/y L2 t Citl Si , urixm. YYite..4 4.�LW c
LOCATION: rYV►-r' -'Y'1 �Y )d'red! bL�+i A lo�t� A l `{+'-
TAX MAP PARCEL(s): Olt 500"CO-OD' 11 7O D
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: RI 0
Contact Person(Who should we call/write concerning this project?):__ 16 ; IN.111 I)O-PAS r r V-11?-1r—
Address 3i4 t. hia(h 5:)S k 1I DO City At Lc State VA 7.i�-Z DZ
Daytime Phoneen ) (( 5/-57 el Fax#( ) 517'0 9�-7 7 E-mail VI o1��h()��I S t it-A- �+1►�-
Owner of Record CIiA Prt�hes ) ,rz cioPc-k Px,c�� (f�
Address I 0 D rnyis On�-Z. /�r� City N Lv- )UL State VAS Zip Z7 i91�/
Daytime Phone( )9 51- 1eI o Gait-*�) 91LZ'1Q3D-1 E-mail pbor'(he. @ ool ita.P► d cowl
Applicant(Who is the Contact person representing?): C�t 4A !",`-� h e S }Inv T• c r0 f'ir.—glyd
Address cf I K- as above, City State_ Zip
Daytime Phone( ) Fax#( ) E-mail 'pborckl e��al 6vtA-1 i4-S.C,oM.
Does the owner of this property own(or have any ownership interest in)any abutting property? If yes,please list those tax map and parcel numbers
ytS — TT'1P 0115OO-oo-oo - 091180
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY History:
❑ZMA's&Proffers: __—
❑ Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan(CCP)
❑Letter of Authorization
❑ Special Use Permits: ❑ YES ❑ NO
❑ Variances:
Concurrent review of Site Development Plan?
CCP#
•
Application for ®
Comprehensive Plan Compliance
�%hGIN�P
PROJECT NAME:(how should we refer to this application?):
PROPOSAL(use separate sheet,if needed):
COMPREHENSIVE COMP PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY:
LOCATION:
TAX MAP PARCEL(s):
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT:
Contact Person(Who should we call/write concerning this project?):
Address City State Zip
Daytime Phone( ) _ Fax#( ) E-mail
Owner of Record
Address City State Zip
Daytime Phone( ) Fax#( ) E-mail
Applicant(Who is the Contact person representing?):
Address City State Zip
Daytime Phone( ) Fax#( ) E-mail
Does the owner of this property own(or have any ownership interest in)any abutting property? If yes,please list those tax map and parcel numbers
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY History:
❑ZMA's&Proffers:
❑Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan(CCP)
❑ Letter of Authorization
❑ Special Use Permits: ❑ YES El NO
❑Variances:
Concurrent review of Site Development Plan?
CCP#
PRE-APPLICATION WORKSESSION
FOR EARLY INPUT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION ON
COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (CCP)
Intent
The Pre-application worksession process is for proposed development projects. Typically these projects
will be ZMA's and SP's;however,they may also include by-right proposals. The purpose of this process
is to provide information to the Planning Commission on a potential development and have the
Commission provide guidance to applicants and staff on the viability of that project. THE"ACTION"
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS NON-BINDING AND PURELY ADVISORY but is intended
to help applicants know whether a project is worth pursuing and,if so,what issues need to be addressed.
Some of the key outcomes/benefits of this process are:
• Establishing whether the concept of the project,is consistent with county policies (comprehensive
plan policy). For example: Is the land use,mix of uses,and impacts of the development acceptable
for consideration,prior to focusing in on more design related is issues. Are there major hurdles that
must be addressed during the rezoning?
• Establishing whether there are"non-starter" issues that will make approval of any discretionary
request unlikely(For example: Without improvements to Rio Road or the construction of Meadow
Creek Parkway the PC and BoS would be reluctant to approve any project which adds more traffic to
the existing Rio Road).
• Provision of guidance on further work session steps and public input processes, issues. For example:
Are there past public issues/concerns that might be relevant to the proposal; suggestions of
organizations/groups/representatives contacts,etc.
Similar to a reviews for compliance with the comprehensive plan that the County undertakes for public
projects(2232 Reviews),the process is used to determines whether the general use(s)is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan and allied plans and policies. The focus is on the land use issues (consistency of
the proposed uses,or mix of uses and general scale of development). In compliance reviews,there are
times when"conditions"are identified which qualify the action, settings conditions which address any
shortcomings with the projects consistency with the Plan (example—Wachovia building on Fifth Street
found in compliance with the recommendation that the County implement transit service to the area...)
Purpose
The preliminary review is to identify:
• Any major issues with the proposal as it relates to recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and
allied planning documents/policies.
• Public concerns with the proposed project. An informational meeting to inform the public and
receive input may likely be necessary to achieve this.
• Other issues related to this area of the County or this type of project that will make the proposal a
"non-starter."These could be political issues (past example: like City/County agreement on Meadow
Creek Parkway construction);timing issues related to planning processes(a major rezoning request in
an area under some level comprehensive plan review—CPA,neighborhood plan,major transportation
study,etc.).
Information to be Provided by the Applicant
• A brief narrative describing the project—specifically what are to goals of the project and how they
see it relating this area of the community. For example what is the target market(s) for the
development?What are the phasing/completion goals?
• Plan of property/site identifying adjacent properties,existing topography and physical features shown
on the County's Open Space Plan as well as existing structures/development(roads,major utilities);
• Very general plan showing areas where development is proposed and where existing features are to
be retained,desired access,general descriptions of the type and mix of uses,and densities of
development(typical land use table showing the ranges of use types,mix,total sq. ft./or total units for
each use type,etc.)
• Graphic(schematic/conceptual examples) depiction of the general type and character of the building
development—NOT for detailed evaluation of the design but to understand what the overall concept
would look and"feel"like in terms of mix/intensity/density. For example,a plan might show a
rough/conceptual street pattern and for one or two blocks show an example of lots may be platted.
This could be supplemented with examples of possible building types that would help the reviewers
understand what the scale/character of the project might look like. The graphics could be photos of
other existing development that are example of what the applicant would like to pursue.
IF the applicant has undertaken"front-end"site evaluations and design work,then:
• Rough grading of the site to understand the impacts to the existing site/to be able to analyze the
resulting character from developing the site. The level/detail of information is hard for me to describe
right now.
• Conceptual road layout showing proposed accesses points and interconnections.
• General identification of open space and amenity areas as may be warranted by the development.
Staff Analysis and Report
Staff will provide as part of the report:
• A general evaluation of the proposal's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
An evaluation of how the area proposed for development relates,in particular,to any approved
Master Plans,Master Plans under review,Area B studies,etc.
• Information on known infrastructure and service deficiencies or issues that exist in the area and how
they might relate to this proposal. 5i ,3u p 0,1t s?I •
• Public improvements called for in this general area and how they might relate to this proposal
(Community Facilities Plan,CHART and other MPO studies,Greenway,Bike and Pedestrian/ a
Sidewalks plans and studies, CIP, Six Year Road Plans). V01 ;r y �j'y Ih >?`GtL.Ct Z� ` 0 0AI%'"',
VA general evaluation of the applicable neighborhood model principles (if in the Development Areas)
and general direction of how they may need to be applied(such as general orientation of
development,important interconnections to consider/provide.)
•
f'" Identification of associated approvals that will be needed. For example, does the proposed use
require special use permits in addition to a ZMA?Is the project in the Entrance Corridor or other
Overlay Districts? A`. L?
• Relationship between the proposed development and natural resources on the site. For example,will
the development(including grading that likely will be needed)impact resources shown on the Open
Space Plan such as ktt'eams)stream buffers,floodplain,,critical slopes,wetlands,and other features?
• Identification of transportation issues that will need to be addressed with a rezoning, such as
interparcel connections and future traffic impact studies.
• Identification of any on-site or nearby historical or archeologically important areas and their relative
importance. Will additional studies be needed before decisions are made?
• Identification of any impact important viewsheds which will need to be considered, such as the
Monticello viewshed.
• Other items which will be considered as part of a rezoning or special use permits. For example: a
coffee roaster or bakery can generate smell concerns,a large group of lighted tennis courts can
generate dark sky concerns,or a vehicle repair facility can generate aesthetic concerns.
Process
• Submittal is always on a Resubmittal Monday.
• Approximately four(4)weeks from submittal, adjoining property owners will be notified of the CCP
and the upcoming Planning Commission meeting.
• Approximately five(5)weeks from submittal,a staff report is completed and provided to the
applicant and Commission which covers the issues the applicant has requested be raised with the
Commission as well as the items covered under"Purpose"above.
• Approximately six(6)weeks from submittal,the project will be reviewed at the Planning
Commission.
• At the meeting, after receiving a staff presentation on the project,the Commission provides the
applicant ten minutes to present his/her proposed project. The Commission will likely ask the
applicant questions after the presentation to fully understand the nature of the request.
• Public comment is solicited at the pre-application worksession to identify neighbors concerns that the
applicant will want to address prior formal submittal of a project.
• At present,there is no fee. The process is hoped to create efficiencies during a future ZMA review
that should save both applicant and county money; thus,helping to recover initial costs.
• One review with the Planning Commission is expected unless the project is highly complex and the
applicant and Commission wish to pursue discussion further.
• The staff report and minutes of the meeting will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their
information(consent agenda-information item). No action is expected,but Board Members could
pull in information from the consent agenda to discuss, or request that a Board of Supervisors work
session be scheduled.
` g
• \ Legend
,. ,, j „,,-* ' � �"� * ��`���� �•� ��1980 _do Ks �'�¢� �oy < �+ (Note Some items on map may not appear in legend)
!<f r
I\\I
', x 45-95At 4 •• a s♦ •-' ; ',too,
',a , pO .
>1 f wRsu
'1958 b'A4 � t p 4 k eo.".
45�29A 7:7
... � 4r, 5. `�. •„, 1940 . #4 tse 19. 2036 a <i i i ' ' ,!, p •
* 2 i 1895 j �. 1J ' 128/
�i j�*it „ r / 1 a 20�03
e
'ram Ai * _ " ' t r 4 �.'
iti1882s 3 ' �r 4►.4 fe' ;.
45-2IV' p » � m r 1920 psi a s
18,i 0„ 1875 • �_
<1r "'" ^r 2 ''' = ;' -1 ` `"rv-� I T 1880 `� ^fi
1854 •
� ' f. ".`•,. 5 �� . %.r . , " • ` ;� ' •1872' " 4` ,,`1"
a *. •.18574.1 - „`� 24/ „` s? 1864 ? « rj1853� !CJ ,s t$44
a5 15t • x< 1850 r - "'�
ya ► ' x 186
k ` 44
1184i? ;l8Q1;
1758 r
TM.4 ",x 1754
s �� .� 45-15 ~y r
". �-.�,�, 600602% -� �X40 °z/520 a1,, r� 1750 174'
�. •.ate `�, � �r t 45 17r3. r a„�i '—
� E P 3 '1' '1e e M r_' a rg a �A . . 1744 Vi
�' v
C s t brjf `
E�ti *� s � ral 17 A ,� '00 �.. 4 ,
`� 625 /*61 M 1 �167 612 \ N° ' w �xa oe � "`�
•
t'., 61My12F16I j�  45-6d �/' 7, �� �- c . ' like
4 �
s '►. , 63261M1:12 1 4 45-163r �` " r i e•. , • a
�/ � � ' � h s SIR z 100
le
. h9..""12��B5� �a 4 . w-*-,r� h
62661 M-12-1 82 4' G �,P X- r; '" �`
• t61tM 12�1B362261M.-12-,1B �;� / moo - �� t• .� 1 3p...- • - -tr.�,".� 50`.,� r' ,
- ,fig. 11��
•a s6��� 47 • �. �Cj- , P r s x t'. ?▪ r ,� .":•,,. .w �* .!. 20Q.y j +•
,y 660,
61M 13 1F1+:. � a. ii, x I. ` J
kk
61 � . 6:1M'-12 1D01 ^4 641 654Yit co
664 \ " --. ' � 29, }
3 675587r i )kr " IV
pb 4 ' ea s► ' /,"`
2839' `'j 677y�81M--12IC�0�� t» � . ' ?rs � �..�—
61 M•�06 ! �.769361 M 12°s�1 D07I . 4 „ e I S., . ,
f14404,
2637��61M-12�E2a n4\� 61M�12 IC d 45-10. ^` / /
��p- 681 61M 121D1
�'���.� ,, 6�1 M12'1 E3fi1M``'12=1D09 . ., �»�_ , 685,4 4 , � ,. ��Sz._ � kit, y• ^ 28 Idir.f'i# 1 s 0 �.:e', ', i' ; i r R s' a' ^s ; r "^. ..
* -- 'It' 4 700 45-102
r633 0 `� 61M=-1�2��1'E1
: 3072 Aitr '� ;,44, �� ��t a 45=106'1a 20 .1.```�` '" 'U3 `'�
0
,, ,� t �* 61U-02--1 f °a 631 tM1 jA i +�c
�i
300 ft • A g>
�tix�-- r.-1v �64� � f% `- 1�6 C` F ;i "� '1718 s �....1 ;� GIS-Web
777 w
4. ak, 6 I M i _`'' -I ,�', Geographic Data Senecas
+tR� 0111�0?�<, C k' s . 4f*72? v. " ' / '' �"` wwwalbemade.org
�`3056 (aab�z
T fJl 61 ���
2702 �S y ` } 96-5e32
Map Is for Dispiav F'ui noses Only Aa.ial imagery from the Commonwealth„f „,.,-� �, February 25,2014
..-- � f:1123;':
a�� � Legend,t� �� (NoteSome itemsonmapmay atappearinlegend)_7
h .c5324P-35-94A1 ..::;:1;111:::::
544-ft r4 ,. as3 ' 1 a�'•. wwr•
540ft • ��� r�a �4�
45-157tu
��, 45-9 4._/�g`L
lEk
45-154
/- ('*
GREEt400-°�'N
/1
45-153 f
� '� 520 It a
—524 ft >
\TM:
a
45-192 45-173 IT v,
rn
Lu
z ya
516'ft= _w tt
��p� f' 4011‘1- ,
Ilk,...
45 948
� 508 ft
lil .,
,,,,,N.....7.0),tl ,z,„,.?
,.
45-162 Aril
Ai -
x. a+ r;p
i141" ,...
it
•
'•'�45-149 ,
a dt .
100 ft a5-1o`oc` ,,` 45-sole
/ /\/(
4 45=10oB 4$ y� GIS-Web
t i�4� � 4� k �Li �� Geographic Data Services
4, 4 48`?o0A k 41296 5832
Map is for Display Purposes Only•Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virgida and Other Sources March 5,2014
CMA Properties Rezoning Proposal
CMA Properties, Inc. is the owner of tax map parcel 04500-00-00-17300, located off of Berkmar Drive in
the Rio Magisterial District(the "Property"). The Property contains 3.53 acres and is zoned R-6
Residential.
CMA Properties, Inc is proposing to rezone the Property to a Planned District that would permit the
Property to be used to grow the existing business operations at the contiguous Colonial Auto Center
located at 100, 150, 200, and 300 Myers Drive (tax map parcel 04500-00-00-094B), which is under
common ownership. Other properties along Berkmar Drive and Rio road are currently engaged in
commercial operations which are consistent with this request. The Property, as shown in Exhibit 1, is
designated on the Comprehensive Plan for Urban Density as the primary use,with a secondary use of
Urban Mixed Use (in centers) and Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial as minor use.
Colonial Auto Center was originally built in 1986 and has operated in automotive sales, service, and
related businesses ever since. Colonial Auto Center is a part of Carter Myers Automotive (CMA) which
has been in operation in Virginia since 1924 and Albemarle County since 1983. CMA currently employs
approximately 130 people in Albemarle County and has an annual payroll of approximately$7.2 million
in Albemarle County. It is anticipated that the future use of this property will add 20-30 full time jobs.
Colonial Auto Center is best known as one of the largest automobile dealerships in the Charlottesville
region. But it provides many other services in addition to new and used vehicle sales. Colonial Auto
Center also has a service department,which in addition to service to the general public, services
Albemarle County and Charlottesville City police and rescue vehicles, many UVA heavy equipment items
such as ambulances, and many area commercial business vehicles. In addition, Colonial Auto Center
provides customer and factory warranty work for Ford, Lincoln, Buick,Cadillac, GMC, Chevrolet, Nissan,
and Mitsubishi. Colonial Auto Center also houses a weekly public auto auction, Central Virginia Auto
Auction, a Quick Lane oil change business, and corporate offices for CMA and CMA Properties, Inc. The
Property's location relative to these important and established revenue streams for Colonial Auto
Center and Albemarle County makes it the logical location for expansion of the Colonial Auto Center
uses.
With a rezoning to a Planned District zoning district that permits a variety of commercial uses, Colonial
Auto Center can grow its existing businesses along a contiguous footprint. This will allow the operation
to continue to function as a true auto "Center" where a consumer can have several key automotive
needs met at one location. Having all of this on a single site reduces daily trips around town by
customers and employees.
The rezoning of the property from residential to a Planned District would also be more consistent with
the existing zoning of the surrounding properties. Exhibit 2 shows the existing zoning on the adjacent
properties within the vicinity of the Property. The surrounding parcels are predominately zoned for
commercial uses at this time. Exhibit 3 shows the current uses of the parcels adjacent to the Property.
The majority of the existing uses are consistent with the current zoning on the properties. The rezoning
of this parcel from residential to a Planned District would be harmonious to the adjacent properties
within this area.
While it is not yet known what the exact future use would be for the Property, it is anticipated that it
will be automotive related. In order to attract potential opportunities to the Property, it is necessary to
have the proper zoning in place. Enclosed is a conceptual plan showing how the Property might be
developed in the future.
Thank you for consideration.
24741006_3
Project: CCP 2014-00001 CMA Properties Rezoning Pre-application work session; Owners: CMA
Properties Inc;Tax Map Parcel: 04500-00-00-17300
Purpose of work session
Location: 3.53 acre parcel, east side of Berkmar Drive, 350 feet northeast of intersection with Rio Rd.
Directly behind (west) existing Colonial Auto Center. Former site of the Greenfield Mobile Home Park
which closed in June 2013.
Proposal:To use the property for automotive uses related to the expansion of Colonial Auto Center.
Applicant does not have specific plans yet for the property, but has submitted a conceptual plan
showing a proposed building and expansion of parking area.
Surrounding uses: Image was taken when mobile home park was still on site. Homes have since been
removed. Surrounding mostly commercial—Rio Hill Shopping center, existing Colonial Site, office and
retail along Berkmar/Rio, apartment building south,Agnor-Hurt northwest.
Current conditions on site: Entrance onto Berkmar Drive, road network still in place, tree line and
intermittent stream along southern property line.
Existing Zoning: R-6 Residential 6 du/ac, much of the surrounding land is zoned for commercial;
exception is Agnor-Hurt Elementary school which is northwest of the subject parcel and neighborhood
"I [I@
ertsi4+p(vacant) north of the property.
Comprehensive Plan Land Use: Neighborhpod 1 of the Places 29 Master Plan area. Designated Urban
Density Residential in areas around centers, which calls for primarily residential uses. Suggested density
in Urban Density Residential is 6.01-34 residential units per acre. Auto commercial sales and service not
permitted in Urban Density Residential. However, was designated as such when was still mobile home
park—Many existing residential uses were given land use designations at the time based on their current
use and density to protect existing neighborhoods.
Other Comprehensive Plan Considerations for this site:
- Places29 calls for expansion of Berkmar into 4 lane-boulevard, sidewalks, bike lanes,
landscaping on both sides,
- Places29 calls for the creation of block network. Future transportation network shows
potential connection in this area. Extension of Myers Drive to Berkmar Drive could be
possible connection point.
- Land Capacity for reside i I growth: loss of residential capacity on the growth areas, small
amount when measured against growth area as a whole but may be more impactful to the
mix of uses in the neighborhood.
- Economic development goals: this is not a target industry. Encourage expansion of existing
businesses and encourage infill development.
- Neighborhood model—Redevelopment of site could incorporate principles of Neighborhood
Model especially interconnectivity, pedestrian orientation.
- Site within close proximity of Rio—29 North Intersection which is recommended for
redevelopment.This area is a Priority Area is will be part of a small area plan which will be
developed in conjunction with the next Places29 Master Plan update.
Summary
Factors Favorable:
1. Reducing capacity for residential growth is not so significant that it cannot be made up with
the redevelopment of other sites.
2. Consistent with Economic development goals of expanding existing business and infill
development
3. Redevelopment may provide opportunity to incorporate transportation improvements
recommended by Places 29 and Neighborhood Model Principles
Factors Unfavorable:
1. Not in conformity with Comp Plan recommended land use (though remember when it was
given Urban Density designation it was the site of Greenfield Mobile Home Park)
2. The conceptual plan does not meet Neighborhood Model principles and the proposed
layout may cause issues for visibility and drainage.
Recommendation/Questions
Based on the information provided for review, staff does not find the proposal to be in conformity with
the Comprehensive Plan. If the Commission agrees, but believes the proposal has merit,then it is asked
to provide guidance on potential next steps for the applicant.
Questions for Staff/Applicant
Questions for Commission
Does the Planning Commission find the proposed use to be appropriate for this site?
If the Commission believes it can support a change to the Places 29 Master Plan,then three possible
approaches exist for the Commission to process such a change:
Approach for Amending?
1. Review the proposed land use amendment during the next Places 29 Master Plan update.
This update will include the development of the small area plan for the intersection of Rio
Road and Route 29 which includes the CMA site. After the Plan is updated the applicant can
choose whether or not to pursue a Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA).This is the approach
that staff has typically recommended to applicants interested in land use changes to the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. Advise the applicant to apply for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA), for which the
next deadline for filing is September 2, 2014. After the CPA review the applicant can choose
to pursue a ZMA. Processing requests in this order allows staff and the Commission to
review proposed CPAs on their own merit, without a specific proposal attached.This
approach is similar to the approach recommended to property owners who asked for land
use changes late in the Comprehensive Plan review process.
3. Review the application for a CPA in conjunction with the submittal of a rezoning request for
the property.This recommendation should be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for
concurrence due to the current status of the draft Plan.While not typically recommended,
this approach is possible due to the small size of the site and narrow focus of the proposed
uses.
At this juncture,staff believes the second option is the most appropriate. However, should the
Commission wish to recommend the third option, it is asked to advise on the most important
features needed for a land use change.
Other issues?
® COLLINS ENGINE !I N G RRETT ST,SUITE K CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902
434.293.3719 PH 434.293.2813 FX
www.collins-engineering.com
TRANSMITTAL
0 FAX 0 MAIL ■ DELIVERY
TO: FROM: 6'/
16 G o ,x2
COMPANY: DATE:
Afb��Marto & fy , Ig I t0t4
FAX: TOTAL NO.OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER:
PHONE NUMBER: SENDER'S PHONE NUMBER:
$ -5?19
PROJECT/SUBJECT:
CMA I pp�-ezt{thl
PLEASE FIND ENCLOSED: JJ
NO.COPIES DATE DESCRIPTION
l7 PIA(
i7 !\1 Cwrt4iva
I A-pfticklitai
NOTES/COMMENTS:
RECEIVED BY: i
SIGNATURE DATE
s e.'13AFIC,,j3VI