HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201300001 Review Comments 2013-02-20*-&A
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner
From: Michael Koslow, Civil Engineer II
Date: 13 February 2013
Subject: The Lofts at Meadowcreek (ZMA201300001)
The proposed rezoning of parcels 06 1 AO-00-00-0 1500 and 061 AO -00 -00 -01700 has been reviewed. The
following comments are provided for your review;
1. Please revise entrance to prevent currently proposed skewed intersection with Rio Road.
2. Recommend coordination with the proferred Treesdale traffic signal; will defer to VDOT
regarding if a traffic impact analysis is warranted.
3. Please reroute SWM access road. It is unrealistic to stop traffic on Rio Road for maintenance
activities for the BMP pond as proposed. Due to infrequency of maintenance, will defer to VDOT
if maintenance traffic every 6 months is acceptable.
4. Please indicate proposed grading for SWM facility. Proposed fill over existing sewer main at
north end of property would need to be coordinated with ACSA.
5. Please re -route proposed lot drainage. Proposed pipe cannot conflict with proposed building for
maintenance purposes. Please provide a minimum 10' buffer between edge of building and pipe
centerline.
6. Please designate area shown as "New Treeline" on sheet 4 as a conservation area [18- 8- 4.e.1] as
indicated on p. 4 I -11 "Site Planning That Respects Terrain" in proposed Code of Development.
A minimum of 20% of the gross acreage proposed to be rezoned must be devoted to green space
[ 18- 20A.9.a.1 ].
C:\ inetpub \wwwroot \cityviewlazerfiche_ integration \tempdocholder \46268.doc
•
l-' � if lllljl\ .
. v
sr`s:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
March 15, 2013
Mr. William Park, Pinnacle Construction & Development Corp.
1821 Avon Street, Suite 200
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: ZMA201300001
Dear: Mr. Park,
Staff has reviewed your initial submittal requesting to rezone 2.80 acres from R -4, residential
zoning district to NMD, Neighborhood Model District zoning district for a proposed residential
development with a maximum of 65 dwelling units and a density of 23units /acre.
We have a number of questions and comments which we believe should be resolved before your
proposal goes to public hearing. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss these issues. Our
comments are provided below:
Planning
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.
The land use designation for this property is Urban Density Residential.
Urban Density Residential — areas around Centers where multifamily housing with a gross
density range between 6.01 and 34 units per acre is desired. It is also applied to existing
residential areas with densities within this range. Primary uses in areas with this
designation are intended for multifamily and single - family residential, including two or
more housing types. Secondary uses for areas with this designation are retail, commercial,
and office uses that support the neighborhood, live /work units, open space, and
institutional uses.
• The County's Open Space Plan does not describe any significant features on this site.
Page 1 of 6 Revised 4 -25 -11 eke
Neighborhood Model: The following describes how the proposed development meets or does not
meet the principles of the Neighborhood Model:
Pedestrian Orientation — Sidewalks are proposed to be provided along Rio Road and connecting to
the proposed new building. This principle is addressed.
Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths —The entrance onto the site is a driveway leading to
parking under the subject building and to a few parking spaces that are at grade on the property.
Sidewalks and pathways are provided on the site along with street trees. This principle is
addressed.
Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks — Due to the sites location, interconnected
streets will be difficult to provide. This property is located on a major road that is proposed for
future transit. Providing a transit stop for this area is recommended. This principle is not fully
addressed.
Parks and Open Space —The amount of open space provided for this project is minimal. Does it
meet the 20 % required for green space? If yes, please show it. If the parks /open space provided
on the site is not adequate, perhaps providing funding for a sidewalk from this proposed
development to nearby Pen Park is an option. This principle is not met.
Neighborhood Centers —The minimal open space provided on the site does not appear to be a
neighborhood center. The indoor fitness center is relatively small. If there is equipment in the
fitness center, is there enough space for a community gathering? This principle is not met.
Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale —The proposed building appears to be three to four stories
of living space. The parking area is located below the building. Maximum building height is
proposed at 60 feet. The Treesdale project across the street has a height limitation of 35 feet. The
site plan for Treesdale also states that "maximum building heights shall not exceed 3 stories and a
basement level. Any building taller than 35 feet shall require additional setbacks from the
property lines." Depending on how the proposed building works with the terrain of the land, it
might not be a space of human scale. Demonstrate how the proposed 60 foot tall building will be a
space of human scale. Will the scale of this proposed building be in keeping with the scale of
buildings in the surrounding area? This principle is not met.
Relegated Parking —The proposed parking is shown to be located under the building and there
are a few at grade parking spaces located at the rear of the site. This principle is addressed.
Mixture of Uses —This proposal does not provide a mixture of uses. Do you wish to request a
waiver of this requirement from the Board of Supervisors? If yes, please provide this waiver
request. Per Section 20A.8(b) of the Zoning Ordinance, please provide a different use present
within one - quarter mile of the proposed district that accomplishes the mixture of uses within the
neighborhood. This principle is not addressed.
Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability —This proposal does not provide a mixture of housing
types. Do you wish to request a waiver of this requirement from the Board of Supervisors? If yes,
Revised 4 -25 -11 eke
Page 2 of 6
please provide this waiver request. Per Section 20A.8(a) of the Zoning Ordinance, this is an infill
project. What are the two (2) housing types present within one - quarter mile of the proposed
district? How will we know if the VHDA financing has been accomplished? We need something
tangible that addresses affordable housing. Will proffers be provided to address the affordable
housing requirement? This principle is not addressed.
Redevelopment —This is the redevelopment of an existing single family house. This
redevelopment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This principle is met.
Site Planning That Respects Terrain —The existing building will be replaced by a new larger
building. It appears critical slopes will be disturbed. Will a waiver be requested or provide
information that shows that a waiver is not necessary. Minimal disturbance to the terrain is
suggested.
Clear Boundaries with the RurafAreas— Not Applicable.
More detailed comments may be provided after more detailed plans are provided.
APPLICATION PLAN - DETAILED COMMENTS
1. Transit service is proposed for Rio Road. We suggest you work with staff and CAT
representatives to show an appropriate location for a future bus stop on the plans. The
County in working with CAT may request additional improvements that relate to future
transit service on your site (i.e. bus shelter, bench)
2. The zoning of Treesdale is actually PRD, not R -4 as labeled on drawing.
3. Sheet 2 of 5 shows the adjacent property as Pine Crest Orchids, which apparently is no
longer located there.
4. Make sure you have addressed Section 20A.4(d) of the Zoning Ordinance.
CODE OF DEVELOPMENT (COD)- DETAILED COMMENTS
1. Page 1 - The "Pine Crest Orchids" home occupation is no longer on the adjacent site there is a
new home occupation for acupuncturist located in the residence. The property to the south is
residential with home -occ, not "retail location ".
2. Page 2 — Master Plan for Development Area Section should refer to Places 29 Master Plan.
3. Page 5 —The number of parking spaces provided does not seem adequate for 65 residential
units.
4. It may be useful (easier to keep track of) to show open space area as a block with no
development.
5. Page 6 — V. Table of Uses by Block, Should this be V. or VI.? How does this table relate to V. (1)
on Page 5? What does the P in the table stand for, permitted or prohibited? Are accessory uses
and buildings including storage buildings permitted or not? This is a bit confusing.
6. Page 6, maximum density in units per acre should be 23 not 24.
7. Page 8 — IX. Architecture form, massing, and proportions of structures. The features are not
illustrative as described on page 2, but committed to with the language on page 8. Please
clarify.
Revised 4 -25 -11 eke
Page 3 of 6
8. Page 8 — X. Landscape Treatments, confirm that this section is consistent with the Zoning
Ordinance regulations and that the Virginia Landscapes list is consistent with Albemarle
County list.
9. Page 9 — Stormwater Management, where is Exhibit A on the Application Plan? What is
proposed: basin detention, retention, bio- filter /rain garden? How will it be designed and relate
to the open space "Community Center Park" as described in the COD? In summary, provide
more information.
10. Make sure you have addressed Section 20A.5(c ), Section 20A.5(i) (2), Section 20A.5(i)(7) of the
Zoning Ordinance
Zoning
The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Ron Higgins:
1. A critical slopes waiver will be needed.
2. The height limit of the proposed building needs to be measured per the zoning ordinance,
from the curb elevation at the street. If the intent is for the maximum building height to
be 60 feet from the curb elevation at the street, this scale would not necessarily seem
appropriate for this area.
3. This will require a parking analysis and modification for the number of spaces proposed.
4. The uses shown as "Community Center" do not meet the definition for such centers.
Engineering and Water Resources
The following comments related to engineering and water resources have been provided by
Michael Koslow:
1. Please revise entrance to prevent currently proposed skewed intersection with Rio Road.
2. Recommend coordination with the proffered Treesdale traffic signal; will defer to VDOT
regarding if a traffic impact analysis is warranted.
3. Please reroute SWM access road. It is unrealistic to stop traffic on Rio Road for
maintenance activities for the BMP pond as proposed. Due to infrequency of maintenance,
will defer to VDOT if maintenance traffic every 6 months is acceptable.
4. Please indicate proposed grading for SWM facility. Proposed fill over existing sewer main at
north end of property would need to be coordinated with ACSA.
5. Please re -route proposed lot drainage. Proposed pipe cannot conflict with proposed
building for maintenance purposes. Please provide a minimum 10' buffer between edge of
building and pipe centerline.
6. Please designate area shown as "New Treeline" on sheet 4 as a conservation area [18-8 -
4.e.1] as indicated on p. 4 1 -11 "Site Planning That Respects Terrain" in proposed Code of
Development. A minimum of 20% of the gross acreage proposed to be rezoned must be
devoted to green space [18- 20A.9.a.1].
VDOT
Comments have not been received. Staff will send comments upon receipt.
ASCA /RWSA
Comments have not been received. Staff will send comments upon receipt.
Revised 4 -25 -11 eke
Page 4 of 6
The following comments related to Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) has been provided
by Victoria Fort:
1. There are ongoing discussions between the RWSA and ACSA regarding the location of
the water service tap. This may be resolved during the site plan review.
Fire /Rescue
See the attachment for comments related to Fire /Rescue that have been provided by Howard.
Lagomarisno.
Housing
The following comments related to Housing have been provided by Ron White:
Proffers have not been provided. See Proffer section below for proposed suggestions. If you do
not want to provide proffers for affordable housing, you should justify your reason. One
explanation could be that Treesdale, located across Rio Road has 88 units of tax credit supported
affordable housing.
Proffers
1. Proffers have not been submitted. A proffer statement is needed with the application.
2. More information is needed on housing affordability to assess any housing proffers. Staff
suggests proffering a certain number /percentage of units meeting the County's affordable
criteria which would allow those units to not be subject to the capital proffers.
3. Cash proffers need to be provided.
4. Will amenities be proffered?
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.
Notification and Advertisement Fees
Recently, the Board of Supervisors amended the zoning ordinance to require that applicants pay
for the notification costs for public hearings. Prior to scheduling a public hearing with the Planning
Commission, payment of the following fees is needed:
$167.60 Cost for newspaper advertisement
$204.23 Cost for notification of adjoining owners (minimum $200 + actual postage /$1 per owner
after 50 adjoining owners)
$371.83 Total amount due prior to Planning Commission public hearing
Prior to the Board of Supervisor's public hearing, payment of the newspaper advertisement for the
Board hearing needed.
Revised 4 -25 -11 eke
Page 5 of 6
$167.60 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing
$539.43 Total amount for all notifications Fees may be paid in advance. Payment for both the
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings may be paid at the same time.
Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining owners
need to be notified of a new date.
Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is
cgrant @albemarle.org
Sincerely,
�&d
Claudette Grant
Senior Planner,
Community Development Department
c: Mary J. Dickens
605 Rio Road East
Charlottesville, VA 22901
enc: Fire - Rescue Comments
Action After Receipt of Comments
Resubmittal Schedule
Resubmittal Form
Revised 4 -25 -11 eke
Page 6 of 6
Based on application dated 01/22/2013:
We do not object to the zoning map amendment itself, but the concept presented has several issues
that will need to be addressed to conform to the fire code requirements:
1) Every building or facility shall have an approved fire access road that shall extend to within 150 feet of
all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building (503.1.1)
2) Fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum, unobstructed width of 20 ft. and vertical clearance
of 13 ft 6 in. (503.2.1) Dimensions.
a) Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) in height
above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire
apparatus access roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead
utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway
(D105.1).
b) Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet (7925
mm), exclusive of shoulders, in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of building more
than 30 feet (9144 mm) in height.
c) At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a
minimum of 15 feet (4572 mm) and a maximum of 30 feet (9144 mm) from the building, and shall
be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building (D105.3).
d) Dead -end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet shall be provided with width and
turnaround provisions in accordance with Table D103.4 (generally: 150 ft to 500 ft dead end road
will require either a 96 ft radius cul de sac, 60 ft "Y" or 120 ft hammerhead) ( D103.4).
3) Exterior doors and openings required by this code or the International Building Code shall be
maintained readily accessible for emergency access by the. fire department. An approved access
walkway leading from fire apparatus access roads to exterior openings shall be provided (504.1).
4) New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or
Approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or
road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background.
Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4
inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where
Access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a
monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure (505.1)
11) The fire department connection shall be indicated by an approved,sign mounted on the
street front or on the side of the building. Such sign shall have the letters "FDC" at least 6 inches
(152 mm) high and words in letters at least 2 inches (51 mm) high or an arrow to indicate the
location. All such signs shall be subject to the approval of the fire code official (912.2.2).
12) Immediate access to fire department connections shall be maintained at all times and
without obstruction by fences, bushes, trees, walls or any other fixed or moveable object.
Access to fire department connections shall be approved by the fire chief (912.3).
13) Clear space around connections. A working space of not less than 36 inches (762 mm) in
width, 36 inches (914 mm) in depth and 78 inches (1981 mm) in height shall be provided and
maintained in front of and to the sides of wall- mounted fire department connections and
around the circumference of free - standing fire department connections, except as otherwise
required or approved by the fire chief (912.3.2).
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
�'IRGII�ZP
ACTION AFTER RECEIPT OF COMMENT LETTER
Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following:
(1) Resubmit in response to review comments
(2) Request indefinite deferral
(3) Request that your Planning Commission public hearing date be set
(4) Withdraw your application
(1) Resubmittal in Response to Review Comments
If you plan to resubmit within 30 days, make sure that the resubmittal is on or before a
resubmittal date as published in the project review schedule. The full resubmittal schedule may
be found at www.albemarle.org in the "forms" section at the Community Development page.
Be sure to include the resubmittal form on the last page of your comment letter with your
submittal.
The application fee which you paid covers staff review of the initial submittal and one
resubmittal. Each subsequent resubmittal requires an additional fee. (See attached Fee
Schedule.)
(2) Request Indefinite Deferral
If you plan to resubmit after 30 days from the date of the comment letter, you need to request
an indefinite deferral. Please provide a written request and state your justification for
requesting the deferral. (Indefinite deferral means that you intend to resubmit /request a
public hearing be set with the Planning Commission after the 30 day period.)
(3) Request Planning Commission Public Hearing Date be Set
At this time, you may schedule a public hearing with the Planning Commission. However, we
do not advise that you go directly to public hearing if staff has, identified issues in need of
resolution that can be addressed with a resubmittal.
After outstanding issues have been resolved and /or when you are ready to request a public
hearing, staff will set your public hearing date for the Planning Commission in accordance with
Page I of 6 Revised 4 -25 -11 eke
the Planning Commission's published schedule and as mutually agreed by you and the County.
The staff report and recommendation will be based on the latest information provided by you
with your initial submittal or resubmittal. Please remember that all resubmittals must be made
on or before a resubmittal date.
By no later than twenty -one (21) days before the Planning Commission's public hearing, a
newspaper advertisement fee and an adjoining owner notification fee must be paid. (See
attached Fee Schedule) Your comment letter will contain the actual fees you need to pay.
Payment for an additional newspaper advertisement is also required twenty -two (22) days prior
to the Board of Supervisors public hearing. These dates are provided on the attached Legal Ad
Payments for Public Hearings form.
Please be advised that, once a public hearing has been advertised, only one deferral prior to the
Planning Commission's public hearing will be allowed during the life of the application. The
only exception to this rule will-be extraordinary circumstances, such as a major change in the
project proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that have not previously
been brought to the applicant's attention. As always, an applicant may request deferral at the
Planning Commission meeting.
(4) Withdraw Your Application
If at any time you wish to withdraw your application, please provide your request in writing.
Failure to Respond
If we have not received a response from you within 30 days, we will contact you again. At that
time, you will be given 10 days to do one of the following: a) request withdrawal of your
application, b) request deferral of your application to a specific Planning Commission date as
mutually agreed to with staff, or c) request indefinite deferral and state your justification for
requesting the deferral. If none of these choices is made within 10 days, staff will schedule
your application for a public hearing based on the information provided with your original
submittal or the latest submittal staff received on a resubmittal date.
Fee Payment
Fees may be paid in cash or by check and 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.
Page 2 of 6 Revised 4 -25 -11 eke
FEE SCHEDULE FOR ZONING APPLICATIONS
A. For a special use permit:
1.
Additional lots under section 10.5.2.1; application and first resubmission
Fee...................................................................:........ ............................... ......................$1,000.00
........................................ ............................... 500.00
Each additional resubmittal ....................... $
2.
Public utilities; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,000.00
..................................... ............................... 500.00
Each additional resubmittal .......................... $
3.
-Day care center; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,000.00
Each additional resubmittal ....................................... ............................... ........................$500.00
4.
Home occupation Class B; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,000.00
Eachadditional resubmittal ....................................... ............................... ........................$500.00
5.
5. Amend existing special use permit; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,000.00
Each additional resubmittal ........................... ...............................
..$500.00
6.
Extend existing special use permit; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................. ............................... ......................$1,000.00
Each additional resubmittal ............................ ............................... .... ...............................
$ 500.00
7. All other special use permits; application and first resubmission
Fee................................................................................ ............................... ..................$2,000.00:: .
Each additional resubmittal ........................................................... ............................... $1,000.00
8. Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request
Fee............................................................................. ............................... ........................$180.00
B. For amendment to text of zoning ordinance:
Fee................................................................................... ............................... .......................$1000.00
C. Amendment to the zoning map:
1. Less than 50 acres; application and first resubmission
Fee..................................................:......................... ............................... ......................$2,500.00
2. Less than 50 acres; each additional resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,250.00
3. 50 acres or greater; application and first resubmission
Fee..................................................................:......... ............................... ......................$3,500.00
4. 50 acres or greater; each additional resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,750.00
5. Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request
Fee............................................................................. ............................... ........................$180.00
D. Board of Zoning Appeals:
1. Request for a variance or sign special use permit
Fee............................................................................. ............................... ........................$500.00
2. For other appeals to the board of zoning appeals (including appeals of zoning administrator's decision) —
Fee (to be refunded ifthe,decision of the zoning administrator is overturned) .......$240.00
N. Required notice:
1. Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices:
Fee. ....................................................................... ...............................
actual cost of first class postage
2. Preparing and mailing or delivering, per notice more than fifty (50):
Fee....................................................................... ...............................
actual cost of first class postage
3. Published notice:
Fee....................................................................... ...............................
.3200.00 plus the
...$1.00 plus the
.Actual cost
Page 3 of 6 Revised 4 -25 -11 eke
2013 Submittal and Review Schedule
Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendments
Resubmittal Schedule
Written Comments and Earliest Planning
Commission Public Hearing*
Resubmittal Dates
Comments to
applicant for decision
on whether to
proceed to Public
Hearing
Legal Ad Deadline
and Decision for
Public Hearing **
Planning
Commission Public
Hearing
No sooner than*
Monday
Wednesday
Monday
Tuesday
Nov 2 "01 -2,
�, .Dec "520,12�:'
Dec,17 2 '01.2
Jan 8
19.2012.�
..Dec 19201,2'y;..�.
Jan 7
Jan 29
,; < „Dec3.2012 =
Jan 2
Jan 7
Jan 29
ec 17 201'2
Jan 16
Feb 4
Feb 26
Jan 07
Feb 5
Feb 11
Mar 5
e;Jan',22 _ ..
Feb 20
Feb 25
Mar 19
Feb 4
Mar 6
Mar 18
Apr 9
Mar 20
Apr 1
Apr 23
Mar 4
Apr 3
Apr 15
May 7
Mar 18
Apr 17
Apr 29
May 21
Apr 1
May 1
May 13
Jun 4
Apr 15
May 15
May 27
Jun 18
May 6
Jun 5
Jun 24
JuI 16
May 20
Jun 19
Jun 24
Jul 16
Jun 3
Jul 03
Jul 8
Jul 30
Jun 17
Jul 17
Jul 29
Aug 20
Jul 1
Jul 31
Aug 19
Sep 10
Jul 15
Aug 14
Aug 19
Sep 10
Aug 5
Sep 4
Sep 16
Oct 8
Aug 19
Sep 18
Sep 30
Oct 22
Tue Sep 3,:
Oct 2
Oct 21
Nov 12
Sep 16
Oct 16
Oct 28
Nov 19
Oct 7
Nov 6
Nov 18
Dec 10
Oct 21
Nov 20
Nov 25
Dec 17
Nov 4
Dec 4
Dec 23
Jan :14 2101`4-,',,k „ , .
Nov 18
Dec 18
r ; Jan 6;2014
Jan28 2014,
Dec 2
Jan 1:;2014
J "an.2 8 2Qi 4 ... .
Dec 16
Ga Janr15 2014
t,.. ,Feb 3'2014:..
:,- Feb 25 2Q1r4 j .,
Dates shown in italics are changes due to a County holiday
* The reviewing planner will contact applicant to discuss comments of reviewers and advise that changes
that are needed are significant enough to warrant an additional submittal or advise that the the project is
ready for a public hearing. If changes needed are minor, the planner will advise that the project go to public
hearing.
** The legal ad deadline is the last date at which an applicant can decide whether to resubmit or go to
public hearing. If an applicant decides to go to public hearing against the advice of the reviewing planner, a
recommendation for denial will likely result. Generally, the applicant will will have only one opportunity to
defer the PC public hearing for the project once it has been advertised for public hearing. Additional
deferrals will not be allowed except in extraordinary circumstances such as a major change in the project
proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that have not previously been brought to the
applicant's attention.
N
�L
RS
d
V
7
a
C
fSf
C
d
E,
ca
a
a_
f0
J
E
0
M
O
N
N
O
N
0)
0
rn
(i
W
Q
H
W
L
U
.Q
a
N
O
4. N
d
Q.
3
0
L
0
m
�L
(C
7
a
C
0
�N
E
0
U
a�
C
C
b
O
Z3
O
U
co
tiz
w
m
a
R
t
V
N
O
d
a
v
M
a
O
m
V
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
(M
M
M
M
M
M
W
(O
(O
M
Q
M
O
r
W
t\
N
M
O`
CO
VE
d'
r
N
M
CO
M
O
r
r
N
M
V
M
LO
co
(`
M
O
O
r
N
d
w
N
M
'V'
LO
CO
I�
I�
DD
M
O
T
O
r
r
r
N
m
D
O
00
N
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
N
�.
\
a0
d'
o�
r
O
r
N
m
tl-
M
d'
r
m
Q
0
N
M
O
M�
r
Lo
N
C
M
N
N
m`
,.
N
N
N
M
N
F-
N
M
N
M
N
M
N
N
N
N
r
r
N
N
CO
M
'7
V
LO
0
CO
I-
I-
M
co
M
CY)
M
O
r.
r
r
a
Q
a
d
J
to
N
N
M
M
M
M
M
M
r
r CM
M
r
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M_
co
r
M
r
r,
_
d'
M
W
M
M
M
O
N
O
N
N
'cl'
N
m
W
(O
M
M
W
M
Lo
J
N
M
N
N
r
N
r
N
r
N
N
N
r
N
N
N
r
N
r
N
N
N
r
N
N
N
r
r
N
N
M
CO
d'
M
LO
LL)
Co
CO
I-
Il-
CO
CO
M
W
O
O
r
M
1-5
Z;3
N\
N
N
N
a
N:
r
M
v
Ln
m
`-
rn
O
N
N
N
co
7
M
I-
I-
co
M
r
O
r
d
J
N
N
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
d
r
—co
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
T
T
T
T
T
J
�N'c7'rr�rM
4LO
N
O
I:
MNN_6)�M{N`W
C
:N:
M
M
M
M
M
M
N
M
M
M
(y
M
M
(m
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
N
a
co
co
'IT
LO
LO
(O
N
M
O
O
T
a
�ti:
\
r
LO
M
r
lO
N
M^
V'
W
to
M
N
M
O
M
W
Lo
m
d
N
N
r
N
r\
r
M
N
N\
N
LLB
L j
(o
r
i-
co
O
m
O
O
r
C
m
Cd
G
c
C
R
a
b
O
Z3
O
U
co
tiz
w
m
a
R
t
V
N
O
d
a
v
M
a
O
m
(2
M
M
(n
M
M
M
N
M
M
M
M
(m
V
(m
(m
M
M
M_
M
M_
M
M
M
0
M
L\
(p
L`7
m
M
r
W
(p
O
CO
O
O_
d'
M
N
N
M
O
r
r
N
M
O
O
O
N
co
V
LO
co
I�
1-
M
M
O
r
r
N
N
0
to
U
a
r.
r
r
r
r
�.
W
00o
r
�
to
M
M
1�
O
00
N
M
N
N
M
O
V
V
r
N
M
N:
r
r
N
N
CO
V
LO
LO
0
I-
1`
M
M
M
O
r
-
r
�
7
a
Q
m
to
d
J
CV:
M
M
M
M
M
M
N_
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
1-5
Z;3
N\
N
N
N
N:
r
M
v
Ln
m
`-
rn
O
N
N
N
co
7
M
I-
I-
co
M
r
O
r
Q
R
d
J
:N:
M
M
M
M
M
M
N
M
M
M
(y
M
M
(m
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
C
�ti:
\
r
LO
M
r
lO
N
M^
V'
W
to
M
N
M
O
M
W
Lo
N
N
r
N
r\
r
M
N
N\
N
LLB
L j
(o
r
i-
co
O
m
O
O
r
m
m
0
c
C
m
E
m
m
a
b
O
Z3
O
U
co
tiz
w
m
a
R
t
V
N
O
d
a
v
M
a
O
m
FOP. OFFICE USE ONLY SP # or ZMA #
Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who?
Receipt # CU Bv:
of ntn
Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit or tlt `'�y
Zoning Map Amendment ,!�:,N,�.
PROJECT NUMBER: -Z M)q r-)n ��fi ( PROJECT NAME: "l`1�e Ln k,:4 rhea i�UuzL eP _GC_-
❑ Resubmittal Fee is Required ❑ Per Request MI Resubmittal Fee is Not Required
Community Development Project Coordinator
Signature date
Name of Applicant
Signature
FEES
Phone Number
Date
Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit -- original Special Use Permit fee of $1,000
In
❑ First resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
$500
.. 7,x`,_,<�. 1, �. , � 5...1 .... :.. ... ... ..a ..t,. �,�1 . � 7.,..<k s — .�f..c�. ., 4r. .... ��1Y . L';`..... �. � ,c_?i` x ''� €..r4t`L2t3 �°,a k. .,�.,`� �?•,,.
S.,x�x�4i,k, .i. &� °5','% :� aria.
Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $2,000
❑ First resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
$1,000
) J Y t�Y "/z Ai,b 4_j� 5t �`.R! �^1�E^$ 7 .Y..Z �: ,i .ct�..xs S a Yx:•:1 f .',},. hi x�yrS �4tr r,yf�E j. „t 9� `'�^'..� i �� f...F -' Y.%
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,500
First resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
$1,250
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,500
❑ First resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission(
$1,750
❑ Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request —Add'1 notice fees will be required
$180
To be paid after staff review for public notice:
Most applications for Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission
and one public hearing by the Board of 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.
MAKE CHECKS TO COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE/PAYMENT AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTER
i' Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices
$200 + actual cost of first 'class postage
> Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fit, (50)
$1.00 for each additional notice + actual
cost of first -class postage
> Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing)
Actual cost
(minimum of $280 for total of 4 publications)
County of Albemarle Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296 -5832 Fax: (434) 972 -4126
6/7/2011 Page 1 of 1
M
GII�P
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
May 1, 2013
Mr. William Park, Pinnacle Construction & Development Corp.
1821 Avon Street, Suite 200
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: ZMA201300001
Dear: Mr. Park,
Staff has reviewed your submittal dated April 8, 2013, requesting to rezone 2.80 acres from R -4,
residential zoning district to NMD, Neighborhood Model District zoning district for a proposed
residential development with a maximum of 65 dwelling units and a density of 23units /acre and
offers the following comments:
Planning
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.
Neighborhood Model: The following describes the previous outstanding Neighborhood Model
Principles and how they have been addressed with the proposed project:
Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks — Due to the sites location, interconnected
streets will be difficult to provide. This property is located on a major road that is proposed for
future transit. Providing a transit stop for this area is recommended. This principle is not fully
addressed. Rev. 2 The application plan now shows an area fronting on Rio Road, north of the
proposed,site entrance that has been reserved for a transit stop. A proffer addressing the transit
reservation area is also provided. This principle is addressed.
Parks and Open Space —The amount of open space provided for this project is minimal. Does it
meet the 20 % required for green space? If yes, please show it. If the parks /open space provided
on the site is not adequate, perhaps providing funding for a sidewalk from this proposed
development to nearby Pen Park is an option. This principle is not met. Rev. 2 Sheet 5 of the
plans now shows the breakdown of the open /green space at the required 20 %. As previously
described above, staff believes this could be an opportunity. to provide funding for a sidewalk
Page I of 6 Revised 4 -25 -I1 eke
from this proposed development to nearby Pen Park. Since you have met the required 20 %, this
is a suggestion and not a requirement. This could be a good opportunity to provide pedestrian
interconnection, an outdoor amenity, since what is being proposed is somewhat minimal. It is
possible that providing this funding for a future sidewalk could assist you in mitigating impacts
from this proposed development. This principle is addressed.
Neighborhood Centers —The minimal open space provided on the site does not appear to be a
neighborhood center. The indoor fitness center is relatively small. If there is equipment in the
fitness center, is there enough space for a community gathering? This principle is not met. Rev. 2
While it is understood that there are site constraints relating to size and the inclusion of a
neighborhood center, staff wonders about the practicality of residents crossing the very busy
Rio Road to access amenities at the Treesdale community across the street. This principle is not
fully met.
Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale —The proposed building appears to be three to four stories
of living space. The parking area is located below the building. Maximum building height is
proposed at 60 feet. The Treesdale project across the street has a height limitation of 35 feet. The
site plan for Treesdale also states that "maximum building heights shall not exceed 3 stories and a
basement level. Any building taller than 35 feet shall require additional setbacks from the
property lines." Depending on how the proposed building works with the terrain of the land, it
might not be a space of human scale. Demonstrate how the proposed 60 foot tall building will be a
space of human scale. Will the scale of this proposed building be in keeping with the scale of
buildings in the surrounding area? This principle is not met. Rev. 2 Sheet 5 of the plans now
provides a grade calculation for the building and the Code of Development provides information
demonstrating the human scale of the building. This principle is met.
Mixture of Uses —This proposal does not provide a mixture of uses. Do you wish to request a
waiver of this requirement from the Board of Supervisors? If yes, please provide this waiver
request. Per Section 20A.8(b) of the Zoning Ordinance, please provide a different use. present
within one - quarter mile of the proposed district that accomplishes the mixture of uses within the
neighborhood. This principle is not addressed. Rev. 2 A waiver request has now been submitted.
This principle is now addressed.
Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability —This proposal does not provide a mixture of housing
types. Do you wish to request a waiver of this requirement from the Board of Supervisors? If yes,
please provide this waiver request. Per Section 20A.8(a) of the Zoning Ordinance, this is an infill
project. What are the two (2) housing types present within one - quarter mile of the proposed
district? How will we know if the VHDA financing has been accomplished? We need something
tangible that addresses affordable housing. Will proffers be provided to address the affordable
housing requirement? This principle is not addressed. Rev. 2 A waiver request has now been
submitted. Proffers addressing affordable housing have been provided. Applicant will provide a
Letter of Intent /Commitment Letter from VHDA prior to Board of Supervisor's meeting. This
principle is now addressed.
Site Planning That Respects Terrain — The existing building will be replaced by a new larger
building. It appears critical slopes will be disturbed. Will a waiver be requested or provide
Revised 4 -25 -11 eke
Page 2 of 6
information that shows that a waiver is not necessary. Minimal disturbance to the terrain is
suggested. Rev. 2 A critical slopes waiver request is now submitted. This principle is now
addressed.
More detailed comments may be provided after more detailed plans are provided.
APPLICATION PLAN- DETAILED COMMENTS
1. The note on Sheet 4 of 5 states new building structure 1 story garage 2 story loft units
building height 60' from garage floor to roof peak see height of building calculations sheet
4 of 5. Should say sheet 5 of 5.
2. Provide more details for area reserved for Jaunt /CAT. For example, the language shown on
the plan should be similar to the language in the proffer, so there is no misinterpretation of
what is being referred to or requested. Also the plan should reference the related proffer
so that someone reviewing the plan knows there is a specific proffer related to this area on
the plan.
3. This is not a requirement, primarily a suggestion: While the proposal is consistent with the
Master Plan, the proposed building is larger and denser than the existing single family
residence, and it will be a change for the existing adjacent residence. Consider providing
and making a commitment on the plan to a landscaped buffer and /or fence to the area on
the subject site that is adjacent to the existing residence. Staff suggests working this out
with the adjacent resident.
CODE OF DEVELOPMENT (COD)- DETAILED COMMENTS
1. Exhibit A should be labeled. I think this refers to the plan?
2. Page 2 —The last sentence in the first paragraph — "Specific lot boundaries and building
locations shown on exhibits are for purposes of illustration only and should not be construed
as final." is confusing, as the plan is typically proffered. How much change in the location of lot
boundaries and buildings, do you anticipate? It is possible that minor changes might be
acceptable and /or could potentially be varied if needed. Stating illustrative only could leave a
wide range of possibilities. Please provide some clarification.
3. Page 3 — 5. Neighborhood Centers states that Residents at the Lofts of Meadowcreek will have
access to amenities across the street at Treesdale through a Shared amenities Agreement to
be recorded prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. The amenities provided on the site
are minimal and could benefit from being upgraded. While we understand what you are
proposing, this seems like an awkward agreement to enforce in the code of development.
Should it be a proffer?
4. Page 5 The blocks should be delineated on the plan to avoid any confusion.
5. Page 5 The paragraph referring to Block A describes Parking for 70 cars and 4 surface parking
spaces will be provided. These numbers are not consistent with what is described on the cover
sheet of the plan. Please clarify.
6. Page S — IX. Architecture form, massing, and proportions of structures. It is somewhat
confusing to have illustrations in the code of development, which is meant to be the code for
how a project is. developed. Illustratives that are examples and not standards begin to be
unclear for reviewers regarding what you count and do not count. Please clarify. One
suggestion might be to attach this information as an example that is not part of the code of
development.
Revised 4 -25 -11 eke
Page 3_of 6
Zoning
The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Ron Higgins:
1. Need more justification for parking modification (parking data ?).
2. Parking modification request has errors in # of garage vs. surface spaces.
3. Height calculation method is acceptable. However, top of roof is 512.1 on cross - section,
not 520.5, resulting in height of 45.2'. Note that this height is more than that of
surrounding properties.
Engineering and Water Resources
The following comments related to engineering and water resources have been provided by
Michael Koslow:
1. Critical slope waiver request was reviewed and engineering recommends approval of the
critical slope impacts waiver request.
VDOT
Comments have not been received. Staff will send comments upon receipt.
Fire /Rescue
See the attachment for comments related to Fire /Rescue that have been provided by Howard
Lagomarisno.
As we have discussed, it is important that you understand the concerns raised by Fire /Rescue. Mr.
Lagomarsino has explained that the current plan would not be approved by Fire /Rescue. And
Fire /Rescue has overriding authority on site plans over planning. In other words, a non - approval
from Fire /Rescue could hold up the approval of this site plan and development until the
outstanding issue is resolved. Mr. Lagomarsino did explain that one way to resolve this issue
would be to sprinkler the building. You have verbally explained that this is something you plan to
do. Providing this information to us in writing will assist us in resolving this issue.
Proffers
1. Proffer 1 needs more detail. For example, does this refer to both travel lanes or one side of
traffic? When is this going to happen? What is the trigger?
2. Proffer 2 language needs to be consistent. For example, if you are referring to bus pull -off
then refer to bus pull -off in the entire paragraph instead of lane located within the
Property. Also see previous comment in this letter regarding application plan and note on
the plan referring to the location of CAT and JAUNT service. Have you checked to make
sure that this location is adequate for JAUNT? They typically prefer to drop off and pick up
at the building door.
B. Proffer 3 the sentence at the top of page 2-seems to be referring to for sale units and I do
not think there are any for sale units in this development. Please clarify.
4. Cash proffers have not been provided. You have submitted a letter describing a request for
credit from the Treesdale Park project. As you are aware, the County has a cash proffer
policy in which applicant's with proposed residential development offer cash proffers for
the issues covered by the policy, as there are impacts to the County's capital
improvements pertaining to roads, public safety, libraries, schools and parks that would be
Revised 4 -25 -11 eke
Page 4of6
impacted by the rezoning but are not being addressed. By not providing cash proffers this
level of impacts to the County from this proposed development is not being addressed. Let
us know if there are other improvements related to your proposed development that you
plan on providing that we are not aware of. Perhaps they could help mitigate the impacts
that may occur from this proposed development. As you have proposed with the Treesdale
development, I am not aware of previously developed projects serving as mitigation to
impacts for a future development, unless it is part of a phased development. Ultimately,
the decision regarding cash proffers and whether they are acceptable or not comes from
the Board of Supervisors.
5. As previously mentioned in this letter, will amenities be proffered?
The following comments related to the proffers have been provided by Ron White:
1. 1 question why the affordable units in this development would be specifically designated.
Generally for rental property, the requirement would be to maintain the minimum number
of units as affordable but those units could float within the development. If other funding
sources require that the units be specifically designated, we can work with that but] don't
see a need for our part.
2. The last sentence of 3. describes affordability for for -sale units. Since earlier in that section
it states that the units will be for lease, this could be deleted from the proffers.
3. Under 3.A. the first sentence would read better as ...maximum net rent provided by the
County Office of Housing based on fair market rents published by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development.
4. Under 3.C., we probably do not need a copy of the rent or lease agreement. Rather as
each affordable.unit is leased, we should be provided a unit number, last name of tenant,
lease date, and lease amount. The last sentence provides the option to request leases if
we feel like we need them.
5. Section 4. should be deleted from the proffers since there is nothing in our policy defining
"workforce housing ". As proposed, the requirement for units serving households up to
120% of the area median income is a commitment to one of the funding sources. That
source would be better equipped to monitor this condition.
Action after Receipt of Comments
After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions below:
(1) Resubmit in response to review comments on a Resubmittal Monday -- Schedule can be
found at this address:
http: / /www.albemarle.org /upload /images /forms center /departments /Community Devel
opment /forms /schedules /Special Use Permit & Zoning Map Amendment Schedule.pdf
(2) Request indefinite deferral
(3) Request that a Planning Commission public hearing date be set
(4) Withdraw your application
If you choose to resubmit, be aware that a fee of $1,250.00 is required with your resubmittal.
Please use the form provided with this letter.
Revised 4 -25 -11 eke
Page 5 of 6
If you choose to go directly to public hearing, payment of the following fees is needed a minimum
of twenty -one (21) days before the Commission's scheduled public hearing:
$167.60 Cost for newspaper advertisement
$ 238.34 Cost for notification of adjoining owners
$405.94 Total amount due prior to Planning Commission public hearing
Prior to the Board of Supervisor's public hearing, payment of the newspaper advertisement for the
Board hearing needed.
$167.60 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing
$573.54 Total amount for all notifications
Notification of adjoining owners and an associated fee are not needed unless a deferral takes
place and adjoining owners need to be notified of a new date. Fees may be paid in advance and a
payment for both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings may be paid
at the same time.
Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email
address is cgrant @albemarle.org
Sincerely,
Claudette Grant
Senior Planner,
Community Development Department
c: Mary J. Dickens
605 Rio Road East
Charlottesville, VA 22901
enc: Fire - Rescue Comments
Resubmittal Form
Revised 4 -25 -11 eke
Page 6 of 6
Based on plans dated 01/22/13, response letter dated April 08, 2012 and County transmittal letter dated
April 10, 2013:
We reiterate our concerns about the project's need to comply with the Virginia Statewide Fire
Prevention Code provisions. We acknowledge that the developer team plans to address these issues at
the time of the site plan submittals, but we need to be clear so there is no misunderstanding. The
current design is inadequate for fire protection operations and in its current form would not receive
approval from Fire - Rescue. The below fire code requirements need to be adequately addressed along
with providing fire flow calculations and ensuring there is sufficient fire flow for a project of this size.
The original comments are added along with the above so that everyone is aware of the current
concerns:
We do not object to the zoning map amendment itself, but the concept presented has several issues
that will need to be addressed to conform to the fire code requirements:
1) Every building or facility shall have an approved fire access road that shall extend to within 150,feet of
all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building (503.1.1)
2) Fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum, unobstructed width of 20 ft. and vertical clearance
of 13 ft 6 in. (503.2.1) Dimensions.
a) Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) in height
above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus
access roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power
lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway (D105.1).
b) Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet (7925
mm), exclusive of shoulders, in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of building more than
30 feet (9144 mm) in height.
c) At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a
minimum of 15 feet (4572 mm) and a maximum of 30 feet (9144 mm) from the building, and shall be
positioned parallel to one entire side of the building (D105.3).
d) Dead -end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet shall be provided with width and
turnaround provisions in accordance with Table D103.4 (generally: 150 ft to 500 ft dead end road will
require either a 96 ft radius cul de sac, 60 ft "Y" or 120 ft hammerhead) ( D103.4).
3) Exterior doors and openings required by this code or the International Building Code shall be
maintained readily accessible for emergency access by the fire department. An approved access
walkway leading from fire apparatus access roads to exterior openings shall be provided (504.1).
4) New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved
building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road
fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background.
Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4
inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is by means
of .a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other
sign or means shall be used to identify the structure (505.1)
5) Where access to or within a structure or an area is restricted because of secured openings or where
immediate access is necessary for life- saving or fire - fighting purposes, the fire code official is authorized
to require a key box to be installed in an approved location. The key box shall be of an approved type
listed in accordance with UL 1037 and shall contain keys to gain necessary access as required by the fire
code official (506.1).
6) An approved water supply capable of supplying the required fire flow for fire protection
shall be provided to premises upon which facilities, buildings or portions of buildings are hereafter
constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction (507.1).
a) The building construction type and size will be needed to determine fire flow
requirement and hydrant spacing.
7) Fire protection equipment shall be identified in an approved manner. Rooms containing controls for
air - conditioning systems, sprinkler risers and valves, or other fire detection, suppression or control
elements shall be identified for the use of the fire department. Approved signs required to identify fire
protection equipment and equipment location shall be constructed of durable materials, permanently
installed and readily visible (509.1).
8) Approved access shall be provided and maintained for all fire protection equipment to permit
immediate safe operation and maintenance of such equipment. Storage, trash and other materials or
objects shall not be placed or kept in such a manner that would prevent such equipment from being
readily accessible (509.2).
9) With respect to hydrants, driveways, buildings and landscaping, fire department connections shall be
so located that fire apparatus and hose connected to supply the system will not obstruct access to the
buildings for other fire apparatus. The location of fire department connections shall be approved by the
fire chief (912.2).
10) Fire department connections shall be located on the street side of buildings, fully visible and
recognizable from the street or nearest point of fire department vehicle access or as otherwise
approved by the fire chief (912.2.1).
a) Fire hose threads and fittings used in connection with automatic sprinkler systems shall be as
prescribed by the fire code official (903.3.6).
b) The location of fire department connections shall be approved by the fire code official (903.3.7).
c) The building construction type and size will be needed to determine fire flow
requirement and hydrant spacing (there will be a requirement that a hydrant be within 50 feet of the
fire department connection and arranged so that when an engine is connected to the hydrant and FDC,
it does not obstruct access for other apparatus).
11) The fire department connection shall be indicated by an approved sign mounted on the street front
or on the side of the building. Such sign shall have the letters "FDC' at least 6 inches (152 mm) high and
words in letters at least 2 inches (51 mm) high or an arrow to indicate the location.. All such signs shall be
subject to the approval. of the fire code official (912.2.2).
12) Immediate access to fire department connections shall be maintained at all times and without
obstruction by fences, bushes, trees, walls or any other fixed or moveable object. Access to fire
department connections shall be approved by the fire chief (912.3).
13) Clear space around connections. A working space of not less than 36 inches (762 mm) in width, 36
inches (914 mm) in depth and 78 inches (1981 mm) in height shall be provided and maintained in front
of and to the sides of wall- mounted fire department connections and around the circumference of free-
standing fire department connections, except as otherwise required or approved by the fire chief
(912.3.2).
14) Sufficient fire flow for a project this size needs to be provided.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SR # or ZMA ##
I
Fee Amount $ . Date Paid By who? Receipt 4 Ck# By:
cor' °i.u6�r
Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit or iL
Zoning Il�J[ap Amendment „�,N,E,
PROJECT NUMBER:.2MA Qo13'OCoo 1 PROJECT NAME: ke. LoC. S AT Me&z&,uor ee (L.
[111-Resubmittal Fee is Required ❑ Per Request ❑ Resubmittal Fee is Not Required
1 k i I 1 arr1 k—
Community Development Project Coordinator Name of Applicant Phone Number
11113
Signature Date I Signature Date
FEES
Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit -- original Special Use Permit fee of $1,000
❑ First resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmissioen,
$500
„y xk t?f.5, `cv
'^ jC} .; 19...Fx •3s,:�r, wv �`is. "'F�,'a. '} _ i -. <r,° `�,,... :X.� ..:. ,F _. x'nlXk1' ° rss�. v... .:,.. .r r.,a .. r.....,. .,'R s�'.l,_i. .... + . z d sf ii ` ....
°..:..3�% ._ _ •,S
Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $2,000
❑ First resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
$1,000
3 y t v: .t� r 2 y3.,x v . -.. F7",�yr*ii,'� x`�, x�kr�'x �rSS k m�' i.i .� i`''ce N�Sa.,S .,, � �k z�r �s r s�r� x'� �Vh::,•.s3s t�k a hr H }XS� � ?ty'v ��� r�3. pe - y�hfu7..
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,500
❑ First resubmission
FREE
ach additional resubmission
$1,250
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,500
• First resubmission
FREE
• Each-additional resubmission
... Ty
1
$1,750
❑ Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request - Add'1 notice fees will be required
$180
To be Daid after staff review for public notice:
Most applications for Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing, by the Planning Commission
and one public hearing by the Board of 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.
MAKE CHECKS TO COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE/PAYMENT AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTER
Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices
$200 + actual cost of first -class postage
i� Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50)
$ 1.00 for each additional notice+ actual
cost of first -class postage
i> Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing)
Actual cost
(minimum of $_2 80 for total of 4 publications)
County of Albemarle Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296 -5832 Fax: (434) 972 -4126
6/7/2011 Page 1 of 1