HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201300017 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2013-12-13PA I'l l it ,� ,��.
• r / I _
lull
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
December 13, 2013
Mr. Vito Cetta
1730 Owensfield Dr.
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: ZMA201300017
Dear: Mr. Cetta,
Staff has reviewed your initial submittal requesting to rezone 12.991 acres from R -1, residential
zoning district to NMD, Neighborhood Model District zoning district for a proposed mixed use
development with a maximum of 130 dwelling units and a density of 10 units /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:
Plannine
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.
As discussed during some of the pre - application meetings, the adjacent Parham property located
n.o.r-t
update. It is anticipated that buildings with similar uses on this subject property would be located
Page 1 of 8 Revised 4 -25 -11 eke
adjacent to the already existing industrial uses, making this property become the transition from
Industiral /commercial uses to the residential uses located to the southern area of the property. It
is recommended that you relocate the proposed non- residential. building to the portion of the
subject property that is adjacent to the Parham property located to the north, since this is an area
designated for industrial type uses. Retail uses are not recommended or expected for this
property. This property is recommended for Office, R & D flex uses along with residential uses in
the proposed Comprehensive Plan update.
• The County's Open Space Plan does not describe any significant features on this site.
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 internally and externally
throughout the proposed development. This principle is addressed.
Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths — Sidewalks and pathways are provided on the site
along with street trees. This principle is addressed.
Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks — This site is somewhat topographically
challenging. However, a road is proposed through the development that will connect Route 20 to
Avon Street Extended. The proposed plan also shows areas of potential interconnected streets on
the northern boundary of the site. While it is good to see the proposed interconnection, you
should think about the practicality of the location of the interconnection at the northern end of
the site going from an industrial site to the residential portion of this subject site. This principle is
addressed, but may need some revision.
Parks and Open Space —The amount of open space provided for this project appears to be
minimal. It is unclear how much open space is actually provided, as the plan does not appear to
show over 50% of the site in open space as noted on the plan. 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,
will a waiver be requested? It is not clear if this principle is met.
Neighborhood Centers —The park can serve in many ways as a neighborhood center. However, it
is unclear whether the park meets the required amount for greenspace. This property is also
located relatively near to Monticello High school, Cale Elementary school and a shopping center.
Depending on the type of business that locates within this community, it is possible that an
additional community center /space could be located within the commercial space. This principle is
partially met.
Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale —The proposed non - residential building which fronts on
Route 20 can have a maximum height of four stories. Four stories is the maximum height for any
building on this site with majority of the buildings proposed to be no taller than 3 stories. The
terrain of the site slopes down from Avon Street Extended to Route 20, maintaining the views of
are of human scale on this site. This principle is met.
Revised 4 -25 -11 eke
Page 2, of 8
Relegated Parking — Majority of this development consists of single family housing, therefore
most of the parking for this development will be located on the single family lots. There will be
some on street parking and parking lots will be located behind the non - residential building. This
principle is addressed.
Mixture of Uses —This is primarily a residential development with a commercial building located
adjacent to Route 20. The mixture of uses is somewhat minimal. This principle is addressed.
Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability —This proposal provides a mixture of housing types
including single family detached and attached houses and apartments could be included in Blocks
A and B if desired. The amount of affordable units provided will need to be clear. It appears you
are committed to providing fifteen percent affordable units, but this does not match up with the
amount of affordable units shown in the proffers. It is unclear if this principle is addressed. It
needs to be clarified.
Redevelopment —This is the redevelopment of an existing house. This redevelopment is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This principle is met.
Site Planning That Respects Terrain — As previously noted, the terrain of this site is slightly
challenging in certain portions. You have tried to address this in the proposed layout of the
buildings, and travelways. Minimal disturbance to the steep terrain is suggested.
Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas — Not Applicable.
More detailed comments may be provided after more detailed plans are provided.
APPLICATION PLAN- DETAILED COMMENTS
1. Cover sheet: Note 1 needs to be fixed with the existing zoning district:
2. Sheet 4 shows double retaining walls. What happens in the spaces between the retaining
walls? Provide more details regarding the proposed retaining walls.
3. There appears to be landscaped areas shown throughout the development on individual
lots. Will landscape easement be included? If not, they should be. Also will need
maintenance agreement for landscaping easement.
4. Will critical slopes be disturbed? If yes, please provide a critical slopes waiver request.
5. It is not clear how this proposal meets 20% for green space. Please provide more detail or
request .a waiver.
6. It is not clear how this proposal meets 20% for amenities. Please provide more detail or
request a waiver.
CODE OF DEVELOPMENT (COD)- DETAILED COMMENTS
1. Please make clear the maximum units proposed in this development. Is it 130 or 93 units?
Whichever number is used, the density, affordable units, etc. need to be based on this
number.
rdge 1F— I f I JeGLIU(I L.1 IL I[IIr,IIL
instead of the way it is worded.
Revised 4 -25 -11 eke
Page 3 of 8
3. Page 4 — Please clarify the second paragraph of Section 2.3. It is somewhat confusing. What is
the intent?
4. The permitted /prohibited uses by block table as shown on pages 6 - 8 should be consistent
with the intent of the recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan update; as discussed
during the Planning Commission worksessions for the Comprehensive Plan update. For
example, retail uses are not encouraged for this area, but retail uses are permitted in the
table. Would some of the intended users of the commercial space need some office space,
which appears to be not permitted in the table? Stand -alone parking /parking structures are
typically allowed with an SP. This may be more appropriate in this location. We are glad to
discuss this further if you have concerns.
5. Page 9 —Section 2.5 name of development needs to be corrected.
6. Page 9 —Table 3.2 Density Regulations, we highly suggest you work with Susan Stimart
regarding square footage for non - residential building(s) and focusing on the needs of the
target industry as described by the County.
7. Page 10 -Table 3.4 — Building height regulations should be together on the same page, not
broken up as shown.
8. Page 13 has several typos. See the first sentence of the first paragraph. See the second bullet
of Section 4.1.3 and see the third bullet of Section 4.1.4.
9. Page 14 See 10th bullet for typo.
10. Page 21, third paragraph should the first word be building or buildings?
11. The following comments related to the COD are from Amelia McCulley:
Because the Code will guide review of development (plans and plats), it should be more
descriptive in certain areas. For example, Section 5.4 refers to "certain areas" for special
landscape treatments. This is too vague. Section 10.4 relating to Parks and Open Space is
also too vague to administer.
Proposed Uses
The proposed uses are primarily retail uses and do not adequately capture the
Comprehensive Plan recommendation for Office R &D Flex space. Please consider
amending Table 2.4 for Permitted uses as well as the Code of Development (COD) language
for the following:
a. Please utilize the new zoning industrial use categories. Please also consider an
approach similar to What we have provided for in our commercial districts or are
proposing in the Downtown Crozet District. For example, allow
"Laboratories /Research and Development /Experimental Testing" by- right. Your
COD prohibits these, laboratory uses that are very much anticipated with the R &D
flex space. You could either allow limited amounts (such as no use exceeding
4,000 square feet) of these two additional categories or allow them only by special
use permit: storage / warehousing / distribution / transportation and
manufacturing / processing / assembly / fabrication and recycling.
b. For the residential uses: 1) please allow group homes per the Virginia Code; and 2)
eliminate home occupation major and minor. There's no need and it's confusing
to have both this category and the class A /B. The Development Area categories
are class A / B. If you want to discuss this further to allow one or the other, please
c. The use category "cellular communication, microwave ..." is unnecessary because
Revised 4 -25 -11 eke
Page 4 of 8
it is redundant with two other categories providing those uses. In addition, we do
not want to create new terms for uses already covered in the Zoning Ordinance.
d. Recommend you provide for temporary events within your non - residential uses. I
would like to talk further to understand your intention for note #5 regarding
temporary events.
e. Note #2-on page 8 should eliminate reference to "tourist lodging." By definition
and practice, it does not exceed 5 rooms.
Building Form
a. The density charts list GLA and leasable area is extremely difficult to administer.
We recommend that instead you use gross floor area because that is easily
calculated and reviewed by staff in administering this requirement.
b. The lot regulations do not address accessory structure setbacks. In addition, please
use a different word or define "outboard." Note #5 allows an extension of certain
features of up to 6 feet versus the 4 feet in the Zoning Ordinance. I will need to
determine if this requires an explicit waiver of Section 4.11.1. If so, this requires
the applicant to submit a written request with justification per Section 8.2.b 3 to be
considered concurrently with this rezoning.
Zoning
The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Amelia McCulley:
Greenspace and Amenities
a. The submittal references a waiver of amenity space due to the proximity of Biscuit Run
Park. This needs to be a written submittal with justification per Section 8.2.b (3). The
Board will need to take explicit action on this and any other waiver /modification.
b. It is difficult to understand how the greenspace adds up to the area listed on the plan.
Please explain this. Are individual private .lots' yards included?
Parkin
a. We support the idea of allowing shared parking and future parking determinations.
However, I cannot follow the standard proposed for R &D flex (1/1000). What is that
based on? If it involves a waiver /modification, it needs to follow a written request with
justification per Section 8.2 b (3).
Affordable Housing
a. While the submittal clarifies which blocks the housing will be located in, the proffer will
need to stipulate the phasing, type and location.
Comments Relating to Future Site Plans and Subdivision Plats
a. This development proposes fairly significant landscaping on what will become private
property (individual lots). This has historically been difficult to administer and causes
conflicts with future owners' own desired use versus what the zoning proposed. We
recommend that to the extent possible, required landscaping and other amenities occur
within open space. When they will not occur on open space, easement plats and
covenants and restrictions should very clearly state the obligation for the provision of the
amenity.
Entrance Corridor
The following comments related to the Entrance Corridor Guidelines have been provided by
Revised 4 -25 -11 eke
Page 5 of 8
1. The location of retaining walls along Avon Street does not allow for standard EC
landscaping. Additional space should be provided to accommodate a row of trees and
shrubs between the sidewalk and the retaining wall. Additional planting between the walls
would help integrate the development into the corridor; EC guidelines call for planting
between terraced retaining walls. If plants are shown between the retaining walls, provide
assurance that the retaining walls will be constructed to accommodate the planting.
2. Overhead lines running along Avon Street and Rt. 20 will further challenge the
establishment of appropriate landscaping along the ECs. What is the plan for these
utilities? Additional planting area may be required.
3. The applicant is advised that the design of Building A will need to address the EC Guidelines
requirements for scale, proportion, massing, detailing, lack of blankness, etc. The elevation
facing Rt. 20 will be required to have the appearance of a fully designed front.
4. The development concept plan shows trees on streets, in park areas, along the ECs, along
retaining walls, along the fence line, etc. To ensure that this character of planting can be
accomplished, all of this type of planting should be located outside the residential parcels
and should be maintained by the homeowners association.
5. Provide planting area for trees outside the residential parcels along the retaining walls
proposed between Blocks F and G to break up the view uphill from Rt. 20. If plants are
shown between the walls, provide assurance that the retaining walls will be constructed to
accommodate the planting.
6. The material and color of the screening fence on the south side of the property will have
an impact on the corridor. Bright, shiny vinyl surfaces will not be appropriate.
Engineering and Water Resources
Comments have not been received. Staff will send comments upon receipt.
VDOT
See attached comments from Troy Austin of VDOT relating to transportation issues.
ACSA /RWSA
The following comments related to Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) have been
provided by Alex Morrison:
1. Distance to the closest water line is 35 feet.
2. Distance to the closest sewer line is 2,340 feet (distance to proposed gravity connection at
Kappa Sigma Headquarters).
3. This does not require Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority capacity certification.
4. "Red Flags" regarding service provision
• Dedication of Kappa Sigma Headquarters required prior to the ACSA granting construction
approval. The ACSA is currently working on completing this dedication.
• The ACSA will require submission of 3 sets of construction drawings for review and approval
(during Final SDP Phase).
Fire /Rescue
The following comments related to Fire /Rescue have been provided by Robbie Gilmer:
Please consider the following recommendations as the process moves
Revised 4 -25 -11 eke
Page 6 of 8
1. 20' wide unobstructed travel ways for fire access.
2. Fire hydrant spacing shall be every 500 ft per travel way.
3. Required fire flow test. Based on reduced side yard setbacks of 5'.
4. All Radii shall be no less than 25'.
5. Depending on street design some streets may need to be marked No Parking Fire lane.
6. Fire Department Connection shall be located on the address side of the building and within 50'
of a fire hydrant. The Hydrant and FDC shall be located so when in use the fire hose will not block
incoming apparatus.
Housing
Comments have not been received. Staff will send comments upon receipt.
Proffers
1. Please use the appropriate proffer form.
2. There seems to be a typo or something missing in the first paragraph of page 2.
3. Regarding Proffer 1: affordable housing, what is the maximum number of units in the
development? This will determine the correct amount of affordable housing that should
be provided. Is it 14 or 20?
4. Proffer 3: cash proffers for residential units, there is a typo in the cash contribution
amount. It should be: $20,460.57
5. Proffer 4: private road improvements needs more detail. What type of road will this be
and which roads does this proffer refer to?
The following comments related to the proffers have been provided by Amelia McCulley:
1. Proffers will need to address various items such as frontage improvements, sidewalks,
screening fencing,
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
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:
$201.40 Cost for newspaper advertisement
Revised 4 -25 -11 eke
Page 7 of 8
$200.00 Cost for notification of adjoining owners (minimum $200 + actual postage /$1 per owner
after 50 adjoining owners)
$401.40 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.
$201.40 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing
$602.80 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,
Claudette Grant
Senior Planner,
Community Development Department
enc: VDOT Comments
Action After Receipt of Comments
Resubmittal Schedule
Resubmittal Form
Revised 4 -25 -11 eke
Page 8 of 8
. 6
g t.
COMMONWEALTH.of VIRGINIA.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701 -3819
Gregory A. Whlrley
Commissioner of Highways
November 22, 2013
Ms. Claudette Grant
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: ZMA2013 -00017 Spring Hill Village
Dear Ms. Grant:
We have reviewed the Rezoning Application Plan for Spring Hill Village dated 10 -21 -13 as
submitted by Terra Concepts, P.C. and offer the following comments:
1. The internals roads for this project will be privately owned and maintained.
2. The sight lines and available sight distance for each of the entrances should be shown on
the plan.
3. Each entrance will need to comply with Access Management spacing regulations. It
appears that an AM -2 spacing exception will be required for the entrance onto Route 20.
4. Each entrance will need to comply with entrance design .requirements as identified in
Appendix F of the Road Design Manual. This can be confirmed during the site plan
review process.
If you need additional concerning this project, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
omy
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
�~ os nt,�LJi?
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.albemarlL= 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
sub=
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 anytime 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 PaVment
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 Revised 4- 2.i -11 eke
a
F
N
TEE SCHEDULE FOR ZONING APPLICATIONS
For a special use permit:
1. Additional lots under section 10.5.2.1, application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................. ............................... .....................$1,()00.00
Each additional resubmittal .. .............................. ... ............................... ........................$500.00
2. Public utilities; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................. ............................... .....................$1,000.()0
Each additional resubmittal ........................................ ............................... .......................$500.00
3. Day care center; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$],000.00
Each additional resubmittal ........................................ ............................... .......................$.500.00
4. Home occupation Class B; application and first resubmission
Fee............:............................................................... ............................... ......................$1,000.00
Each additional 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
Eachadditional resubmittal ........... . .............. :............................................................... $1,000.00
8. Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request
Fee............................................................................. ............................... ........................$180.00
For amendment to text of zoning ordinance:
Fee................................................................................... ............................... .......................$1000.00
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
Board of Zoning Appeals:
1. Request fora variance or sign special use permit
Fee........................................................... . ......... I ................... I ......... I......... ........................$500.00
2. For other appeals to the board of zoning appeals (including appeals of zoning administrator's . decision) —
Fee (to be refunded if the decision of the zoning administrator is overturned) .......$240.00
Required notice:
1, Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices:
Fee................................... .................................................................................................. $200.00.plus the
actual cost of first class postage
2. Preparing and mailing or delivering, per notice more than fifty (50):
Fee.........................................................:..................... ............................... ..........................$1.00 plus the
3. Published notice:
Fee.......... ...............................
Page 3 of 6
......................... ............................... ........................Actual cost
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 Legal Ad Deadline Planning
applicant for decision and Decision for Commission Public
on whether to Public Hearing ** Hearing
proceed to Public No sooner than*
Hearing
Monday
Nov 5 2012
Nov 19 2012
Dec 3 2012
Dec 17 2012
Jan 07
Tue Jan 22
Feb 4
Tue Feb 19
Mar 4
Mar 18
Apr 1
Apr 15
May 6
May 20
Jun 3
Jun 17
Jul 1.
Jul 15
Aug 5
Aug 19
Tue:Sep:3,:
Sep 16
Oct 7
Oct 21
Nov 4
Nov 18
Dec 2
Dec 16
Wednesday
Dec 5 2012
Dec 19 2012
Jan 2
Jan 16
Feb 5
Feb 20
Mar 6
Mar 20
Apr 3
Apr 17
May 1
May 15
Jun 5
Jun
Jul
Jul 17
Jul 31
A_
Sep 4
Sep 18
Oct 2
Oct 16
Nov 6
Nov 20
Dec 4
Dec 18
:Jan I .2014
- Jan 1:5.2014
Monday
Dec 17 2012
Jan 7
Jan 7
Feb 4
Feb 11
Feb 25
Mar 18
Apr 1
Apr 15
Apr 29
May 13
May 27
Jun 24
Jun 24
Jul 8
Jul 29
Aug 19
Aug 19
Sep 16
Sep 30
Oct 21
Oct 28
Nov 18
Nov 25
Dec 23
Jan 6.2014.
Jan 6 2014
Feb 3 2014
Dates shown in itaucs are changes ❑ue w a UuunLy uUIlUdy
Tuesday
Jan 8
Jan 29
Jan 29
Feb 26
Mar 5
Mar 19
Apr 9
Apr 23
May 7
May 21
Jun 4
Jun 18
Jul 16
Jul 16
Jul 30
Aug 20
Sep 10
Sep 10
Oct 8
Oct 22
Nov 12
Nov 19
Dec 10
Dec 17
Jan,14:2014 0., >.
.,..Jan :28 2014::.; .
Jan28,20.14:
Feb 25:2014
* 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
r-- - errd-atiorrfordenial- will - likely - result -Geiser -ally, — the -applic -ant- will- will - have- eRl- y- o-ne- eppor- tu- Rity -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
O
r m
O
m
CL
W
Q
I—
Z
W
�L
N
U_
O
N
O
N
N
I?
7
U)
O
L
cu
O
m
N
a
0
1;.
J
U
O
Ol
J
a
v
m
U
f0
U
a
0
10
cn
m
m
M
rn
m
m
m
rO
rO
m
c0
r0
m
r0
M
M
m
M
M
m
M
M
Lo
O)
m
(O
CT
(=J
(0
M
O
v
rA
Q
N
rn
O
i`
V
•d'
Q•
N
o
C2
M`
r
.J
o
I
N
c
M
r
V
r
if)
N
M
`-
1-
r
m
r
6�.
'-
O
o
r
`
N
r
N
=
M
T
CV
CD
04
rrj
Q
Lo
M
r
I-
[A
m
o
r
O
r
r
r
N
b
❑
O
CO
D_
NromMmmmrnMmrnmmmMMm
mc_omm_cnm__m
N•
M
M
mM
m
mN
MM
M
rm
V
r
M
Io
CO
N
Cl)
o
co
Q'
m
N
�.
oO
Ib
u')
r
r
(0
6)
Cn
Iz
6
N
IZ
`I
m
N
o
N
M
N
r`
N
N
N
r
N
m
=
V
V
LO
(0
N`
I-
r
00
r
0)
0)
O
r
Q
-N:
r
r
N
N
m
V'
V
m
(o
O
I-
1-
co
m
.-
io
M
J
N
N
M
rn
M
rn
cO
m
M
r2
rn
cn
r0
(2
(`n
m
m
m
M
m
M
r
m
m
r2
T
IZ
iz
V
N
t9
c+')
;3
;5
(o
1T
N
J
m
V
'Q'
o
If)
o
0
1--
h
co
c0
m
0
o
O
r
-a
¢
N.
M
M
m
cO
r)
m
N
M
c0
M
m
m
M
M
m
M
M
M
M
M
M
m
m
ca
;5
V`
o
UJ
N
(D
O
CO
r
u1
N
(�
(D
co
I_-
co
Q
o
N
z
M
N
V'
N
In
N
M
1�
N
O
Q
m
N
O
N
r
Q
N
d
J
N
r
r
N
Cl)
M
Vo
f�
I�
W
Qi
r
o
r
N
N
M
M
M
r'7
M
M
m
M
m
r2
r'7
M
M
(`O
rO
rO
M
M
m
m
M
r2
Q
m
r
N\
y
r
r
r
Q
r
r
N
r
r
r
N
r
r
r
r
N
r
N
N
N
r
N
N
al
m
V
Im
o
w
0
I-
f`
W
m
N
O
O
r
J
cc
w
N
of
C7
C�7
C)
M
M
M
N
C)
c7
-c;:;-
C"T
CT
CT
C 1
Cn-
M
ZIT
Try
r?
T•T
T?
rT
Imo'
f`
V
C
r
m
m
r
to
G7
M
h
o
CA
-
m
G7
N
0
o
r
m
m
Lo
m
N:
r
N
iz
Qz:
V
!I
r
N
N
��
=
N
r
rS'
.--
m
N
o
Q
o
r
N
T
N
N
m
V
�7
Lo
I j
(O
I`
rA
m
m
r—
A
N
a
0
1;.
J
U
O
Ol
J
a
v
m
U
f0
U
a
0
M
(n
m
m
m
M
m
N
N
cO
z
M
U
m
.Q
M
7
m
M
m
M
m
t6
m
Lo
W
0
o
`>
C 3
m
r_
nra
LL
�L
Q
a_
O
(0
o
O
Q•
IS
U
=
N
0
.J
o
I
�
c
M
r
E
N
�
N
7
'-
!n
Q
W
o
0
O
o
U
O
�
U-
=
M
T
CD
04
N
a
0
1;.
J
U
O
Ol
J
a
v
m
U
f0
U
a
0
M
(n
m
m
m
M
m
N
V
cO
M
M
M
m
m
M
M
m
M
m
M
m
m
m
W
N
o
1=
C 3
m
mi:z
Q
(D
O
(0
o
o
Q•
r
N
N
M
r
V
to
N
(O
'-
r
Q
W
r
N
o
N
.-
r
Lo
m
r
I`
m
m
m
r
O
r
r
N
N
❑
U
D_
N•
M
M
mM
m
mN
MM
M
rm
cn
m
M
M
m
mmmMM
10
2
�.
oO
Ib
u')
r
r
(0
6)
Cn
Iz
6
�3
N
o
N
N
CD
O
V
V
r
N
m
r
N`
V'
=
N
r
N`
n
N`
r
o
r
M
r-
N
-N:
r
r
N
N
m
V'
V
m
(o
O
I-
1-
co
m
.-
7
m
1T
J
N.
M
M
m
cO
r)
m
N
M
c0
M
m
m
M
M
m
M
M
M
M
M
M
m
m
;5
V`
o
UJ
N
(D
O
CO
r
u1
N
(�
(D
co
I_-
co
Q
o
N
z
M
N
V'
N
In
N
M
1�
N
O
Q
m
N
O
N
r
Q
N
N
r
r
N
Cl)
M
Vo
f�
I�
W
Qi
r
o
r
Q
m
N
J
of
C7
C�7
C)
M
M
M
N
C)
c7
-c;:;-
C"T
CT
CT
C 1
Cn-
M
ZIT
Try
r?
T•T
T?
rT
Imo'
f`
V
C
r
m
m
r
to
G7
M
h
o
CA
-
m
G7
N
0
o
r
m
m
Lo
N:
r
N
iz
Qz:
V
!I
r
N
N
��
=
N
r
rS'
.--
m
N
o
Q
o
r
N
-�7
N
N
m
V
�7
Lo
I j
(O
I`
rA
m
m
r—
A
❑
m
ro
a
N
a
0
1;.
J
U
O
Ol
J
a
v
m
U
f0
U
a
0
FOR: OFFICE USE C)NLY SP # or LJ17A #
Fee Amount.% Date Paid By who?
Receipt /J CIJI By:
Resubmittal of information fop' Special Use Permit or
Zoning leap Amendment
PROJECT NUMBER: z-l'Yl �c?d 3 7/ 7 PROJECT NAME: Eori r4 gill y 1 IO i,
I j 0
❑ Resubmittal Fee is Required ❑ Per Request JRsubyiflttfl Fee is Not Required
%ra.tip' V+0 a4a_
Community Development Project Coordinator Name of Applicant Phone Number
Signature Date Signature Date
FEES
Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit - -. original Special Use Permit fee of $1,000
❑ First resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
$500
Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of 52,000
❑ First resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
$1,000
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of 52,500
First resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
$1,250
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of 53,500
• First resubmission
FREE
• Each additional resubmission
$1,750
❑ Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request -Add'] notice fees will be required $180
To be paid after staff revieNY 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 bearing 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 itivo 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.
.Trr, 011r(Ive Tn rnrrWTV nr• Ai RPMAPI.P /PAYMP.NT AT C'.OMMTINTTY T)FVF,LC)PMF.NIT C'OTINTFR
i' Preparing^and mailing or delivering up to fifty (5 0) notices
$200 + actual cost of first -class postage
51.00 for each additional notice + actual
Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50)
cost of first -class postage
Actual cost
Legal -ads ertisement (published - price -in -the ne�l spaper- for- eaEh- publ- i�hvar -ink)
minimum of . &0- or o a of-4 u5l cat,ons)
County of Albemarle Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, �7A 22902 Voice: (434) 2.96 -5532 Fax: (434) 972 -4126
6/7/2011 Pan I of I