The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZMA201300004 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2013-12-20Phone 434 - 296 -5832 r �IRGIS County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22902 Memorandum To: Claudette Grant From: Michelle Roberge, Engineering Department Division: Engineering Date: 20 Dec 2013 Subject: ZMA 2013 -00004 Hollymead Town Center — Block VI, Area C Fax 434 - 972 -4126 I have reviewed the concept plan for the application noted above and offer the following comments for the applicant. The comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments may be added or eliminated based on further review. 1. 1 recommend that no new development that accesses Timberwood Blvd be approved until that road is completed and accepted by VDOT. 2. It does not appear that future connections for the proposed private roads will occur. I recommend turnarounds at the end of each proposed road changed to the following for better manueverability: a) For the road ending near lot 29 and 30, please provide a cul -de -sac. It is not clear why edge of road is at an angle. b) For the road ending near lot 11, please provide a 110' radius for ADT of less than 400. 3. The entrance throat from Laurel Park Lane is too short before it intersects the two private streets. It needs to be a minimum of 35' per page F -85 of VDOT Access Management Design Standards for Entrances and Intersections, Appendix F. Please contact Michelle Roberge in the Engineering Dept at mroberge(c�albemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3458 for further information. pF A O U vIRGINZP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE .Department of Community Development - -- -- - - - -- -- - - - -- - - - - - -- 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 January 15, 2014 Mr. Katurah Roell 2811 Hydraulic Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: ZMA201300004 /Hollymead Town Center — Block VI Dear: Mr. Roell, Staff has reviewed your submittal dated November 25, 2013, requesting to rezone 5.74 acres from PDMC, Planned Development -Mixed Commercial to PD -MC, Planned Development -Mixed Commercial zoning district to construct 45 townhouse units for a density of 7.8 dwellings /acre and offers the following comments: Plannine The initial comments on how your proposal generally relates to the Comprehensive Plan were provided in the previous staff comment letter. See below for staff comments and the items that remain outstanding. 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 and layout, interconnected streets are not shown. This property is located near Timberwood Boulevard and Route 29. The Comprehensive Plan recommends future transit in this area, but there are no specific plans at this time. This principle is partially addressed. Rev. 2 The application plan shows travelways that provide access to the individual townhouse garages. Although the travelways connect to Meeting Street and Laurel Park Lane, they do not provide an interconnected street network. This principle is partially addressed. Rev. 3: No change. Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability —This proposal does not provide a mixture of housing types. However there are single family residential developments located in the vicinity (within one- auarter mile) that provide a mixture of housing types. Will any of the proposed townhouses address affordable housing? Will proffers be provided regarding affordable housing requirement? Page 1 of 5 Revised 4 -25 -11 eke This principle is partially addressed. Rev. 2 Proffers have now been provided; however, affordable housing has not been addressed or provided. This principle is partially addressed. Rev. 3: No change. More detailed comments may be provided after more detailed plans are provided. APPLICATION PLAN- DETAILED COMMENTS 1. The setbacks are not labeled or specified on sheet 4 as indicated on the cover sheet. Rev. 2 The setbacks described on the cover sheet of the plan refer to Table S. Where is Table 5 in the Code of Development (COD)? Table B in the COD is the closest reference and it refers to build to lines which are not consistent with the Code of Development. Rev. 3: The cover sheet setback note is not consistent with Table a in the COD. Please clarify, should it be 0 —10 build -to -line or 0 -20 setback? 2. Label the density on cover sheet. Rev. 2 Is the density correct? What is the correct acreage of the property? Is it 3.811 or 5.74? Rev. 3: What is the correct acreage of the property? Is it 2.858 or 5.74? CODE OF DEVELOPMENT (COD)- DETAILED COMMENTS 1. Can you provide a blackline of the code of development? Rev. 2 This request has not been addressed. Please provide a blackline of the COD. Rev. 3: This was provided but difficult to follow. 2. Rev. 2 The COD references Tax Map Parcel (TMP) 32 -41D and the plan references TMP 78- 41L. Please clarify the TMP references on the appropriate documents, so that they are consistent. Rev. 3: This is now clarified. 3. Rev. 2 The plan references tables in the COD that have number descriptions. The COD labels tables with letters. Which is the correct reference for the Tables located in the COD? Rev. 3: This is now clarified, however, the COD references multiple Table A, a and C's. This can be confusing. 4. Rev. 2 The following typographical errors were found: Page 6, first sentence in the last paragraph should be pond, not pong. Page 11, second sentence in last paragraph should be an, not and. Rev. 3: No change. 5. Sarah Baldwin: Rev. 2 There are no changes to the COD aside from Page 11 regarding this Block. No tables were changed and no blackline version of the COD was provided. Rev. 3: No change. Engineering and Water Resources The following comments related to engineering and water resources have been provided by Glenn Brooks and Michelle Roberge: 1. It is recommended that no new development be approved that accesses Tim berwood Blvd. 2 until that road is completed and accepted by VDOT. Rev. 2: No change. Rev. 3: No change. Rev. 2 It appears that the original SWM plan shows Abington Place draining to SWM Facility #2 (facility name shown on WP02004 -30). However, Abington Place is now being treated with a separate biofilter. Please revise the original DA maps for SWM #2 to exclude the portion of Abington Place on an 11 "x17" sheet and include in report. This needs to be on the new plan. Rev. 3: No change. Revised 4 -25 -11 eke Page 2 of 5 3. Rev. 2 The original traffic study numbers are not consistent with the new traffic information submitted. This discrepancy needs to be resolved. Rev. 3: No change. 4. Rev. 3: It does not appear that future connections for the proposed private roads will occur. We recommend turnarounds at the end of each proposed road changed to the following for better manueverability. a) For the road ending near lot 29 and 30, please provide a cul -de -sac. It is not clear why edge of road is at an angle. b) For the road ending near lot 11, please provide a 110' radius for ADT of less than 400. 5. Rev. 3: The entrance throat from Laurel Park Lane is too short before it intersects the two private streets. It needs to be a minimum of 35-'per page F -85 of VDOT Access Management Design Standards for Entrances and Intersections, Appendix F. VDOT 1. Rev. 2 The Trip Generation Study Memo indicates that generally, the trip generation from the proposed zoning will be less than that indicated for current zoning in the original TIA. The memo provides trip generation from the original development plan. The original plan /TIA should be referenced by the date of the plan and it would be helpful if copies of the original data were provided for comparison with the memo. 2. Rev. 2 It appears that no new proffers have been offered for the proposed amendment. For the most part, it appears that the improvements to be made as indicated in the proffers provided have been completed. Rev 3: No new commentshave been received from VDOT. Housin Comments from the housing department will be provided upon receipt. Rev. 2 No change. Rev. 3: The proffers do not appear to address affordable housing at all so there is nothing to comment on. Proffers 1. 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. Rev. 2 No change. Still needs to be addressed. Rev. 3: No change. 2. Cash proffers have not been provided per the County's cash proffer policy. Rev. 2 No change. Still needs to be addressed. Rev. 3: No change. 3. Rev. 2 The approved proffers that relate to this section of Hollymead Town Center need to be used, noting what proffers have been satisfied. A blackline version of the approved proffers and proposed revisions needs to be provided. Rev. 3: Nothange. Have you eliminated the proffers and now wish to provide none? Please clarify the status of the proffers. 4. Sarah Baldwin: Rev. 2 The proffers do not have an accurate date, tax map, zoning designation or acreage. Rev. 3: Legally, it does not appear the proffers can go forward as they are. The code and application plan are referenced in the proffers and they are being updated. This comment is also applicable to the next 5 comments. 5. Sarah Baldwin: Rev. 2 Please clarify the number of turn lanes in Proffer 2. Rev. 3: No change. Revised 4 -25 -11 eke Page 3 of 5 6. Sarah Baldwin: Rev. 2 Proffer 3 needs clarification. Not sure what it means or where it applies to. 7. Sarah Baldwin: Rev. 2 Proffer 4 should state where the. potential connections are to adjoining parcels and shown on the plan. 8. Sarah Baldwin: Rev. 2 Proffer 5 is unnecessary. 9. Sarah Baldwin: Rev. 2 Proffer 7 should be clarified. .. ........... It appears that majority of the previous staff comments have not been addressed. If you have no plans to address the staff comments further, we recommend you take this to the Planning Commission for a public hearing, indefinitely defer or withdraw this rezoning request. Please let us know the status you have chosen as soon as possible. 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. 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: $212.10 Cost for newspaper advertisement $ 297.98 Cost for notification of adjoining owners $510.08 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. $212.10 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing $722.18 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. P- -lease feel free —to - contact- me -if- you -wis address is cgrant @albemarle.org Revised 4 -25 -11 eke Page 4 of 5 Sincerely, Claudette Grant Senior Planner, Community Development Department enc: Resubmittal Form Revised 4 -25 -11 eke Page 5 of 5 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP # or ZMA # Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # Ch# By: uFarn Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit or �iil `' -R Zoning Map Amendment ,r�;iN,i. PROJECT NUMBER: 'Z )Y)A 9)13bVq PROJECT NAME: j_nAJM C 44 _ bkka Resubmittal Fee is Required ❑ Per Request ❑ Resubmittal Fee is Not Required ox 1&j4=e C(- Community Development Project Coordinator Signature Date �Q tlA0h )z O. "'tI Name of Applicant Phone Number Signature FEES Date Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit -- original Special Use Permit fee of $1,000 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $500 �' � Y tK.. «:.� o'' f .. :£!j . A ::..:2. � :, �. fk3. x.. ?,. X', , v c � .,: ...v.3v -: .., ,:. E `Y� :•.:., ! . lR F C. .�S , b r .v; -. Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $2,000 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,000 i 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 $1,750 s ❑ Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request — Add'l 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 ty owners. Therefore, e, 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 $1.00 for each additional notice+ actual i� Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50) cost of first -class postage Actual cost '— Legal - advertisement (published- twice in- the newspaper- for - each - public hearing) (minimum of :M2i;0 for total of 4_u bictions Counter 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 .� I -1 � illl Illll�. • R / 1 _ 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 19, 2014 Mr. Katurah Roell 2811 Hydraulic Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: ZMA201300004 /Hollymead Town Center — Block VI Dear: Mr. Roell, Staff has reviewed your submittal dated February 18, 2014, requesting to amend the rezoning of 2.858 acres zoned PDMC, Planned Development -Mixed Commercial zoning district to construct 44 townhouse units for a density of 15.40 dwellings /acre and offers the following comments: Plannine The initial comments on how your proposal generally relates to the Comprehensive Plan were provided in the previous staff comment letter. See below for staff comments and the items that remain outstanding. 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 and layout, interconnected streets are not shown. This property is located near Timberwood Boulevard and Route 29. The Comprehensive Plan recommends future transit in this area, but there are no specific plans at this time. This principle is partially addressed. Rev. 2 The application plan shows travelways that provide access to the individual townhouse garages. Although the travelways connect to Meeting Street and Laurel Park Lane, they do not provide an interconnected street network. This principle is partially addressed. Rev. 3: No change. Rev. 4: You now show travelways that connect to Meeting Street, Laurel Park Lane, and Grand Forks Boulevard. These connections provide additional access primarily for the residents who would live in this section, but not necessarily an interconnected street network. This principle is partially addressed. Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability —This proposal does not provide a mixture of housing types. However there are single family residential developments located in the vicinity (within Page 1 of 5 Revised 4 -25 -11 eke one - quarter mile) that provide a mixture of housing types. Will any of the proposed townhouses address affordable housing? Will proffers be.provided regarding affordable housing requirement? This principle is partially addressed. Rev. 2 Proffers have now been provided; however, affordable housing has not been addressed or provided. This principle is partially addressed. Rev. 3: No change. Rev. 4: No change. More detailed comments may be provided after more detailed plans are provided. APPLICATION PLAN- DETAILED COMMENTS 1. The setbacks are not labeled or specified on sheet 4 as indicated on the cover sheet. Rev. 2 The setbacks described on the cover sheet of the plan refer to Table 5. Where is Table 5 in the Code of Development (COD)? Table B in the COD is the closest reference and it refers to build to .lines which are not consistent with the Code of Development. Rev. 3: The cover sheet setback note is not consistent with Table B in the COD. Please clarify, should it be 0 — 10 build -to -line or 0 -20 setback? Rev. 4: This has been satisfied. 2. Label the density on cover sheet. Rev. 2 Is the density correct? What is the correct acreage of the property? Is it 3.811 or 5.74? Rev. 3: What is the correct acreage of the property? Is it 2.858 or 5.74? Rev. 4: This has been satisfied. 3. Rev. 4: Although we have discussed the frontage on a green issue previously, it remains an outstanding issue. The layout you have provided seems to have issues with Lots 29, 22,17 -21 and Lot 28 is iffy, in terms of these lots appearing to not front on a green. We suggest you consider some revisions to the layout if you want the green to become frontage for these lots. Another way to look at this, is for you to show us what green space these lots will be fronting on? Please remember the alley will need to meet typical standards for access, parking and fire- safety. CODE OF DEVELOPMENT (COD)- DETAILED COMMENTS 1. Can you provide a blackline of the code of development? Rev. 2 This request has not been addressed. Please provide a blackline of the COD. Rev. 3: This was provided but difficult to follow. Rev. 4: This was partially provided. 2. Rev. 2 The COD references Tax. Map Parcel (TMP) 32 -41D and the plan references TMP 78 -41L. Please clarify the TMP references on the appropriate documents, so that they are consistent. Rev. 3: This is now clarified. Rev. 4: No change. 3. Rev. 2 The plan references tables in the COD that have number descriptions. The COD labels tables with letters. Which is the correct reference for the Tables located in the COD? Rev. 3: This is now clarified, however, the COD references multiple Table A, B and C's. This can be confusing. Rev. 4: This has been satisfied. 4. Rev. 2 The following typographical errors were found: Page 6, first sentence in the last paragraph should be pond, not pong. Page 11, second sentence in last paragraph should be an, not and. Rev. 3: No change. Rev. 4: This has been satisfied. 5. Rev. 4: On page 10 the Block VI description is not accurate, since all townhouses do not front on and have entrances on Grand Forks Blvd, Meeting Street and Laurel Park Lane. You show approximately 19 lots in the middle of this proposed development that do not front on any of these streets. There is also reference in this same section of the code of development, to additional parking to be provided in parking areas behind the townhouses. Please Revised 4 -25 -11 eke Page 2 of 5 show /clarify this because the parking behind the townhouses appears to be the parking for the residents of the townhouse. 6. Sarah Baldwin: Rev. 2 There are no changes to the COD aside from Page 11 regarding this Block. No tables were changed and no blackline version of the COD was provided. Rev. 3: No change. Rev. 4: Some prior comments have been addressed. By staff calculations only 4 dwelling units will remain, but the code lists block Ill's minimum at S. The park may have to be bigger according to the Ordinance. Engineering and Water Resources The following comments related to engineering and water resources have been provided by Glenn Brooks and Michelle Roberge: Rev. 4: Comments have not been received yet. Staff will send you the comments once they have been received. 1. It is recommended that no new development be approved that accesses Timberwood Blvd. until that road is completed and accepted by VDOT. Rev. 2: No change. Rev. 3: No change. 2. Rev. 2 It appears that the original SWM plan shows Abington Place draining to SWM Facility #2 (facility name shown on WPO2004 -30). However, Abington Place is now being treated with a separate biofilter. Please revise the original DA maps for SWM #2 to exclude the portion of Abington Place on an 11 "x17" sheet and include in report. This needs to be on the new plan. Rev. 3: No change. 3. Rev. 2 The original traffic study numbers are not consistent with the new traffic information submitted. This discrepancy.needs to be resolved. Rev. 3: No change. 4. Rev. 3: It does not appear that future connections for the proposed private roads will occur. We recommend turnarounds at the end of each proposed road changed to the following for better manueverability: a) For the road ending near lot 29 and 30, please provide a cul -de -sac. It is not clear why edge of road is at an angle. b) For the road ending near lot 11, please provide a 110' radius for ADT of less than 400. 5. Rev. 3: The entrance throat from Laurel Park Lane is too short before it intersects the two private streets. It needs to be a minimum of 35' per page F -85 of VDOT Access Management Design Standards for Entrances and Intersections, Appendix F. VDOT 1. Rev. 2 The Trip Generation Study Memo indicates that generally, the trip generation from the proposed zoning will be less than that indicated for current zoning in the original TIA. The memo provides trip generation from the original development plan. The original plan /TIA should be referenced by the date of the plan and it would be helpful if copies of the original data were provided for comparison with the memo. 2. Rev. 2 It appears that no new proffers have been offered for the proposed amendment. For the most part, it appears that the improvements to be made as indicated in the proffers provided have been completed. Rev 3: No new comments have been received from VDOT. Rev. 4: See attached comments from Troy Austin of VDOT relating to transportation issues. Revised 4 -25 -11 eke Page 3 of 5 Housin Comments from the housing department will be provided upon receipt. Rev. 2 No change. Rev. 3: The proffers do not appear to address affordable housing at all so there is nothing to comment on. Rev. 4: No Change. Proffers 1. 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. Rev. 2 No change. Still needs to be addressed. Rev. 3: No change. Rev. 4: No change. 2. Cash proffers have not been provided per the County's cash proffer policy. Rev. 2 No change. Still needs to be addressed. Rev. 3: No change. Rev. 4: No change. 3. Rev. 2 The approved proffers that relate to this section of Hollymead Town Center need to be used, noting what proffers have been satisfied. A blackline version of the approved proffers and proposed revisions needs to be provided. Rev. 3: No change. Have you eliminated the proffers and now wish to provide none? Please clarify the status of the proffers. Rev. 4: You have provided revised proffers, however, we are not sure what the date is referring to? The proffer format as provided is difficult to follow. Staff suggests you keep the approved proffers and blackline the changes including the proffers that have been satisfied. 4. Sarah Baldwin: Rev. 2 The proffers do not have an accurate date, tax map, zoning designation or acreage. Rev. 3: Legally, it does not appear the proffers can go forward as they are. The code and application plan are referenced in the proffers and they are being updated. This comment is also applicable to the next 5 comments. 5. Sarah Baldwin: Rev. 2 Please clarify the number of turn lanes in Proffer 2. Rev. 3: No change. 6. Sarah Baldwin: Rev. 2 Proffer 3 needs clarification. Not sure what it means or where it applies to. 7. Sarah Baldwin: Rev. 2 Proffer 4 should state where the potential connections are to adjoining parcels and shown on the plan. 8. Sarah Baldwin: Rev. 2 Proffer 5 is unnecessary. 9. Sarah Baldwin: Rev. 2 Proffer 7 should be clarified. 10. Sarah Baldwin: Rev. 4: The proposed units in VI are new and are subject to the cash proffer policy. Action after Receipt of Comments After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions below: (1) Resubmit (within 30 days from the date of this letter) in response to review comments on a Resubmittal Monday -- Schedule can be found at this address: http://www.albemarle.6rg/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 Revised 4 -25 -11 eke Page 4 of 5 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. 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: $212.10 Cost for newspaper advertisement $ 297.98 Cost for notification of adjoining owners $510.08 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. $212.10 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing $722.18 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 Enc: VDOT comments Resubmittal Form Revised 4 -25 -11 eke Page 5 of 5 r x1� -COMM ONWEALTH Of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper; VrginEa 22701 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner March 10, 2014 Ms. Claudette Grant Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: ZMA- 2013 -0004 Hollymead Town Center, Block VI, Area C Dear Ms. Grant: We have reviewed the zoning map amendment and the proposed proffers for Hollymead Town Center, Block VI, Area 6 dated 3118/13 with revisions dated 8116/13, 101141`13, 1 1125113, 216114,. and 2116114 as submitted by Dominion Engineering and found the plan and proposed proffers to have no substantial impact on the State Highway System. VDOT has no objection to the proposed amendment and zoning proffers. If you need additional information concerning this project,please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Troy Austin, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Culpeper District WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING 11 '1141 UIII, It..L' U 1 L' vni 1 01 i - u .n Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # Ch# BY: Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit or a , / ,k Zoning Map Amendment ...' }. N�f �'' /IK;INYS' PROJECT NUMBER: _211q4Q, .61150C)004 PROJECT NAME: 174"Resubmittal Fee is Required ❑ Per Request ❑ Resubmittal Fee is Not Required i Community Development Project Coordinator Signature Date Name of Applicant Phone Number Signature FEES Date Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit -- original Special Use Permit fee of $1,000 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $500 R� tl ivN ; 1 {�.. u' 3 f f.i S'k t,r - Pg i f'..f,I 125 '1Y>.(.S� iR 3:t �L`( ""'.rS,FFt ��X F�...1•`� .'� l�l yY 4£'"` f41 �i P'E? iR�" S F�R Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $2,000 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,000 Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,500 ❑ First resubmission FREE ach additional resubmission $1,250 St F 4 'S YY k ttal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,500 F resubmission FREE El Each additional resubmission $1,750 ti � f'>S F.a t..¢l.. ! tt:,... t „,; ,._ <,v h ... .:::••f ., .. -.. ^- , }S .,... ,. ?: .. :..s t, ;;.., ..�.. >::L. ! si........ .t.>. .1 ;> > ❑ Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request — Add'l 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. ivreur. CHECKS TO COTINT)/ OF ALREMARLE /PAYMENT AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTER i' Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices $200 + actual cost of first -class postage $1.00 for each additional notice+ actual > Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50) cost of first -class postage Actual cost Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing) (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 Phone 434 - 296 -5832 r �IRGIS County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22902 Memorandum To: Claudette Grant From: Michelle Roberge, Engineering Department Division: Engineering Date: 21 Mar 2013 Subject: ZMA 2013 -00004 Hollymead Town Center — Block VI, Area C Fax 434 - 972 -4126 I have reviewed the concept plan for the application noted above and offer the following comments for the applicant. The comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments may be added or eliminated based on further review. 1. 1 recommend that no new development that accesses Timberwood Blvd be approved until that road is completed and accepted by VDOT. [Revision 4] Not addressed. 2. It does not appear that future connections for the proposed private roads will occur. I recommend turnarounds at the end of each proposed road changed to the following for better manueverability: a) For the road ending near lot 29 and 30, please provide a cul -de -sac. It is not clear why edge of road is at an angle. [Revision 4] Not addressed. b) For the road ending near lot 11, please provide a 110' radius for ADT of less than 400. [Revision 4] Not addressed. 3. The entrance throat from Laurel Park Lane is too short before it intersects the two private streets. It needs to be a minimum of 35' per page F -85 of VDOT Access Management Design Standards for Entrances and Intersections, Appendix F. [Revision 4] Addressed. Please contact Michelle Roberge in the Engineering Dept at mroberge(@albemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3458 for further information. Phone 434 - 296 -5832 r �IRGIS County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22902 Memorandum To: Claudette Grant From: Michelle Roberge, Engineering Department Division: Engineering Date: 7 May 2014 Subject: ZMA 2013 -00004 Hollymead Town Center — Block VI, Area C Fax 434 - 972 -4126 I have reviewed the concept plan for the application noted above and offer the following comments for the applicant. The comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments may be added or eliminated based on further review. The applicant is working on the revisions to address my comments below. My recommendation is for the applicant to revise plans to match the layout below prior to the BOS meeting. 1. 1 recommend that no new development that accesses Timberwood Blvd be approved until that road is completed and accepted by VDOT. [Revision 5] Comment acknowledged by applicant. Applicant is working with VDOT towards road acceptance. 2. It does not appear that future connections for the proposed private roads will occur. I recommend turnarounds at the end of each proposed road changed to the following for better manueverability: a) For the road ending near lot 29 and 30, please provide a cul -de -sac. It is not clear why edge of road is at an angle. [Revision 5] Not addressed. See drawing below for a recommended design. b) For the road ending near lot 11, please provide a 110' radius for ADT of less than 400. [Revision 4] Not addressed. See drawing below for a recommended design. 1 00 "1 sUpp8rj 1.lh7t�wayap4kts. �tov,�ea' nieraotilah 2.+iyhl- J)nyrdd Wfria Pjdvld cur" UN nta�QKds ` 3 T typo l wlafeu� Pm e a cej4 -d c, or road corknecl:on 3. The entrance throat from Laurel Park Lane is too short before it intersects the two private streets. It needs to be a minimum of 35' per page F -85 of VDOT Access Management Design Standards for Entrances and Intersections, Appendix F. [Revision 4] Addressed. 4. The proposed entrance from Grand Forks Blvd will need to meet sight distance requirements. Existing parking spaces will need to be removed and it is not certain at this time if those parking spaces were required for the previous subdivision. I recommend removal of the entrance. Please contact Michelle Roberge in the Engineering Dept at mroberge(@albemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3458 for further information. -1 � >RG1�1ar. County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Original comments from Michelle Roberge Date: Rev.6: 14 July 2014 Subject: Earlysville Service Center Relocation (SP200800025) The current comments are noted by "Rev. 6: ". I have reviewed the concept plan for the application noted above and offer the following comments for the applicant. The comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments may be added or eliminated based on further review. 1. 1 recommend that no new development that accesses Timberwood Blvd be approved until that road is completed and accepted by VDOT. [Revision 5] Comment acknowledged by applicant. Applicant is working with VDOT towards road acceptance. Rev.6: This is still a strong recommendation. This road should be finished and accepted by VDOT. 2. It does not appear that future connections for the proposed private roads will occur. I recommend turnarounds at the end of each proposed road changed to the following for better manueverability: a) For the road ending near lot 29 and 30, please provide a cul -de -sac. It is not clear why edge of road is at an angle. [Revision 5] Not addressed. See drawing below for a recommended design. Rev.6: A Turnaround has been provided. b) For the road ending near lot 11, please provide a 110' radius for ADT of less than 400. [Revision 4] Not addressed. See drawing below for a recommended design. Rev.6: It appears the road centerline radius has been provided, but the entire curve has been left open on the right side. Entrances to lots should use standard VDOT driveway entrance details. Leaving large sections of road frontage open does not meet standards. 3. The entrance throat from Laurel Park Lane is too short before it intersects the two private streets. It needs to be a minimum of 35' per page F -85 of VDOTAccess Management Design Standards for Entrances and Intersections, Appendix F. [Revision 4] Addressed. 4. The proposed entrance from Grand Forks Blvd will need to meet sight distance requirements. Existing parking spaces will need to be removed and it is not certain at this time if those parking spaces were required for the previous subdivision. I recommend removal of the entrance. Rev.6: This entrance has been removed. Please contact Michelle Roberge in the Engineering Dept at mroberge @albemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3458 for further information. file: El_zma_GEB_template.doc -1 � IRGINIa�. County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner From: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Original comments from Michelle Roberge Date: Rev.6: 14 July 2014 Subject: Earlysville Service Center Relocation (zma201300004) The current comments are noted by "Rev. 7: ". I have reviewed the concept plan for the application noted above and offer the following comments for the applicant. The comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments may be added or eliminated based on further review. 1. 1 recommend that no new development that accesses Timberwood Blvd be approved until that road is completed and accepted by VDOT. [Revision 5] Comment acknowledged by applicant. Applicant is working with VDOT towards road acceptance. Rev.6: This is still a strong recommendation. This road should be finished and accepted by VDOT. Rev.7: This is still a strong recommendation. This road should be finished and accepted by VDOT, or this rezoning should not be approved. 2. It does not appear that future connections for the proposed private roads will occur recommend turnarounds at the end of each proposed road changed to the following for better manueverability: a) For the road ending near lot 29 and 30, please provide a cul -de -sac. It is not clear why edge of road is at an angle. [Revision 5] Not addressed. See drawing below for a recommended design. Rev.6: A Turnaround has been provided. b) For the road ending near lot 11, please provide a 110' radius for ADT of less than 400 [Revision 4] Not addressed. See drawing below for a recommended design. Rev.6: It appears the road centerline radius has been provided, but the entire curve has been left open on the right side. Entrances to lots should use standard VDOT driveway entrance details. Leaving large sections of road frontage open does not meet standards. Rev. 7: Please see the Rev. 6 comment. This still holds true. Open frontage on the curve cannot be approved with final road plans. This is not better than the original hard angled turn, both of which sacrifice road standards for additional lots. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 2 3. The entrance throat from Laurel Park Lane is too short before it intersects the two private streets. It needs to be a minimum of 35' per page F -85 of VDOTAccess Management Design Standards for Entrances and Intersections, Appendix F. [Revision 4] Addressed. 4. The proposed entrance from Grand Forks Blvd will need to meet sight distance requirements. Existing parking spaces will need to be removed and it is not certain at this time if those parking spaces were required for the previous subdivision. I recommend removal of the entrance. Rev.6: This entrance has been removed. 7. Rev.7: The Water Protection Ordinance has undergone a complete replacement since this project was last reviewed. In order for this project to demonstrate grandfathering status under 9VAC25- 870 -47 and 48, the project must show that a layout plan was approved with the original rezoning before July 1St, 2012, meeting the IIC criteria, and that the SWPPP is being maintained. Otherwise it will be required to meet the new criteria. A �'IRGII�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 September 25, 2013 Mr. Katurah Roell 2811 Hydraulic Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: ZMA201300004 /Hollymead Town Center - Block VI ( Dear: Mr. Rde ll, Staff has reviewed your submittal dated August 19, 2013, requesting to rezone 5.74 acres from PDMC, Planned Development -Mixed Commercial to PD -MC, Planned Development -Mixed Commercial zoning district to construct 44 townhouse units for a density of 7.7 dwellings /acre and offers the following comments: Plannine The initial comments on how your proposal generally relates to the Comprehensive Plan were provided in the previous staff comment letter. See below for staff comments and the items that remain outstanding. 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 and layout, interconnected streets are not shown. This property is located near Timberwood Boulevard and Route 29. The Comprehensive Plan recommends future transit in this area, but there are no specific plans at this time. This principle is partially addressed. Rev. 2 The application plan shows travelways that provide access to the individual townhouse garages. Although the travelways connect to Meeting Street and Laurel Park Lane, they do not provide an interconnected street network. This principle is partially addressed. Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability -This proposal does not provide a mixture of housing types. However there are single family residential developments located in the vicinity (within -- - one- quarter mile) that provide a mixture of housing types. Will any of the proposed-townhouses - - - address affordable housing? Will proffers be provided regarding affordable housing requirement? Page 1 of 4 Revised 4 -25 -11 eke This principle is partially addressed. Rev. 2 Proffers have now been provided; however, affordable housing has not been addressed or provided. This principle is partially addressed. More detailed comments may be provided after more detailed plans are provided. APPLICATION PLAN - DETAILED COMMENTS 1. The setbacks are not labeled or specified on sheet 4 as indicated on the cover sheet. Rev. 2 The setbacks described on the cover sheet of the plan refer to Table S. Where is Table 5 in the Code of Development (COD)? Table B in the COD is the closest reference and it refers to build to lines which are not consistent with the Code of Development. 2. Label the density on cover sheet. Rev. 2 Is the density correct? What is the correct acreage of the property? Is it 3.811 or 5.74? CODE OF DEVELOPMENT (COD)- DETAILED COMMENTS 1. Can you provide a blackline of the code of development? Rev. 2 This request has not been addressed. Please provide a blackline of the COD. 2. Rev. 2 The COD references Tax Map Parcel (TMP) 32-41D and the plan references TMP 78- 41L. Please clarify the TMP references on the appropriate documents, so that they are consistent. 3,. Rev. 2 The plan references tables in the COD that have number descriptions. The COD labels tables with letters. Which is the correct reference for the Tables located in the COD? 4. Rev. 2 The following typographical errors were found: Page 6, first sentence in the last paragraph should be pond, not pong. Page 11, second sentence in last paragraph should be an, not and. 5. Sarah Baldwin: Rev. 2 There are no changes to the COD aside from Page 11 regarding this Block. No tables were changed and no blackline version of the COD was provided. Engineering and Water Resources The following comments related to engineering and water resources have been provided by Glenn Brooks and Michelle Roberge: 1. It is recommended that no new development be approved that accesses Timberwood Blvd. until that road is completed and accepted by VDOT. Rev. 2: No change. 2. Rev. 2 It appears that the original SWM plan shows Abington Place draining to SWM Facility #2 (facility name shown on WP02004 -30). However, Abington Place is now being treated with a separate biofilter. Please revise the original DA maps.for SWM #2 to exclude the portion of Abington Place on an 11 "x17" sheet and include in report. This needs to be on the new plan. 3. Rev. 2 The original traffic study numbers are not consistent with the new traffic .information submitted. This discrepancy needs to be resolved. - VDOT 1. Rev. 2 The Trip Generation Study Memo indicates that generally, the trip generation from the proposed zoning will be less than that indicated for current zoning in the original TIA. The memo provides trip generation from the original development plan. The Revised 4 -25 -11 eke Page 2 of 4 original plan /TIA should be referenced by the date of the plan and it would be helpful if copies of the original data were provided for comparison with the memo. 2. Rev. 2 It appears that no new proffers have been offered for the proposed amendment. For the most part, it appears that the improvements to be made as indicated in the proffers provided have been completed. Housin Comments from the housing department will be provided upon receipt. Rev. 2 No change. Proffers 1. 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. Rev. 2 No change. Still needs to be addressed. 2. Cash proffers have not been provided per the County's cash proffer policy. Rev. 2 No change. Still needs to be addressed. 3. Rev. 2 The approved proffers that relate to this section of Hollymead Town Center need to be used, noting what proffers have been satisfied. A blackline version of the approved proffers and proposed revisions needs to be provided. 4. Sarah Baldwin: Rev. 2 The proffers do not have an accurate date, tax map, zoning designation or acreage. 5. Sarah Baldwin: Rev. 2 Please clarify the number of turn lanes in Proffer 2. 6. Sarah Baldwin: Rev. 2 Proffer 3 needs clarification. Not sure what it means or where it applies to. 7. Sarah Baldwin: Rev. 2 Proffer 4 should state where the potential connections are to adjoining parcels and shown on the plan. 8. Sarah Baldwin: Rev. 2 Proffer 5 is unnecessary. 9. Sarah Baldwin: Rev. 2 Proffer 7 should be clarified. 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. 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: -- Revised 4 -25 -11 eke Page 3 of 4 $212.10 Cost for newspaper advertisement $ 297.98 Cost for notification of adjoining owners $510.08 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. $212.10 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing $722.18 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 4 Senior Planner, Community Development Department enc: Resubmittal Form Revised 4 -25 -11 eke Page 4 of 4 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP # or ZMA # Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt #t C0 By: of nur Resubmittal of information for Special Use ]Permit or ��1M c,,M J Zoning Map Amendment " >. "hf F�1t61Nkt' PROJECT NUMBER:`MhR)130�0 PROJECT NAME: 6 wh [' Resubmittal Fee is Required ❑ Per Request ❑ Resubmittal Fee is Not Required cl;% Grawl- are eo dl Community Development Project Coordinator Name of Applicant Phone Number � 46—%. 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 i i F �Y 3g ) SZ Y iS l u EI t' " ,k Al Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $2,000 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,000 ' -. x a � 1 1 T k 1 LT = �} � � � � Y 1 ��Zw.l � f h� ti k k 2 U' YYr�. � l4LrL�"°h �} N ,s -➢ y �M) :�.,..., .. t. ,{.. . s..� ,. . , •.:t . .E, Y<... 2.. �? ... x, s:. rX. f._S ,. ...��x.. . .3 ,... , Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of S2,500 ❑ 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 $1,7850 7Jt�5S.;£1.,1 kli: ?�1'SV�.,tt; ❑ 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. MAKF, 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 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) 7 Actual cost (minimum of $_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 �'IRGINZ�` COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 June 20, 2013 Mr. Katurah Roell .2811 Hydraulic Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: ZMA201300004 /Hollymead Town Center— Block VI ^^f�'k( Dear: M �d—ell, Staff has reviewed your initial submittal requesting to rezone 5.74 acres from PDMC, Planned Development -Mixed Commercial to PD -MC, Planned Development -Mixed Commercial zoning district to construct 44 townhouse units for a density of 7.7 dwellings /acre. We have a few 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 Hollymead- Places 29- Commercial Mixed Use. Commercial Mixed Use — primary uses include community and regional retail, commercial service, auto commercial service, and office uses. Secondary uses include office, research & development (R & D), flex, residential, open space, and institutional uses. • 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 along Meeting Street, Laurel Park Lane, and Grand Parks Boulevard. Sidewalks are also shown internally on the site; however, it is Page 1 of 5 Revised 4 -25 -11 eke difficult to see whether the internal sidewalks interconnect to the exterior streets. This principle is addressed for the most part, but could be clarified further. Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths —The entrance onto the site is a driveway leading to garages forth e townhouses on the property. Sidewalks and pathways are provided on the site. Street trees are shown to be provided on the exterior of the site, but not internally. This principle is partially addressed. Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks — Due to the sites location and layout, interconnected streets are not shown. This property is located near Timberwood Boulevard and Route 29. The Comprehensive Plan recommends future transit in this area, but there are no specific plans at this time. This principle is partially addressed. Parks and Open Space —There is a tot lot and activity recreation area shown on the plan. This principle is met. Neighborhood Centers —This site is surrounded by a. shopping center. Schools and the fire /rescue station are located nearby with office /meeting space. This principle is addressed. Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale —The townhouses are proposed to be two to four stories in height at 35 feet. The elevation provided in the plans appear to be in keeping with other townhouse developments in the vicinity. This principle is addressed. Relegated Parking —The proposed townhouses have garages and parking is shown to be internal on the site. This principle is addressed. Mixture of Uses — This proposal does not provide a mixture of uses. However, it is located in a town center inclusive of retail and other commercial uses located within a one - quarter mile of the proposal. A mixture of uses is located within the neighborhood. This principle is addressed. Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability —This proposal does not provide a mixture of housing types. However there are single family residential developments located in the vicinity (within one - quarter mile) that provide a mixture of housing types. Will any of the proposed townhouses address affordable housing? Will proffers be provided regarding affordable housing requirement? This principle is partially addressed. Redevelopment— Not Applicable. Site Planning That Respects Terrain — There appear to be critical slopes located on the site that will be disturbed. However, the plan describes these slopes as manmade. Minimal disturbance to the terrain is suggested. Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas — Not Applicable. More detailed comments may be provided after more detailed plans are provided. Revised 4 -25 -I1 eke Page 2 of 5 APPLICATION PLAN - DETAILED COMMENTS 1. The SP should be referenced since it is the legislative action that allows the residential uses in the PDMC district. Will the SP be updated with this rezoning request? 2. Current and proposed zoning districts should be corrected on the cover sheet of plans. 3. The setbacks are not labeled or specified on sheet 4 as indicated on the cover sheet. 4. Label the density on cover sheet. CODE OF DEVELOPMENT (COD)- DETAILED COMMENTS Can you provide a blackline of the code of development? Zoning The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Sarah Baldwin: 1. The Application Plan: A) References ZMA2002 -2, which is part of HTC D. Additionally, ZMA's 89 -8 and 99 -21 can also be removed. This amendment is proposing to amend ZMA2001 -20. B) The Plan states that 44 townhomes will be built, the Application itself states 45 TH will be built and the COD gives a range of 40 -70 units. Please clarify what is being proposed. 2. The Code of Development: A) The Existing Block VI was Mixed Use /Community Service District and slated for parking to serve Block IV and the possibility for infill development later on. This proposal may limit IV's development. Additionally, VI is rezoned to residential; it may present limitations on other Blocks to build residential units. If the maximum total of residential units in HTC -C is 120, it should be confirmed that allowing residential units in VI will not exceed that amount and that it is still in conformance with the comprehensive plan. B) Remove the max floor plate on Table B in Block VI, if the proposal is for residential only the reference is not applicable. C) The COD states that this Block will become "Urban Style Residential" Please confirm that this proposal will meet the requirements as contained in the description of this category on page 34. 3. Amended proffers were not received. If this Block becomes residential, the cash proffer policies apply. Engineering and Water Resources The following comments related to engineering and water resources have been provided by Glenn Brooks: 1. It is recommended that no new development be approved that accesses Timberwood Bld. Until that road is completed and accepted by VDOT. VDOT The following comments related to transportation issues have been provided by Troy Austin: 1. The parcel for this project was initially planned as a parking area. How is the proposed use change to townhomes going to impact the original TIA in terms of traffic generation? Was there .extra capacity built into the original TIA estimates? Revised 4 -25 -I1 eke Page 3 of 5 2. From the plan, it appears that Laurel Park Lane is proposed to be a private road. Is there an anticipation that this road will be taken into the State Highway System? If so, the entrance to the townhome parcel will need to meet Access Management requirements, which it currently. does not. ACSA Comments have not been received from the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA). Staff will send comments upon receipt. Housing Comments from the housing department will be provided upon receipt. Proffers 1. Proffers have not been submitted. Will proffers be submitted or revised? 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 have not been provided per the County's cash proffer policy. 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: $212.10 Cost for newspaper advertisement $297.98 Cost for notification of adjoining owners (minimum $200 + actual postage /$1 per owner after 50 adjoining owners) $510.08 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. $212.10 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing $722.18 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. Revised 4 -25 -11 eke Page 4 of 5 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: Action After Receipt of Comments Resubmittal Schedule Resubmittal Form Revised 4 -25 -11 eke Page 5 of 5 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT � �'fRGII�IP 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 1 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 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 Each additional resubmittal ....... ............................... ........................$500.00 2. Public utilities; application and first resubmission Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,000.00 Eachadditional resubmittal ........................................ ............................... .......................$500.00 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 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 ................... ......................$2,000.00 Fee............................................................................ ............. Eachadditional 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 : .....$2,500.00 Fee ....................................................... ............................... ................ ................ 2. Less than 50 acres; each additional resubmission $1 250.00 Fee........... ............................... .......................... ............................... ................... , 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 ..................................................................................... .............................$5 0 Fee ................. 00.0 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 N. 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 actual cost of first class postage 3. Published notice: ............Actual cost Fee ...... ............................... ......................................... ............................... ............. 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 =5 2012 ;Dec5 ":2012. Jan 8 Nou;19 2012 Dec'1.92012 Jan 7 Jan 29 :.De Jan 2 Jan 7 Jan 29 Dec 17 2012 Jan 16 Feb 4 Feb 26 Jan 07 Feb 5 Feb 11 Mar 5 _., .. Tue Jan,22, Feb 20 Feb 25 Mar 19 Feb 4 Mar 6 Mar 18 Apr 9 Tue<Feb';19 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 Jul 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 TueSep`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 J66414 201,4 Nov 18 Dec 18 Jan 6 <2D14, , . ; 3, .., ....Jan;28 20:1;4= ,..., Dec 2 `Y:;Jan 1:2014.,, ; Jan.6.2014'; , o ,,:.,. Jan 28 2014 Dec 16 .3 , Jan.,15:20 =1 °4 ,> , f =...Feb.3 2014 ' 'Feb >25.2Qi114 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. i$ r � O a W a Z LU c L f0 d L) .Q n: N L- 0 N IZ 4- 0 L cc 0 m c U .Q 0 a _ O_ N N E E O U s= fC d a 0 a O U tQ O Q) a d c z v tp to rte+ O C a to a O m M tM M M M m M M M m M M m M t2 tM m M f2 m t`7 t`7 M M m M C2 M CO M M O r W to N C`") O` (O Z :t r N W C2 :7 N N M m V o to Co f� M (:11 O O r N N d r N M"T V to r r r r d w U) 0 [a d N M m m tM m M M m M M M M m M M M M M m M M M m N CV: ` M �' LO 'd' LL- r N(M m I- M V' r M o M N M O M 4 N N C 22 r N N N co N 4 N N N M`i:z r a0 r N� \ M N a N M N r N N O N N co V V'o r to N fl- r t0 r 0) M O r a T o o to N ti W M 0 r C a� J N N m M M M m M m m m m m M M M m m M m M M r m r m r M to N 0 r iz N V N 83 zi3 o to M M W M N CM N N r N r N r N N N r N `� N r N _r N N N` N 3 N N r N N m m V 't m to 0 m N M N m O O r 9 a cc ry J N N_ M M M_ ty m M M_ M_ m m m m m m M M C2 m m 10 M_ m 00 o M O O I� u7 N N to W r N \r n r r 4 r r i` N m N M N M N r N N N N a M co V' V Lo to to I- r 00 co N m O O r r 9 cc O1 C d E d a a 0 a O U tQ O Q) a d c z v tp to rte+ O C a to a O m M m cM M M m M N m M m M m m M M m m. M M t`7 M m m N� N t= Q N r N� M M O (O O O N N N m LD (fl r N M"T V to r r r r d w !4 0 U d CV: CM M m M m M N M m t2 m M M m r M r M r m r m r M r M r M M r M r M M M r .�- r t!7 r Zi5 r M r iZ� r O r a0 r N� N N to O V V N 61 r r N N r m r M r 0O T o o to N ti W M 0 r C 7 E rn a� J N• M M M M M m N m M M M m M M m M M M M M M m m i` N m N M N M N r N N N N co V' o r r- to N r O r ¢ m d J m M N C2 m m th m M m m M M m tM t2 tM m t2 nm nrnM�vco r r� r r r nrnc�NCOO�com r r� r r r r r r n - h:`�r N N V r N N i, r` r r M N N r N N N co V' to t j CO F- I- m m m O O s�- w 0 d E T m a 0 a O U tQ O Q) a d c z v tp to rte+ O C a to a O m FOR. OFFICE USE ONLY SP # or GMA # Fee Amount $ Date Paid BV who? Receipt # Ck# BY: os nt,� Resubmittal of information for Special Use ]Permit or l� `'y J Zoning Map Amendment " ` A7Ff � %1K;IN�3' PROJECT NUMBER: Z.MI� dD)36000q PROJECT NAME: ❑ Resubmittal Fee is Required ❑ Per Request P"Resubmittal Fee is Not Required. Gaud -E � re', �- ke 4zlre h 1?,a PI i Community Development Project Coordinator Name of Applicant Phone Number FIRM - Signature date Signature FEES Date Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit -- original Special Use Permit fee of $1,000 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $500 k °4 ZtC �, I ! `x ,s CC �S � 'f" ka �+ { (� i� }'� V- Aa `i 8°41 { 3 ti� la $ � 1, xi �7 � ��.. � 9 S t5 ' Y� aj � i.. �.s➢ /b #c�i,j�v' �Lyfy � � � {� 5V 4 Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $2,000 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,000 $ Resubmittal ees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,500 First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,250 5 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 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 R 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 COTJN'TY OF ALBEMARLE/PAYMENT AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTER A Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices $200 + actual cost of first -class postage $1.00 for each additional notice + actual i� Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50) cost of first -class postage i, Legal advertisement (P ublished twice in the newspaper for each public hearin g) 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 Pase 1 of 1