Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201300017 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2014-06-19A,,n R ME 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 19, 2014 Mr. Vito Cetta 1730 Owensfield Dr. Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: ZMA201300017 /Spring Hill Village Dear: Mr. Cetta, Staff has reviewed your re- 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 up to 100 dwelling units and a density of approximately S units /acre. We have several questions and comments which are listed below: Planning The following comments are provided by Claudette Grant (the comments in bold reflect previous comments that have not changed and additional clarification to the existing comment): APPLICATION PLAN- DETAILED COMMENTS 1. Project Data on Sheet 1 shows critical slopes waiver, which no longer applies since the new regulations for critical slopes shows these slopes as managed. Please revise this sheet accordingly. 2. The Block Table on Sheet 3 shows the possibility of a residential development with no mixed use. The Draft 2014 Comprehensive Plan does not propose this property to be solely residential with no mix of uses. No Change 3. It appears that a portion of the units in Block C will front on an alley and not have street frontage. The residential units need to have street frontage or if the frontage is provided by a different means then an appropriate alternative needs to be provided, such as something included in the code of development. See the following with regards to alleys and the references for street frontage: Sec. 14 -236 When shared driveways and alleys may be authorized. A shared driveway or alley may be authorized as follows: A. The agent may authorize a subdivision to be developed with one or more shared driveways when street frontage meeting the street frontage requirements of the zoning district exists or will be provided to both lots. Page I of 3 Revised 4 -25 -11 eke B. The agent may authorize a subdivision to be developed with one or more alleys in the development areas when street frontage exists or will be provided for all lots to be served by the alley(s). C. Where alleys are authorized, driveways shall be provided only from the alley unless otherwise approved by the agent for cases such as, but not limited to, corner lots or lots where access is prevented by topographical constraints. Alley. The term "alley" means a form of vehicular travelway providing access to the rear and/or side lot line of abutting properties which front along streets. An alley is privately owned and maintained, is intended to be used primarily by the owners and occupants of the abutting properties and persons and vehicles providing services to those properties, including emergency services vehicles, and is not intended for through traffic. An alley is not a "private street." For clarification, what is your road frontage for the units in a portion of Block C? CODE OF DEVELOPMENT (COD)- DETAILED COMMENTS 1. Page 5 of the COD states all blocks have frontage on proposed public roads. See previous comment above. It appears a portion of Block C does not front on a public road. This issue needs to be reconciled. See the engineering comments for additional detail on this issue. Zoning The following comments related to the code of development and zoning matters have been provided by Amanda Burbage: 1. Parking: Staff continues to have concerns about provisions for non - residential parking. One space per 1,000 sf is inadequate to support a lab/ R &D use, and the Block B parking lot currently contains only 18 parking spaces devoted to non - residential use. The applicant has suggested that additional parking to support a non - residential use in Block A could be accommodated in Block C; however, the phasing plan stipulates that Block C will be developed during Phase 1 and Block A will be developed during Phase 2. Staff would prefer to see Blocks A & C developed within the same phase to ensure that there is adequate parking to support the non - residential uses. Section 7 of the Code of Development stipulates parking standards that "expressly supercede" the minimum parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. To do so requires approval of a waiver by the Board of Supervisors with a justification for the reduction in the number of parking spaces. Should the applicant choose to pursue a waiver to modify parking standards, staff cannot support the non - residential standards as they are currently written in Table 7.1. As an alternative, staff recommends that the applicant remove these standards from the Code of Development, use the parking standards outlined in Section 4.12.6 of the zoning ordinance, and submit a Shared Parking Plan if a reduction in the number of parking spaces is desired. Engineering and Water Resources See the attachment for comments related to engineering and water resources, which have been provided by Glenn Brooks. VDOT See attached comments from Troy Austin of VDOT relating to transportation issues. Revised 4 -25 -11 eke Page 2 of 3 Proffers The following comments related to proffers have been provided by Claudette Grant: 1. On page 2, paragraph 1 Affordable Housing, should it be 100 dwelling units instead of 110? No Change. Consider diversifying the location of the affordable units. They do not all need to be concentrated in one area. 2. It seems Proffer 5 Phasing needs a timeframe. No change. The language in this proffer is awkward and not very clear. The following comments related to the proffers have been provided by Greg Kamptner. Also see the handwritten attached comments from Greg related to the proffers that are inclusive of a lot of minor /technical things that need to be corrected. The following are substantivethe comments: Proffer 1. There appears to be a conflict between the identified sentence in the introductory paragraph in Proffer 1 and identified sentence in Proffer 1B especially if the unit cannot go from building permit to CO in less than 120 days. Proffer 3. Is the introductory paragraph's reference to "each subdivision of the Property" referring to phases or sequential subdivisions of the same land? Proffer 4. I'm not sure the "general accord" language works in this context, and I've asked whether there are any more specific plans that can be referred to so that everyone understands what is required to address the impacts. Are there VDOT comments explaining why these improvements should be required. Proffer 5. 1 don't understand the purpose of this proffer. The first sentence should be covered already in the application plan or the code of development, the second sentence is unenforceable, and the third sentence is too vague. Is the third sentence really stating that "The Owner shall obtain a certificate of occupancy for each townhouse unit, all subdivision improvements shall be completed, and all lands and public improvements to be dedicated to public use shall be dedicated within Block F before the Owner applies for the first [grading permit or building permit] within either Blocks B or C."] I will contact you immediately in order to discuss these comments and confirm with you the next steps for this rezoning request. In particular, if you still wish to bring this to the Planning Commission for public hearing on July 15, 2014 or if you wish to provide revisions /re- submittal. Action after Receipt of Comment Letter 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 oament /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 3 of 3 If you choose to resubmit, please use the form provided with this letter. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is cgrant @albemarle.org Sincerely, y6b Claudette Grant Senior Planner, Community Development Department Enc: Engineering Comments VDOT Comments Attorney Comments Resubmittal. Form Revised 4 -25 -11 eke Page 4 of 3 �y OF AL� o� U 6tL t���P County of Albemarle Department of Communitv Development The proposed rezoning of parcel 90 -28 has been reviewed. The following comments are provided for your review: 1. Please provide more information regarding the proposed underground manufacturered 30,000 eft Stormtrap Best Management Practice (BMP) proposed. Will need to know if conceptually this could provide the treatment for Virginia Stormwater Management Permit (VSMP) requirements for at least 12.99 Ac of contributing watershed area. Rev. 1: Underground facilities are not recommended in this setting. Adequate runoff capture will be too difficult, and treatment solely by manufactured underground facilities does not appear adequate under anticipated new water quality regulations. Rev.2: Stormwater facilities are better situated toward the lower side of the site with this revision. Adequate capture of runoff on at -grade inlets along a steep road may still prove unreliable. Rev.3: No change. This is complete enough to move forward with the ZMA. 2. It appears that the application proposes internal private roads with slopes up to 12 %. County ordinances require private streets serving 6 or more lots need to follow VDOT standards. The VDOT Geometric Design Standards for Residential and Mixed Use Subdivision Streets (GS- SSAR) Table 1— Curb and Gutter Section (pg. B(1) -7) indicates that for a proposed road with traffic volume up to 2,000 ADT, 2011 AASHTO Green Book Chapter 5 (Page 5 -12) provides guidance as to the maximum grade. The Green Book page indicates local residential streets should be less than 15% (see attached guidance). However, the application proposes a range of uses for each block. These uses could potentially generate traffic volumes greater than 2,000 ADT. Please provide an analysis indicating the maximum anticipated traffic volume impacts for the most intense proposed uses for each proposed private road. Please reference the ITE Trip Generation Manual and the proposed Code of Development in the analysis. Rev. 1: The street network is not recommended for approval. Right - angled turns must be eliminated. There is no private or public road standard which allows this. Road D requires a turnaround. The main through -way (Road A to B) should be a public road. Alleys should be secondary access, and not used as sole access to units, such as with 11 -15. Rev.2: The road network is much improved with this revision. The public road and Roads B and C appear acceptable. Road D is conflicted. The initial portion near Avon Street Appears wide Memorandum To: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner From: Michael Koslow, Senior Civil Engineer Rev. 1-3: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Date: 17 December 2013 Rev. 1: 10 Feb 2014 Rev.2: 15 Apr 2014 Rev.3: 4 June 2014 Subject: Spring Hill Village (ZMA201300017) The proposed rezoning of parcel 90 -28 has been reviewed. The following comments are provided for your review: 1. Please provide more information regarding the proposed underground manufacturered 30,000 eft Stormtrap Best Management Practice (BMP) proposed. Will need to know if conceptually this could provide the treatment for Virginia Stormwater Management Permit (VSMP) requirements for at least 12.99 Ac of contributing watershed area. Rev. 1: Underground facilities are not recommended in this setting. Adequate runoff capture will be too difficult, and treatment solely by manufactured underground facilities does not appear adequate under anticipated new water quality regulations. Rev.2: Stormwater facilities are better situated toward the lower side of the site with this revision. Adequate capture of runoff on at -grade inlets along a steep road may still prove unreliable. Rev.3: No change. This is complete enough to move forward with the ZMA. 2. It appears that the application proposes internal private roads with slopes up to 12 %. County ordinances require private streets serving 6 or more lots need to follow VDOT standards. The VDOT Geometric Design Standards for Residential and Mixed Use Subdivision Streets (GS- SSAR) Table 1— Curb and Gutter Section (pg. B(1) -7) indicates that for a proposed road with traffic volume up to 2,000 ADT, 2011 AASHTO Green Book Chapter 5 (Page 5 -12) provides guidance as to the maximum grade. The Green Book page indicates local residential streets should be less than 15% (see attached guidance). However, the application proposes a range of uses for each block. These uses could potentially generate traffic volumes greater than 2,000 ADT. Please provide an analysis indicating the maximum anticipated traffic volume impacts for the most intense proposed uses for each proposed private road. Please reference the ITE Trip Generation Manual and the proposed Code of Development in the analysis. Rev. 1: The street network is not recommended for approval. Right - angled turns must be eliminated. There is no private or public road standard which allows this. Road D requires a turnaround. The main through -way (Road A to B) should be a public road. Alleys should be secondary access, and not used as sole access to units, such as with 11 -15. Rev.2: The road network is much improved with this revision. The public road and Roads B and C appear acceptable. Road D is conflicted. The initial portion near Avon Street Appears wide Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 2 enough, but the'road turns sharply and reduces to an alley. For lots 16 -26, a road is recommended, not an alley, as this is the primary access to units. The sharp turn would not meet any road standard. Rev.3: Lots 16 -24 have primary access through an Alley. An Alley is defined as secondary access in the zoning ordinance. I understand the planning division is willing to accept these, justifying it as "frontage" on the small park area. Everyone should be aware that this makes the alley serve as the road frontage. Alley standards are not up to road standards, and pavement durability, drainage, maneuverability, parking, addressing, emergency services, trash services, all become substandard. a rd��� µCap m MM=ll DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Cu'peper, V,rg nia 22701 Charles A. Kilpatrick,'P.E. . Commissioner June 9, 2014 Ms. Claudette Grant Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: ZMA- 2013 -00017 Spring Hill Village Dear Ms. Grant: We have reviewed the NMD Rezoning Application Plan for the proposed Spring Hill Village development dated 10121/13 with revisions dated 1121/14, 3131114, and 5l19f14:as submitted by Terra Concepts, P.C. and offer the following comments: 1. The road design appears to have been based on a design speed of 20 mph. Per Appendix B(1) of the Road Design Manual, the minimum design speed for these. roads should be 25 mph based on an project ADT of 2,000 vehicles or less. Most notably, this will impact the available sight distance shown on the plan. 2...The proposed street trees shown on the plan appear to conflict with sight lines. 3. Buildings on Lots 70 and 71 will be an obstruction, to the sight line at the intersection of Road "B" and Road "A'. 4. Standard CG -12 crossings will need to be provided at each intersection including.the intersections with Road "A" at Route 20 and Avon Ext. 5. Access management spacing exceptions will be necessary for both spacing between Road "A" to the entrance for Parham Construction and for the corner clearance requirement for the distance between Road "C" and Route 20. 6. The pavement design shown on the street typical sections will need to be verified through the road plan review process. If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel free to contact me at (434) 589 -5871. Sincerely, Troy Austin, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Culpeper District WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING PROFFER STATEMENT ZMA No. 2013 - 00017, Spring Hill Village Tax Map: TMP 09000- 00 -00- 02800 V1 `1�,e Owner Of Record: Spring Hill /Holdings 1, ..61 Date Of Proffer: May 11, .2014 12.99 Acres to be rezoned from Residential R 1 to NEIGHORHOOD MODEL DISTRICT (NMD) Project Address 1776 Scottsville Road Contact Person Vito Cetta 1730 Owensfield Drive Charlottesville, VA. 22901 434 -531 -2192 Magisterial District: Scottsville . Vito Cettal�will serve as the owner s representative of Spring Hill �Holdlng'*s� of TaxM Map and Parcel. number TMP 0900`M00= �280p, P pq�ro °�t=ls the subject of rezoning application.ZlVIA No.. 201.3- 00017, a project known.as"'SPRING HILL GE" the ro'ect VILLA J . The -term "Owner" as ( ,� ) referenced herein shall include within its meaning the owner of record and successors in interest. The / - "Application Plane refers -to Exhibit A to -the Code of ,erevelopment last revised March 31, 2014. Pursuant -to Section 33.7 of 'the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the pawner hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed to the Property if it is /below which shall be applied rezoned to the zoning district identified above. These conditions are proffered as part of the requested rezoning and the Owner acknowledges that the conditions are reasonable. 4171x 1".�:" Affordable Housing. The community could have as few as units and as many as 1"10 dwelling units. The Owner shall provide 15% of the total units as affordable housing units, in accordance with guidelines established by the Albemarle County Department of Housing and approved by-the Albemarle.County Board of Supervisors on February 4, 2004, within the Project in the form of a 2 or 3 story townhouses as shown on the Application Plan as units 40- 54 and ( if more are needed t units adjacent to unit 40 will be m vailable as affordable). Each unit shall be located on a single lot. Before the Owner applies a building permit for any affordable rest tial unit in the Project, -the Owner shall have offered for rent or c't' ,sale a rovided herein, each Affordable Housing Unit within the b� Project. he�,Owner call do,nvey the, responsibility of constructing the dw affor units to the subsequent owners of lots desighated., affordable on the site development plans or plats. "If:a different number of units are built, the number of affordable units will be �- adjusted accordingly. (A). Rental Rates. The initial net rent for each for -rent affordable unit shall not exceed the then- current and applicable maximum net rent rate approved by the County Housing Office. In each subsequent calendar year; the monthly net rent-for eacOor -rent affordable unit may be increased up to three percent (3 %). For purpose of this "proffer statement, "the "term "net rent" means that the rent does not include-tenant -paid utilities. The requirement that the rents for such for -rent affordable units may not exceed-the maximum rents_ established in this paragraph shall apply for a period of "ten (10). "years-following the date the certificate of occupancy is issued by the County for each for -rent affordable unit, or until the units are sold as *low or moderate cost units qualifying as-such under either the Virginia Housing Development Authority, Farmers Home Administration, or Housing and Urban Development, Section 8, whichever comes first (the "Affordable Term "). The Owner of each Affordable Rental Unit shall, at-the request of the Albemarle County Office of Housing, provide written reports documenting rental rates and occupancies of the affordable units. (B.) For Sale. All purchasers of for -sale affordable units shall be approved by the Albemarle County Office of Housing or its designee. The Owner shall provide the County or its designee 180 days to identify and pre - qualify an eligible purchaser for the affordable units. The 180 — day period shall commence upon written. �ex5 notice from the Owner that the units will be available for -sa4 This b¢- notice shall not be given more than 120, days prior to the anticipated receipt of the certification of occupancy If the County or its designee WM does not provide a qualified purchaser during this period, the Owner fie`' shall have the right to sell. the units without any restriction on sales jv� price or income of purchaser. If these units are sold, this proffer shall apply to the first sale of each unit. The maximum sales price.for affordable units (65% of VHDA's Maximum Sales Price for First -time Homebuyers). The calculation currently put the maximum sale price -for affordable units at $211,250. 4A (C). Conveyance of Interest. All deeds convey! g any interestna the for -rent affordable units during the Affordable T rm shall contai nguage reciting that such .unit is subject to th terms of 'this paragrap In addition, all contracts pertaining to a c nveyance of any-rent ffordable unit; or any part thereof, during t e Affordable Term shall contain a complete a =aragraph e of the restrictions and controls established by thi . At least thirty (30) days prior to the conveyance of aany for -rent aff ordable unit during the Affordable Term, -the then - current owner shall notify-the County in writing of-the conveyance and provide the name, address and-telephone number of the potential grantee, and state that the requirements of This paragraph.. have been satisfied. Aft 2. Cash Proff rs for Residential Units. A;(he Owner shall contribute' cash fore h new residential unit that is not classified as an affordable. ( or e pu s o addressing the fiscal impacts of development on the County's public facilities and infrastructure, i.e. schools, public safet , libraries, parks and transportation. The cash contribution shall be Twenty Thousand Four Hundred Sixty and 51/100 dollars ($20,460.57) cash for each new single-family detached dwelling unit. The cash contribution shall be Thirteen Thousand Nine Hundred Thirteen and 18/100 dollars ($13,913.18) cash for each single family attached 'or townhouse dwelling unit. The cash contribution shall be paid at the time of the issuance of the building permit for each new unit, unless the .timing of the payment is otherwise specified by state law. Beginning January 1, 201 , the amount of the cash contribution Y required b this proffer shkll be adjusted annually until paid, to reflect . q any increase or decrease for the proceeding calendar year in the Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index ( "MSI "). In no event shall any cash contribution amount be adjusted to a sum less than the amount initially established by this proffer. The annual adjustment.shall be made by multiplying the proffered cash contribution amount for the preceding year by a fraction, the numerator of which shall be the MSI as of December 1 in the preceding calendar year, and the. denominator of which shall be the MSI as of December 1 in the year preceding the calendar year most recently ended. ec� 3. OVERLOT GRADING: -The, O her (hereinafter V � application the "Plan ") meeting he shall submit an o er -lot grading plan requirements of with 'the for each s ,bdivisin of the Property. The Plan shall show existing and proposed -topographic features. The Plan shall be approved by the County Engineer prior to approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control plan. The Property within t#e subdivision shall be graded as shown on the approved Plan. No building permit shall e.issued for any dwelling on a lot CWEca�ckz ,�w5t :� o w e Jvhe�the County Engineer has determined the lot. grading is not consistent with the approved Plan. The Plan shall satisfy the following: a) The Plan shall show all proposed streets, building sites, setbacks, surface drainage, driveways, trails, and other features the County Engineer determines are needed to verify that the Plan satisfies the requirements of this proffer. b) The Plan. shall be drawn to a scale not smaller than one (1) inch equals fifty (50) feet. c) All proposed grading shall be shown with contour intervals not greater than two (2) feet. All concentrated surface drainage over lots shall be clearly shown with the proposed grading. All proposed grading shall be designed to assure that surface drainage can provide adequate i relief from the flooding of dwellings in the event a storm sewer fails. d) ' Graded slopes on lots proposed to be planted with turf grasses (lawns) shall not exceed a gradient of three (3) feet of horizontal distance for each one (1) foot of vertical rise or fall (3:1). Steeper slopes shall be vegetated with low maintenance vegetation, as determined to be appropriate by the County's program authority in its. approval of an erosion and sediment control plan for -the land disturbing activity. These steeper slopes shall not exceed a gradient of two (2) feet of horizontal distance for each one (1) foot of vertical rise or fall -(2:1), unless the County Engineer finds that the grading recommendations for steeper slopes have adequately addressed the impacts. -e) .Surface drainage may flow across up to three (3) lots before being collected in a storm sewer or directed to a drainage way outside of. the lots. f) No surface .drainage across a residential lot shall have more than one -half (1/2) acre of land draining -to it g) All drainage from streets shall be carried across hots in.a storm sewer to a point,beyond the rear of the Wilding -site. . h) The, Plan shall demonstrate that an area at least ten (10) feet in width, or to the lot line if it is less than -(10) feet, from -the portion of the structure facing the street, has grades no steeper than ten (10) percent adjacent -to possible entrances to dwellings that will not be served by a stairway. This graded area also shall extend from, the entrances to the driveways or walkways connecting the dwelling Io the street. i) Any requirement of this proffer may be waived by submitting -a . request for special exception with the over�lot grading plan. If such a request is made, it shall include a justification for the request containing a valid professional seal from a PE, LA or LS type B. In reviewing a waiver request, 'the County Engineer shall consider whether the alternative proposed by the Owner satisfies the purpose of the requirement to be waived to at least an equivalent degree. j) In the event that the County adopts overlot grading regulations after the date this proffer is approved,. any requirement of those regulations that is less restrictive than any requirement of this proffer shall supersede the corresponding requirement of this proffer, subject to the approval of the Director of. the Department of Community Deve.lopmerit. 0h(,'c 4. Improvements to Scottsville Rd and Avon Exten At its sole expense, the caner s de ' , bond and construct the improvements shown -on e drawings for both Scottsville Road and Avon Extended in general a i the Application Plan. The S improvements shall be designed and constructed to the County and Q V D OT standards, including the design and construction of related COY rainage, slope a d utility easements as applicable. These p im rovemenI be completed and approved by VDOT and the County prior to the first certificate of occupancy for any structure on the r rt . As art of this process, 'the d do tion to b ' us Xsr%j Y p p [j r i c� rteed�s--fio be completed at the same :time. roaT pans trt aped -! btndq6 prior to the issuance of the first building permit .6)Y - -first approved plat, whichever comes first, to ensure that ,these improvements ca be completed in a timely manner. -Pv- i ►nprn�re.n'►e s f rr�ed '� be Co nnp tee u)h.ex� -td1e j km cd,- -e d � � � 5 fistiflh s75 ©f K% h� s or-the. Cwh� . 5. Phasing d S 5a- �,nc�P c�rti�exticPf ��' o'r :Blocks :A, B and C are 'available for commercial uses and will be +M� offered for sale to the public after County approvals have been 0 obtained. The Owner will be active in a #amntinn fn find a ci iiFabie buyer or buyers. In the interest of finding a commercial buyer, townhouses in Block F will be totally built before townhouses in.. Blocks B or C or will be started. This document shall supersede al.l other agreements, proffers or conditions that may be found to be in conflict. These proffers shall- be binding to the property, which means the proffers shall be transferred to all future property successors of the land. WITNESS th SPRING HILL VILLAGE HOLDING, LLC Vito Cetta, Manager COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY /COUNTY OF to wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this } day of 2013 by Vito Cetta, Manager of Barracks Heights, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company. My Co ission expires: d � S) IZZLS � -7 5'9 , Notary Public LIC H irginia Eim d't � Z �$ HJIi Will JUL UJL' VIN11V Jru or LVIA 7i Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # Chit By: of ni.p Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit or J Zoning Map Amendment /ftCINxF' PROJECT NUMBER: 7i�/�- ��I ^(aDD J� PROJECT NAME: J;n� i� �%1� Resubmittal Fee is Required ❑ Per Request ❑ Resubmittal Fee is Not Required Cl au de.*�P_ r. m� Community Development Project Coordinator __9 WNW_ -5 Signature DA ' \%i.I z ce421 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 cost of first -class postage Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $2,000 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $11,000 4 "F '„ xt F �F X'3v� � f t1 �� LY 1..{ S.p, r i� b'.� �\ >r t �. '.al;.� t,L x iJ � >•x� itY .} Y t +I°'s.: SxCY1.0 F�`� 4 ( <. " »E ` 1� Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,500 ❑ First re ubmission FREE ach additional resubmission $1,250 -i 3 Z F.. J i :: 3C, a . ?.. ,. f.. } 5..? ..�. ..I,F t 5:5 {. }. !3t !, M ��'�S_ .�r); (f�➢ j L i :3- Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,500 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,750 1 ❑Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request — Add'1 notice fees will be required $l80 To be raid 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. MATCF. CHECKS TO C OTINTV OF A1,RRMARLE /PAYMENT AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTER 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 Communit3, Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296 -5832 Fax: (434) 972 -4126 6/7/2011 Page 1 of 1