HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201500010 Review Comments Special Use Permit 2015-03-09R �
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 6, 2015
Mr. Michael Myers
Dominion Engineering
172 S. Pantops Dr.
Charlottesville, VA 22911
RE: SP2015 -00010 —Van Dine Plaza
Dear Mike:
Staff has reviewed your initial submittal request for a hotel.
We have a few questions and comments which are listed below:
Planning
Initial comments on how your proposal generally relates to the Comprehensive Plan are provided
below. Comments on conformity with the Comprehensive Plan are provided to the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report.
The land use designation-for this property is Urban Density Residential in DA Neighborhood 1-
Places 29. Uses allowed in this designation include residential areas with densities of (6.01— 34
units /acre). Primary uses in areas with this designation are intended for multifamily and single -
family residential, including two or more housing types. Secondary uses for areas with this
designation are retail, commercial, and office uses that support the neighborhood, live /work units,
open space, and institutional uses.
The proposed hotel use is a commercial use that could be in keeping with the surrounding
commercial uses in the immediate. area. The proposal appears to be putting a lot of development
on a very small site and it is unclear if there is enough space for the proposal. There are similar,
established uses in the vicinity with buildings of varying scale.
Neighborhood Model: The following describes how the proposed development meets or does not
meet the principles of the Neighborhood Model:
Pedestrian Orientation — Sidewalks are shown on the plan fronting Rio Road West and .
Page I of 7 Revised 4 -25 -11 eke
surrounding the proposed building. This principle is addressed.
Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths —The side of the proposed building -will front onto the
existing Rio Road West. While the plan shows some landscape along the Rio Road West portion of
the site, there is no information provided about the proposed landscape. The property is
surrounded by retaining walls, some of which will be fairly tall at 34 feet. There are no streets
proposed within this development, only travelways. With tall retaining walls,
driveways /travelways and sidewalks adjacent to the building that are typical for this type of
development, it does not appear this principle is addressed.
Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks —The plan shows a proposed interparcel
access located at the southwest portion of the property. It is not clear how this interparcel area
will be accessed since there is a parking /loading space and a retaining wall located in the
immediate vicinity. Transit service is available on Rio Road. This principle is partially addressed.
Parks and Open Space —The narrative provided describes existing, vegetated open space at the
rear of the site. This area will serve as an undisturbed buffer and setback. This principle is
addressed.
Neighborhood Centers —This facility will be located on Rio Road West between Route 29 and
Berkmar Drive. As a hotel use, meeting space will be located in the facility. There are also many
neighborhood centers located in the nearby vicinity, such as the Northside Library, and the fire
station located on Berkmar Dr. This principle is met.
Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale The proposed four -story building will be taller than most of
the existing buildings in the immediate vicinity. The Places 29 Master Plan describes a maximum
building height in an Urban Density Residential designated area to be 4 stories or 45 feet. A three
story building located at the southwest corner of Berkmar Dr. and Rio Road West is one of the
taller buildings in the neighborhood. Most buildings in the area range between 1 and 2 stories in
height. Given the scale of the existing buildings, and the topography of the area, the height of the
proposed building may seem slightly out of character and scale with the existing character of the
area. However, stepping the design of the building back for each foot of height in excess. of thirty -
five feet could help alleviate concerns regarding the scale /height of the building. Staff has similar
concerns with the proposed retaining walls, however, there does not appear to be enough area to
step the retaining walls back since in some cases the wall is very close to the property line. This
principle is partially met.
Relegated Parking —The parking shown on the plan is not relegated. Because this is a relatively
small site with some topographic challenges, ideally the building would be located closer to the
street and some of the parking would go under the building. This would allow some of the parking
to be taken away from the front of the property. The principle is not addressed.
Mixture of Uses —There are no mixture of uses within this property. However, with the proximity
of other commercial and residential uses in close proximity to this property, staff does not see this
as a major issue.
Page 2 of 7 Revised 4 -25 -11 eke
Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability —This is not applicable, given the type of use
proposed.
Redevelopment This is not applicable.
Site Planning That Respects Terrain — Managed slopes are located in a few portions of the site.
Managed slopes may be developed if Design Standards are adhered to. 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.
Planning
• On sheet 1 of the plan the Comprehensive Plan designation is Urban Density Residential,
not Places 29.
• A subdivision will eventually be needed.
• On sheet 2 the managed slopes seem to be located in a slightly different area than on the
County GIS web site. Which is correct?
• Can loading space be re- located to the rear of the site?
• Is it appropriate for dumpster to be located in the loading space?
• How will the proposed stairs work with the retaining wall? Both are located in the same
vicinity. Where do the stairs lead to?
• As noted above, the parking needs to be relegated.
• It appears managed slopes will be disturbed during grading for retaining wall and parking
lot.
• How many employees will be here at the peak times? Orin other words, what is the
maximum amount of employees on site at the same time on any given day?
The following comments related to site plan matters have been provided by Megan Yaniglos:
• What type of retaining wall will be proposed? The width shown on the site plan is small,
and for the proposed wall height it may be that the wall gets wider. Because this is such a
tight site, the wall width should be shown accurately to address impacts including, but not
limited to, easements that will be needed during the site plan stage, and any changes that
may be required of the parking lot.
• The rear parking spaces are 9 feet by 16 feet. A reduction can be approved, however the
parking is close to the retaining wall, so if the retaining wall needs to be wider or if a guard
rail is required, that may impact these spaces.
•. An area of at least 5% of the parking area must be landscaped with trees and /or shrubs.
Neither the landscaping for the street trees or the landscaping around the building can be
counted towards this required landscaping. Again, the site is very constrained and it is
important that.the landscaping not be an afterthought.
Zoning
The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Amanda Burbage and
Amelia McCulley:
• Is the temporary grading easement shown on TMP 45 -105 existing or proposed? If it is
Page 3 of 7 Revised 4 -25 -11 eke
proposed, please provide documentation that the current property owner approves of the
easement. Also, what is the purpose of this easement?
For the retaining wall shown adjacent to TMP 45 -100A, an access easement may be
necessary for construction and maintenance. If so, documentation that the current
property owner approves of the easement will be required. While final permission for the
off -site easements can normally be resolved with the site plan, if they are not possible to
obtain it will result in major site redesign. This becomes important to the current special
use permit process because the approval is typically conditioned upon general accord,with
a concept plan. In addition, a major site redesign could change the impacts of this
proposed use.
• Right -of -way dedication from the adjacent property owner appears to be necessary to
construct the proposed 50 ft taper lane on Rio Road. While final permission for the off -site
approvals can be resolved with the site plan, if they are not possible to obtain it will result
in major site redesign and /or it can impact the ability to comply with VDOT safety
requirements.
• You should coordinate with VDOT regarding the landscape plantings proposed within
VDOT's 15' proposed utility easement. If these plantings are not possible within the
easement, an alternate solution or site redesign should be considered.
The number of parking spaces proposed satisfies the ordinance requirement for a hotel use
(1 space/ room); however, if a restaurant or assembly room is also proposed, additional
parking spaces are required ( §4.12.6). You may request a reduction in the total number of
required parking spaces based upon the site's location along a transit route or with shared
parking. Please revise the plan to reflect this calculation or to state that no restaurant or
assembly rooms are proposed.
• Should any managed slopes be disturbed by the creation of any retaining wall, the
retaining wall any cut and fill associated with the creation of the retaining wall must satisfy
the design guidelines outlined in Section 30.7.5 of the zoning ordinance.
Engineering and Water Resources
The following comments related to engineering and water resources have been provided by Justin
Deel:
• The proposed underground detention system is not shown on the provided site sections.
Presuming that an MSE wall will, be utilized (retaining wall specifications have not been
provided) we have questions as to how this system will coincide with geo -grid
reinforcement.
• The existing VSMP permit cannot be amended to conform to the hotel land use plan, as
noted in the narrative. A new VSMP permit will be required.
• You will have to meet Technical Criteria Part 1113 to comply with VSMP requirements.
VDOT
Comments from VDOT are attached.
Page 4 of 7 Revised 4 -25 -11 eke
Architectural Review Board
The following comments related to ARB issues have been provided by Margaret Maliszewski:
• The proposal does not meet the Entrance Corridor Design Guideline regarding site grading
and retaining walls:
Site grading should maintain the basic relationship of the site to surrounding conditions by
limiting the use of retaining walls and by shaping the terrain through the use of smooth,
rounded land forms that blend with the existing terrain. Steep cut or fill sections are generally .
unacceptable..... Final grading should achieve a natural; rather than engineered, appearance.
Retaining walls 5 feet in height and taller, when necessary, shall be terraced and planted to
blend with the landscape.
The site is nearly surrounded by retaining walls and the walls reach a height of 34'. Though
some of the walls may not be directly visible from the EC, the extensive use of the walls will
be evident in the development if it is built as illustrated. The layout of the site does not
appear to allow for the terracing and planting of the retaining walls as required by the
guidelines. Also, the proximity of the retaining walls to property lines, utilities, and
easements does not allow for sufficient planting at the base in many locations.
• The proposal does not meet the Entrance Corridor Design Guideline regarding frontage
planting:
Large shade trees should be planted parallel to the Entrance Corridor Street. Such trees should
be at least 3% inches caliper (measured 5 inches above the ground) and should be of a plant
species common to the area. Such trees should be located at least every 35 feet on center.
Flowering ornamental trees of a species common to the area should be interspersed among
the trees required by the preceding paragraph. The ornamental trees need not alternate one
for one with the large shade trees. They may be planted among the large shade trees in a less
regular spacing pattern. An area of sufficient width to accommodate the foregoing plantings
and fencing should be reserved parallel to the Entrance Corridor street, and exclusive of road
right -of -way and utility easements.
Trees are shown along the EC frontage, but they are shown either in an easement or off
site. In addition to large shade trees and ornamental trees, shrubs will also be required
along the frontage.
• The proposal does not meet the Entrance Corridor Design Guideline regarding perimeter
parking lot planting:
Large trees should align the perimeter of parking areas, located 40 feet on center.... Trees
should measure 2% inches caliper... Shrubs should be provided as necessary to minimize the
parking .area's impact on Entrance Corridor streets. Shrubs should measure 24 inches in
height.
• The front entrance to the hotel is not located on the building elevation that faces the
Entrance Corridor. In the Entrance Corridor, it would be more appropriate to locate the
main building entrance on the EC- facing elevation. With or without the main building
entrance, the elevation facing Rio Road will be required to be a fully designed front. Blank
walls will not be appropriate.
• A dumpster is located in a front corner of the property adjacent to the EC. Although the
retaining wall currently shown in this area will screen some of the dumpster from view, the
Page 5 of 7 Revised 4 -25 -11 eke
dumpster location emphasizes that the proposal does not support the goals of the
Entrance Corridors.
The applicant is encouraged to pursue a re- design that takes advantage of existing grades;
significantly reduces the need for retaining walls; provides for no less than the minimum
planting requirements on site and outside of utilities and easements; locates accessory
structures, equipment and objectionable features away from the EC; and preferably
orients the main building entrance towards the Entrance Corridor.
ASCA /RWSA
The following comments related to water utility issues have been provided by Alexander
Morrison:
• The utilities shown on the conceptual plan do not match the approved utility plan.
• Approval of the special use permit is recommended with the following condition: Submit
an updated set of utility drawings to the ACSA, Attn: Jeremy Lynn, PE, for a utility
construction review. The package shall include 3 copies of the plan and associated
water /sewer data sheets.
The following comments related to water and sewer authority issues have been provided by
Victoria Fort:
• Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal None Known
• Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Capacity Certification Yes X No
• Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal None Known
• "Red Flags" regarding service provision (Use attachments if necessary) None Known
Fire /Rescue
The following comment related to fire- rescue issues have been provided by Robbie Gilmer:
No comments or objections.
SP Conditions
At this point in the review process, we anticipate recommended conditions of approval for the
Special Use Permit will relate to the concept plan, and whatever issues may come from the
Architectural Review Board meeting. Additional information will be forthcoming regarding SP
conditions.
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.
Page 6 of 7 Revised 4 -25 -11 eke
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:
$104.35 Cost for newspaper advertisement
$200.00 Cost for notification of adjoining owners (minimum $200 + actual postage /$1 per owner
after 50 adjoining owners)
$304.35 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. .
$104.35 Additional amount due . prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing
$408.70 Total amount for all notifications Fees may be paid in advance. Payment for both the
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings may be paid at the same time.
Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining owners
need to be notified of a new date.
Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is
cgrant @albemarle.org .
Senior Planner, Community Development Department
C: Auto, LLC
1389 Richmond Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22901
PVR Associates
1880 Richmond Rd.
Williamsburg, VA 23185
enc: VDOT Comment Letter
Action After Receipt of Comments
Resubmittal Schedule
Resubmittal Form
Page 7 of 7 Revised 4 -25 -11 eke
A�
c >R ;
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601018,100 8030
Cu'peper.Uirginia 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. J
Commissioner
February 23, 2015
Ms. Claudette Grant
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SP- 2015 -00010 Van Dine Plaza
Dear Ms. Grant:
We have reviewed the special use perrmtMand. the plan, entitled ,`Special „Use_Permit.Platfor V,an.
Dine Plaza” dated 1/20115 as submitted by Dominion Engineering and offer the following
comments:
1. The proposed interparcel access shown does not appear to be usable as there is a retaining
wall proposed at that location.
2. The throat length of the existing entrance needs to be shown as it relates to the access on
the hotel property.
3. The existing entrance to be used as access to the hotel does not meet access management
spacing requirements with the entrance to the south. An AM -E spacing exception will
need to be obtained for this entrance. As part of the evaluation of the AM -E, the
possibility of removing the entrance to the south of this entrance will need to be
investigated.
4. What is the purpose of the proposed 15' VDOT utility easement shown?
If you need additional information concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at
(434) 422 -9782.
Sincerely,
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
�pT AL
o�
GINIP
ACTION AFTER RECEIPT OF COMMENT LETTER
Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following:
(1) Resubmit in response to review comments
(2) Request indefinite deferral
(3) Request that your Planning Commission public hearing date be set
(4) Withdraw your application
(1) Resubmittal in Response to Review Comments
If you plan to resubmit within 30 days, make sure that the resubmittal is on or before a
resubmittal date as published in the project review schedule. The full resubmittal schedule may
be found at www.albemarle.org in the "forms" section at the Community Development page.
Be sure to include the resubmittal form on the last page of your comment letter with your
submittal.
The application fee which you paid covers staff review of the initial submittal and one
resubmittal. Each subsequent resubmittal requires an additional fee. (See attached Fee
Schedule.)
(2) Request Indefinite Deferral
If you plan to resubmit after 30 days from the date of the comment letter, you need to request
an indefinite deferral. Please provide a written request and state your justification for
requesting the deferral. (Indefinite deferral means that you intend to resubmit /request a
public hearing be set with the Planning Commission after the 30 day period.)
(3) Request Planning Commission Public Hearing Date be Set
At this time, you may schedule a public hearing with the Planning Commission. However, we
do not advise that you go directly to public hearing if staff has identified issues in need of
resolution that can be addressed with a resubmittal.
After outstanding issues have been resolved and /or when you are ready to request a public
hearing, staff will set your public hearing date for the Planning Commission in accordance with
Page I of 6 Revised 4 -25 -11 eke
the Planning Commission's published schedule and as mutually agreed by you and the County.
The staff report and recommendation will be based on the latest information provided by you
with your initial submittal or resubmittal. Please remember that all resubmittals must be made
on or before a resubmittal date.
By no later than twenty -one (21) days before the Planning Commission's public hearing, a
newspaper advertisement fee and an adjoining owner notification fee must be paid. (See
attached Fee Schedule) Your comment letter will contain the actual fees you need to pay.
Payment for an additional newspaper advertisement is also required twenty -two (22) days prior
to the Board of Supervisors public hearing. These dates are provided on the attached Legal Ad
Payments for Public Hearings form.
Please be advised that, once a public hearing has been advertised, only one deferral prior to the
Planning Commission's public hearing will be allowed during the life of the application. The
only exception to this rule will-be extraordinary circumstances, such as a major change in the
project proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that have not previously
been brought to the applicant's attention. As always, an applicant may request deferral at the
Planning Commission meeting.
(4) Withdraw Your Application
If at 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
Eachadditional resubmittal ....................................... ............................... ........................$500.00
5.
5. Amend existing special use permit; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,000.00
Each additional resubmittal ....................................... ............................... ........................$500.00
6.
Extend existing special use permit; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,000.00
Each additional resubmittal ....................................... ............................... .......:................$500.00
7.
All other special use permits; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$2,000.00
Each additional resubmittal ........................................................... ...............................
$1,000.00
8.
Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request
Fee............................................................................. ............................... ........................$180.00
B. For amendment to text of zoning ordinance:
Fee................................................................................... ............................... .......................$1000.00
C. Amendment to the zoning map:
1.
Less than 50 acres; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$2,500.00
2.
Less than 50 acres; each additional resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,250.00
3.
50 acres or greater; application and first resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$3,500.00
4.
50 acres or greater; each additional resubmission
Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,750.00
5.
Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request
Fee............................................................................. ............................... ........................$180.00
D. Board of Zoning Appeals:
1.
Request for a variance or sign special use permit
Fee............................................................................. ............................... ........................$500.00
2.
For other appeals to the board of zoning appeals (including appeals of zoning administrator's decision) —
Fee (to be refunded 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.......................:..................................................... ..I............................ ........................$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:
Fee.............................................................................. ...................I........... .........................Actual
cost
Page 3
of 6 Revised 4 -25 -11 eke
2015 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 *
Request for PC
Public Hearing,
Legal Ad
Payment Due **
Planning Commission
Public Hearing
No sooner than*
COB Auditorium
Monday
Wednesday
Monday
Tuesday
Nov 031'.'1:'.
Dec 03,
Dec 22 ,
Jan 13
Nov 17 ,;
Dec 17
Jan 05
Jan 27
De" �:'- �-�= --
`: Tue -Dee�-30
Jan 05
Jan 27
Dec 15, ,:'
Jan 14
Feb 02
Feb 24
Jan 05
Feb 04
Feb 09
Mar 03
Tue Jan 20
Feb 18
Feb 23
Mar 17
Feb 02
Mar 04
Mar 16
Apr 07
Tue Feb 17
Mar 18
Mar 30
Apr 21
Mar 02
Apr 01
Apr 13
May 05
Mar 16
Apr 15
Apr 27
May 19
Apr 06
May 06
May 11
Jun 02
Apr 20
May 20
May 25
Jun 16
May 04
Jun 03
Jun 22
Jul 14
May 18
Jun 17
Jun 22
Jul 14
Jun 01
Jul 01
Jul 06
Jul 28
Jun 15
Jul 15
Jul 27
Aug 18
Jul 06
Aug 05
Aug 10
Sep 01
Jul 20
Aug 19
Tue Sep 01
Sep 22
Aug 03
Sep 02
Sep 14
Oct 06
Aug 17
Sep 16
Sep 28
Oct 20
Tue Sep 01
Sep 30
Oct 19
Nov 10
Sep 14
Oct 14
Oct 26
Nov 17
Oct 05
Nov 04
Nov 16
Dec 08
Oct 19
Nov 18
Nov 23
Dec 15
Nov 02
Dec 02
Dec 21
ur;_ Jan 12:2016 ,
Nov 16
Dec 16
Dec 21
U.:Jan 12;2016
Dec 07
Jan 06
4 Jan ;1 =1 2016;::
Feb 02
Dec 21
°., ' Jan.20;2016;"
Feb 0 2016
Feb 23:',20.16 „'?
;. JaniO4 201'6.
Feb 03;2016„
Feb''08 2016;;
iMar 0,1; -2016
Bold italics = submittal/meeting day is different due to a holiday,
Dates:with shaded l?ackg'round. are not,2015
2016 dates are tentative.
* 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.
� r
r r
O O
N T
N r
N ,?
r
a�
a
a
c
N
c
a
Q
a�
m
J
^N
1..1..
c
ca
a
N
O
W
4-
O
3
0
LL
c
c�
E
.Q
cn
LO
0
N
c
d
_
a.
N
O
Ly
O.
U)
0
-a
`m
0
m
_
V
_
a.
c
0
N.
Ln
C
O
U
c
c
La
a
a
t
U
O
4)
a
c
ro
C)
O
O
v
a
0
m
Lo
M
M
Lo
M
Ln
Lo
Lo
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
U)
Ui
Lo
Ln
�o
-U
Ln
Ln
Lrn
Ln
Lo
Lo
T
-co
T
m
T
�.
•d-
T
'a'
r
\
r
r
of
r
c0
r
('7
r
C7
r
O
=`
r
00
r
LO
r
N
r
N
r
O
r
`
r
�Y'
r`
d•
r
r
N
r
O)
N
`
r
d-
N
T
M
L!')
d•
d'
to
r
CD
00
I�
�
—co
O
N--
O
T
r
N
N
N
r
N
M
(D
ti
Ln
CD
O
r
00
T
r
r
r
T
O
T
r
T
r
CD
T
T
m
0
0
U
N
o.
0
LO
Ln
M
LO
Ln
LO
Ln
m
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
L(')
(n
L!'Y
Ln
Ln
Lfi
Ln
Ln
Ln
T
L\
T
CD
T
\ (D
T
M \
r
\
0
.T
O
T
('7
T
\
�
T
\
r
r
\
Ln
T
OD
M
Lo
Ln
Lo
Lo
U7
Lo
Lo
Ln
M
Ln
Ln
Ln
Lo
Ln
M
Lo
Lo
Ln
Lo
Ln
Ln
Lo
r
N
r..
r
T
r`
r
N
r
O
r
r`
LD
r
N�3
r
c-
ti
r
(h
r
4
r
�
r
M
T
Ln
r
(O
r
N
r
M
O
�.
t`
(D
N
N
N
M
N
(•M
(`5
N
m
f`
N
�t
L D
N
r
(p
N
N
N-
N
M
N
m
p
N
N
c`
r
c7
co
cl'
Ln
0
CO
ti
m
w
r
O
r
r
r
a
•a
J
d
:.fit:
Lo
Lo
Lo
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Lo
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
LO
to
Ln
Ln
U7
C
-
m
r
OD
r
co
r
—co
r
P7
r
(\O
`
M
T
O
T
ti
r
r
Ln
r
D
r
N
T
O
r
N
r
ti
r
V\'
`
T
T
i
r
m
r
(-D
r
(
T
('7
LO
L!i
N'Q
T
`
N
r
N
T
N
N
N
r'
N
r
N
N
N
r
N
N
N
r
N
T
N
r
('�
r
O
N ::N:
r
r
N
N
M
co
d'
.
4
Ln
Ln
(O
(D
f`
ti
00
co
m
m
O
O
LL
[-•
00
T
T
T
T
a
a
R
a�
d
y
J
J
N;;
LO
Ln
LO
LO
Lo
Ln
to
In
Ln
in
U-)
LO
Ln
LO
U)
LO
m
LO
LO
U-)
Ln
LO
LO
LO
LO
r(
r
`
r
T
r
r
Ln
T
('�
T
O
r
O
r
ti
T`
d•
r\
r
r
F-
O
V\'
co
O]
CO
(D
iz:
ti
00
O
O
\
r
Lo
Lo
(O
M
nf;
0\0
T
T
r
T
'd'
Lo
L j
(O
O
T
T
T
T
fQ
r,
r
r
N
d
0
w
c
w
8
E
a
La
LC
a
a
a
t
U
O
4)
a
c
ro
C)
O
O
v
a
0
m
Ui
Ui
LO
M
LO
M
M
LO
Ln
LO
Ln
Ln
LO
M
Ui
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
LO
LO
Ln
LO
T
-co
T
m
T
�.
T
M
T
T
ti
`
r
T
t j
T
-M
T
N
T
(\O
T
d'
T
00
T
�'
T
0\0
T
T
N
T
(O
T
0
T
0
T
f-_
T`
0
Lo
N
N
M
r
d\'
N
L!')
`-
CO
r`
N
00
r
N
O
N--
N
r
r
N
M
d'D
(D
ti
f—
O
r
O
r
T
r
r
r
r
N
r
d
f�9
0
U
o.
LO
Ln
M
LO
Ln
LO
Ln
Ll")
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
L(')
(n
L!'Y
Ln
Ln
Lfi
Ln
Ln
Ln
T
L\
T
CD
T
\ (D
T
M \
r
\
0
.T
O
T
('7
T
\
�
T
\
r
r
\
Ln
T
OD
r
(D
T
O
r
I
T
\
O
r
\
d'
T
d•
r
\
co
T
N
T
N
T
�
T
\
O
r
\
`
r.
N
r
N
(,•�
(C
`
N
r
Niz
N
N
r
N
N
M
','
4
Lo
-
f�
M
M
0
M
O
T
r
c-
r
�
r
r
•a
d
J
:d•:
Ln
LO
Ui
Ln
Ln
Ln
LO
Ln
LO
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
In
Ln
Ln
Ln
LO
Ln
LO
L!i
Ln
T
'
07:
r
T
r
(O
\
N
`
M
T
Cn
T
O
r
'd•
\
co
`
r
`
r
r
r
r
ti
r
r
T
CD
r
N
r
('�
r
O
C
N•
N
`-
M
N
V\'
N
u7
`-
(D
M
LL
[-•
00
T
r
T
a
R
a�
d
J
N;;
LO
Ln
LO
LO
�
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
U)
Ln
r
r(
r
`
r
T
r
r
r
F-
O
V\'
co
O]
(O
(D
M
M
nf;
r
N
m
co
'd'
Lo
L j
(O
O
T
T
T
T
fQ
r,
r
r
N
w
c
w
8
a
La
a
a
t
U
O
4)
a
c
ro
C)
O
O
v
a
0
m
FOE OFFICE USE ONLY SP # or ZAIA #
Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who?
Receipt # Ck4 By:
_<' car' ni.tKfi
Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit or _ft y
N.. >, l.xyr�
Zoning Map Amendment „�;,N,,.
PROJECT NUMBER: ogo?D�6000 10 PROJECT NAME: �1 I
❑ Resubmittal Fee is Required ❑ Per Request G] Resubmittal Fee is Not Required
CC �_ a' r�l.�-
Community Development Project Coordinator
Signature D:
Name of Applicant
Signature
FEES
Phone Number
Date
Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit -- original Special Use Permit fee of $1,000
❑ First resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
$500
f - F`liy :� x�.tu'k 63i" _...ti'''li?A>E�S� ` F'ti ?F 35?�•'�X i i^y, - %. i kC :r3 !`" S t6af ?,yk i:.: k'di ixi JK 1 •K '`tY 4'�"dt"-i 2 t'f :(�, , �i
'. ;2r, ,...7 x;^�.. `�,.t .' ? o ..
... ...... _, n ...... fi s a�'2 (,w
.0.'..:o;.°f '•TI AWN""
a'i,'
,y S S ku} ..,.icl'
Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $2,000
first resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
$1,000
S f�Zl t i`�•�'t )�� +o.!Q * }ii.. 3 Y f it$` - .Z t9�( t. p.i. 5Y f�"_'[t'3',Sf L..
Y iSe , = ^l R ....f '.�''<n � ... .. Y�v.. <xt i.:et .�. ., e'I',. .. !S.�u .. .. �'�u:x. i. ... �.. , \1� Y4 1}.
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,500
❑ First resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
$1,250
y
Y' - Yi Yl. Ci 1 t c3 3 ssY hf' - -. }.ff �jk A.y t r z£, t k4. �•`� ••:t .Si 1 ttl, E A^i±i� De C iti d. '1.' �", ..,�/ i(xt Y `fr
v .•?•R,.?!.. { },.1^,°i.,;�„ i. cyk, ?....:( ° -f. a. P-;. e�2'.Y.F .0 .. „i. i[;k 'i. .> <. 1.:� i_, i a .t�,. . h..<�"Z ., ti.\ � F. +. _22� �. t.... +.» •{... -.
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,500
❑ First resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
$1,750
k..,.,_c._ ,z�' yy`i ...,. �.�-vrb a�v',.[..i•11�'" }yqt• -`t;�, a<`S'v,�'�
,n' z?.•f{d"Y.t• T`,,y`,i, ?s v %uhii�'"f�.`ts.',kS':;;i�, "3�ti�':`�'i:.M1 r:�i.
�S ;'4r:•:�c }u.':;} t "at-
>.:S
❑ 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
i 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
i> Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing)
, Actual cost
(minimum of $_80 for total of 4 ub]ications)
County of Albemarle Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296 -5832 Fay:: (434) 972 -4126
6/7/2011 Page I of 1