HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201600022 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2017-06-13p� .4L
�37
�IRGi;31�
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 13, 2017
Justin Shimp, PE
Shimp Engineering
201 E. Main Street Suite M
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: ZMA201600022 2511 Avinity Drive
Second submittal dated May 15, 2017
Dear Justin:
This letter contains our original comments to you. Items you have addressed are shown in gray below.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
Comments on conformity with the Comprehensive Plan will be provided to the Planning Commission
and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report when this proposal goes to public hearing or a
worksession.
Land Use:
This project is designated for Urban Density residential use on the Southern and Western Urban
Neighborhoods Master Plan, which has a recommended density of 6.01- 34 units per acre. No
other specific recommendations are made in the Master Plan for this area.
The Comprehensive Plan promotes different levels density for new development in the
development areas based in large part on context. Sensitivity to existing neighborhoods is
important with infill development and redevelopment. Strategy 2o. in the Development Areas
Chapter speaks to redevelopment in this way:
Redevelopment can bring about a positive change to an area; however, care should be taken in
designing new buildings and structures. Creating a more urban area with greater densities can affect
existing neighborhoods as well as historic buildings and sites. Care is needed so that redevelopment
complements rather than detracts from nearby neighborhoods or historic properties. Massing, scale,
building style, materials, and other architectural elements should tie together new and old buildings.
Guidelines for redevelopment may be needed to help ensure compatibility. Strategy 6b addresses
this issue, as well. The Economic Development Chapter provides recommendations on ways the County
could promote redevelopment of areas to transform them into attractive and accessible centers for
employment.
While low density development generally is not anticipated in the Development Areas, the location and
proposed design weigh heavily in rezoning decisions. From the information provided, it is difficult to tell
how compatible this project might be with the Avinity project next door.
Rev. 1: Without information on architectural aspects, compatibility cannot be determined.
Neighborhood Model
You are proposing a fairly high density development on a less than an acre of land. High density
development is supported by the Comprehensive Plan when it reflects principles of the Neighborhood
Model. The following describes how the proposed development meets or does not meet the principles
of the Neighborhood Model.
Pedestrian Orientation
Sidewalks are not shown on the rezoning plan; however, the site plan
requirements will require that safe and convenient access be provided to
parcels on both sides of the property. Staff recommends that the
application plan include sidewalks across the frontage of the lot. While
the sidewalks can be either private or public, public sidewalks remove
liability from a property owner.
This principle is not met.
Rev. 1: It is not known whether the sidewalk is intended as a public or
private sidewalk across the frontage. Permission to obtain access from
Avinity Drive is still unknown. A sidewalk is needed along the driveway.
Sidewalks surrounding the 4,144 sq. ft per floor building do not look to
be appropriate up against the building. Even though vegetation is
shown between the building and sidewalk, there is no room for the
vegetation. While the addition of sidewalks shows a pedestrian
orientation, it is hard to tell whether you would actually be able to
construct sidewalks at this location. This principle is partially met.
Mixture of Uses
This proposal is for residential use and, due to the small size of the parcel
and proximity to both a school and employment area, no mixed use
element is viewed as necessary.
This principle is not applicable.
Neighborhood Centers
The development is not part of an identified center; however, it is near
Cale Elementary School which acts as a center for the neighborhood. The
closest designated center on the Master Plan is near Monticello High
School.
This principle is met.
Mixture of Housing
A single housing type is shown on the plan which, given the size of the site
Types and Affordability
and its location adjacent to a mixed housing type development, is
acceptable. Will affordable units be provided? If so, the application plan
should reflect the way in which they are to be provided.
More information is needed.
Rev. 1: This principle has not been addressed.
Interconnected Streets
The application plan shows a connection to Avinity Lane but no pedestrian
and Transportation
or vehicular connection to the property to the south. More discussion on
Networks
the properties to the south are provided in the Zoning comments.
This principle is partially met.
Rev. 1: This principle is still only partially met.
Multi -modal
As mentioned earlier, sidewalks are needed to provide pedestrian access
Transportation
to the existing system. Bicycle racks are recommended.
Opportunities
This principle is not yet me
Rev. 1: This principle is met.
2
Parks, Recreational
The amenity area for this development appears to be a 30' by 62'
Amenities, and Open
courtyard. An open space area facing Avon Street might be another
Space
amenity area; however, it is hard to tell how it can function as an amenity
with an emergency accessway going through it. Pedestrian access to Cale
Elementary is needed if recreation will be provided at the playground
behind Cale during non -school hours. Sufficient area needs to exist for
smokers and dog walkers. This area does not appear to exist. Is it possible
for this project to be connected to Avinity such that residents may access
Avinity amenities?
More information is needed.
Rev. 1: The plan shows a sidewalk across the frontage of the site which
could help provide access to the playground at Cale Elementary during
off -hours of the school; however, amenity areas consist of two very
small spaces that result in approximately 41100 of an acre each. Staff
continues to worry that the courtyard, surrounded on two sides by 3
story buildings, can be an area for residual cigarette smoke and and be
very noisy. The other open space area between Avon St. Extended and
the parking lot may have some utility; however, some kind of
improvement will be needed for it to be an inviting space. Staff does not
believe that these two small areas provide sufficient amenity for
residents of the units. This principle is not addressed.
Buildings and Space of
Insufficient information has been provided to assess whether buildings
Human Scale
and spaces of human scale are provided. Please see comments concerning
the Entrance Corridor.
More information is needed.
Rev. 1: This principle is not met. Residents who attended the community
meeting held in March were very concerned about the need for
compatibility in appearance of units along Avon Street extended. Staff
shares their concerns for appropriate form, massing, and general
character of the buildings. If elevations cannot be provided now, the
applicant could describe features of the proposed development on the
application plan describing how compatibility will be achieved. This
principle is not met.
Relegated Parking
A very positive feature of the application plan is the relegated parking
provided with the design.
This principle is met.
Redevelopment
Redevelopment of an existing single family structure is proposed.
This principle is met.
Respecting Terrain and
A proposed grading plan was not provided as part of the concept plan;
Careful Grading and Re-
however, there are no identified managed or preserved slopes on the
grading of Terrain
property. Due to the relative flatness of the parcel, no grading
information appears to be necessary. Please be aware that when
regrading disturbed properties, a 3:1 slope is preferred over a 2:1 or 1:1
slope and any retaining walls should be terraced at 6 feet.
Clear Boundaries with
The property is not adjacent to a Rural Area boundary.
the Rural Area
Not applicable to this request.
Additional Planning Comments
As of the date of this letter, a community meeting has not been held. Prior to resubmitting the
project, a community meeting should be held. Questions and answers from that meeting are often
invaluable to a successful project.
Rev. 1: A community meeting was held on March 22, 2017. Concerns for sufficient parking area,
architectural compatibility, and amenity area were raised by residents. Staff continues to share
these concerns.
While access from Avinity Drive is viewed as a positive aspect of the project by creating the
opportunity for relegated parking, staff is concerned about that the applicant may not have legal
access to use the driveway for the development as proposed. Please demonstrate that this ability
exists, either through deed or acknowledgement of the owner of the property containing the
easement. A sidewalk connection from Avinity Drive along the driveway will also be needed to this
site.
Rev. 1: This issue has not been addressed. Verbally, you have indicated an easement on the
property still exists that was in existence prior to the rezoning of Avinity allows you full access
across the full width of the area between your property and Avinity Drive. Without a
demonstration that no additional permission is needed for the driveway from Avinity Drive, staff
cannot affirm that the plan can actually be accomplished. In addition, staff has heard from the
developer of Avinity that such permission for passage across that property does not exist. You
indicated in the letter you provided with this resubmittal that documentation would be provided
prior to the Planning Commission's public hearing. If you want this issue resolved prior to that
hearing, the documentation is needed with a resubmittal to provide sufficient time for analysis
prior to the Commission's hearing.
• An easement will be needed across TMP 90-35G for emergency access. Please demonstrate that you
have permission from the owner to place an emergency access easement on this property.
Rev. 1: A more careful look at the boundaries for the adjoining property shows that the emergency
access easement is across TMP 90-35A, owned by Jerry W. or Laura J. Moss. Please provide
acknowledgement from this property owner that the ability to place an emergency access
easement exists for their property
• Please note that this project does not meet the minimum 3 acre requirement for a PRD, although a
special exception can be approved to reduce the minimum acreage. Alternatively, the project could
be added to Avinity to create a larger Avinity PRD district. (see Zoning notes.) Another option is the
Neighborhood Model District which has no minimum acreage requirement. If you wish to request a
special exception with this application, please include a letter with justification as part of your next
submittal.
Rev. 1: Your letter indicates you will be submitting a special exception request. Please be advised
that it will be very difficult for staff to support the special exception given the fact that the
proposed project has no relationship to Avinity, other than a proposed shared accessway.
• Note 4 on the application plan says, "This application plan shows the general configuration of two
multi -family buildings along with parking, sidewalks, and landscaping for zoning purposes. The
precise location, sizes, and quantities of parking, landscaping, sidewalks, and buildings are subject to
reasonable change at the time a site plan is submitted." Since the application plan is a requirement
for a planned district, this note will need to be modified or removed. What you showed on page 4 of
your application plan can suffice as a concept plan but not the application plan.
Rev. 1: This issue has been addressed.
• The following items are required for the district and appear to be missing from your application plan
and need to be shown on the resubmitted plan:
• the general location of bicycle facilities;
21
• building envelopes;
• parking envelopes;
• the general layout for water and sewer systems;
• the identification of central features or major elements
Rev. 1: It appears that the location of the building facing Avon Street Extended and the
parking area behind the building, which creates relegated parking, are central features or
major elements. Location and amount of area/acreage in outdoor amenity areas should also
be identified as a major element.
• standards of development including proposed vards and open space characteristics
Rev. 1: Staff interprets the proposed standards to be those shown on the application plan.
• Although you have indicated that the application plan is just a concept at this point (see bullets
above as to what is a requirement) staff has concerns that the site will not be able to
accommodate all components required for site plan approval. For example, how will you
provide screening of the parking lot? Where will trash receptacles be located?
Rev. 1: It appears that a dumpster can be located in the southeast corner of the site; however,
screening cannot be accommodated on your property and no evidence of an easement has
been provided for TMP 90-35A.
As this part of the County redevelops, it will be important to create similarity in streetscape
design. Please consider continuing the streetscape from Avinity along Avon across the frontage
of your site. While buildings may be closer to the street than Avinity, the difference should not
be extreme. Also bear in mind that, as with Avinity, sidewalks to building entrances from a
sidewalk along Avon Street will be needed.
Rev. 1: A sidewalk has been shown across the frontage; however, the plan does not indicate
that entrances to the units will be provided from that sidewalk as exists with Avinity.
• Mitigation of impacts — I sent you an email a few days after sending the first set of comments
indicating your need to mitigate impacts from the development. Neither this submittal nor the
initial submittal indicated how you to intend to mitigate impacts. For schools, Albemarle County
Schools estimates that your proposed development will generate at least 5 students. Three of
those students would likely be elementary students going to Cale, which is currently at capacity.
Please note that this comment is not a request for proffers.
Architectural Review Board Comments (Margaret Maliszewski)
Original staff comments were as follows:
• The building form, scale and mass should be compatible with recent development in the area. It is
not clear from the submittal information that this compatibility will be achieved. This proposal is
scheduled for ARB review on March 6. It is recommended that conceptual elevations and/or
perspectives of the proposed buildings, or photos of similar buildings, be submitted as part of a
revised rezoning application submittal, and for ARB review, to show how compatibility will be
achieved.
• Stormwater management facilities should be provided underground to avoid negative visual impacts
on the Entrance Corridor.
• Landscaping, signage and other site elements approved with the Avinity development and located
adjacent to the subject parcel should be included on the plan for context.
However, on the ARB did not support staff's recommendation to require building elevations at this stage
of review (in order to confirm appropriate form, massing, and general character of the buildings). It
remains a concern.
5
On March 6, 2017, the ARB expressed no objection to the special use permit/rezoning, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Revise the application plan to indicate that stormwater facilities will be located under the
parking lot.
2. Confirm that there are no utilities or easements on the property that would conflict with
required planting. If such elements do exist, revise the plan to provide planting area clear of
utilities and easements.
3. Adjust site elements to provide planting area consistently along the south side of the parking lot.
4. In the event that the proposal moves forward, ensure that trees are provided sufficient to meet
Entrance Corridor perimeter and interior parking lot requirements.
5. Allow for the possibility of increasing the setback on the northern property line depending on
the need for landscaping along the building elevations.
6. Revise the Application Plan to show the approved landscaping along Avinity Drive for context
and coordination.
7. Provide a pedestrian connection to Avinity Drive and Avon Street
8. Reorganize site elements for better coordination of existing and proposed open space.
Rev. 1:
• It appears that only conditions 4 and 7 have been adequately addressed.
Condition 1 has been partially addressed. The plan has been revised to show a detention pipe
under the parking lot, but Note 3 on Sheet 4 still identifies open space as an optional location for
stormwater management.
Zoning Comments (Amelia McCulley)
• PRD zoning requires a minimum of 3 acres unless a special exception is granted or it is an extension
of an existing PRD (Section 19.5). As discussed in the preapp, either adding this property to the
existing Avinity development or combining several parcels into this one PRD rezoning, makes sense.
While eligible for a special exception request, the subject property less than 1/3 the size of the
minimum acreage for establishment of a freestanding Planned Residential District. I question
whether this small acreage can support the necessary infrastructure and amenities for a Planned
Development district. If the applicant intends to proceed as proposed, this question, as well as the
special exception criteria should be addressed in writing.
Rev. 1: 1 did not see a written justification for a special exception. This must be reviewed either
prior to or concurrently with the rezoning request.
• Planned Residential Development Section 19.6.1 requires not less than 25% of the area to be within
common open space. Please provide a further breakdown for each area within the open space
calculation to show / list how this area requirement is met. Please also refer to Section 4.7 in terms
of the intent and limitation on certain elements and address how these requirements are being met.
It is difficult to see how the several smaller areas are meeting the character and intent for open
space.
Rev. 1: Prior review comment partially addressed. 1 did not see breakdown of how the 12,028 sq
ft. is comprised. 1 continue to have concerns about how the character of open space is met and do
not believe the resubmittal fully addressed this. 1 question whether an emergency access qualifies
as open space.) Planned Residential Development Section 19.6.1 requires not less than 25% of the
area to be within common open space. Please provide a further breakdown for each area within
the open space calculation to show/ list how this area requirement is met. Please also refer to
Section 4.7 in terms of the intent and limitation on certain elements and address how these
II
requirements are being met. It is difficult to see how the several smaller areas are meeting the
character and intent for open space.
• As noted in my preapplication comments (#3), this property is subject to infill building setbacks. this
amounts to a minimum building setback of 35 feet and not the 25 feet shown on the plan. In
addition, the side setbacks should be 10 feet instead of 5 feet. If you disagree with this advice
concerning setbacks, as noted in my comments, please provide your basis for determining a
different setback. Due to how constrained the site is to meet technical requirements such as open
space and setbacks, I recommend that this be addressed at this time and not with subsequent
actions.
Rev. 1: 1 concur with the applicant's analysis of setbacks. Disregard my prior comments.
• Parking is proposed very close to the southern property line. This will not provide adequate area to
meet screening requirements for parking {Section 32.7.9.7 (a)(2)}. In addition, it will likely require a
grading/construction easement on the adjoining property.
Rev 1: Prior comment not addressed. Please note that a dumpster has also been added close to
the property line. I'm not sure if adequate screening is possible in the area provided. Parking is
proposed very close to the southern property line. This will not provide adequate area to meet
screening requirements for parking {Section 32.7.9.7 (a)(2)). In addition, it will likely require a
grading/construction easement on the adjoining property.
• Please provide a breakdown of the proposed unit mix in terms of numbers of bedrooms. This is
relevant to confirm that the site can be adequately parked. While we do not intend to require more
parking than is necessary and there may be some provision for parking reduction due to the transit
access, the site constraints make it necessary to consider it at this time.
Rev. 1: The revised plan shows 45 parking spaces where 48 are required without reduction under
transportation demand measures. It is likely that a reduction can be supported, although it has
not been addressed. Because this is a tight site, it might be advisable to address this now.
• Please clarify that the existing easement allowing access to Avinity Drive legally allows access for a
proposed new development such as this.
Rev. 1: This comment has not been addressed.
• Emergency access on adjoining property crosses the open space. Not only does that involve
subtracting the area of the access from the open space area, but the access further limits the
resulting open space from meeting intended purposes.
Rev. 1: This comment has not been addressed.
Engineering Comments (Frank Pohl)
• A VSMP application and permit will be required prior to Final Site Plan approval. (Information for
site plan)
• Applicant states "stormwater management shall be accommodated in the open space area on the
southern end of the site or a stormwater management facility may be placed under the parking
area." Please identify these possible SWIM areas on the plan. SWM facilites cannot be used as open
space. How will discharge from the site be managed? Offsite easements may be required to convey
stormwater discharge to an adequate channel.
• A small portion of the parking area is shown on the adjacent parcel. Permanent easements are
required for any offsite improvements/grading/emergency access.
• Recommend sidewalks along street frontages with connections to the site.
Rev. 1:
How will UG storage facility drain? Outlet may require an easement from adjacent owner.
It appears the proposed sewer extends offsite. An easement may be required. (Information for site
plan)
Fire rescue should confirm emergency access meets their requirements.
7
Fire Rescue (Robbie Gilmer)
• Fire Rescue has no objections to the rezoning of the property. We do suggest the owner work with
ACSA to make sure they have the available fire flow as needed.
ACSA Comments (Alex Morrison)
The water main pressure is low in this area.
• Booster pumps may be required for the domestic water service as well as the fire suppression
system.
o The developer can install a new water main across Avon Street extended from the Mill Creek
pressure band to provide higher pressure and fire flow if they so choose. This would be more
expensive than connecting to the water main along the frontage of the property, but would
solve the pressure issue.
Rev. 1 (email from Alex Morrison in response to latest submittal): The developer will be connecting to
the low pressure water main along Avinity Drive. This is a large diameter main so it has the required
fire flow. They will be installing booster pumps for the domestic water system as well as the fire
protection system.
RWSA (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
Virginia Department of Transportation Comments — Provided by Adam Moore Feb. 28, 2017
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Shimp Engineering, dated 12
December 2016, and offers the following comment:
1. With the information provided it is unclear if the existing right -turn lane will be sufficient
for the proposed increase in use. If the rezoning is approved this information can be
provided on the site plan(s).
Please provide two copies of the revised plan along with a comment response letter. If further
information is desired, please contact Justin feel at 434-422-9894.
A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The
owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process.
Rev. 1: No additional comments needed from VDOT.
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. Staff recommends that you address outstanding issues in a
resubmittal prior to asking for a public hearing with the Planning Commission. However, if you choose to
not resubmit, the earliest possible date for a public hearing July 25, 2017. Please be advised that staff
will not be able to accommodate any additional information for inclusion in the staff report if you
M
choose to go with this date. Due to the substantial and substantive outstanding issues, staff will not be
able to make a recommendation for approval.
Resubmittal
If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. See resubmittal schedule is for resubmittal
dates.
Notification and Advertisement Fees
A fee of $215 for preparation and mailing of notices plus $151 each for the Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisor public hearings. For the Planning Commission meeting, $366 must be paid before
the public hearing can be set. If you wish to be scheduled for the July 25 public hearing, the deadline for
payment is noon June 29.
Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. I can be reached at
eechols@albemarle.org or 434-296-5832, ext. 3252.
Sincerely,
Elaine K. Echols, FAICP
Chief of Planning
Planning Division
Enc: Action after receipt of comment letter
Resubmittal form
0
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
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
Revised 1-29-16 mcy
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.
Please be advised that, once a public hearing has been advertised, only one deferral prior to the
Planning Commission's public hearing will be allowed during the life of the application. The
only exception to this rule will be extraordinary circumstances, such as a major change in the
project proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that have not previously
been brought to the applicant's attention. As always, an applicant may request deferral at the
Planning Commission meeting.
(4) Withdraw Your Application
If at any time you wish to withdraw your application, please provide your request in writing.
Failure to Respond
If we have not received a response from you within 30 days, we will contact you again. At that
time, you will be given 10 days to do one of the following: a) request withdrawal of your
application, b) request deferral of your application to a specific Planning Commission date as
mutually agreed to with staff, or c) request indefinite deferral and state your justification for
requesting the deferral. If none of these choices is made within 10 days, staff will schedule
your application for a public hearing based on the information provided with your original
submittal or the latest submittal staff received on a resubmittal date.
Fee Payment
Fees may be paid in cash or by check and must be paid at the Community Development Intake
Counter. Make checks payable to the County of Albemarle. Do not send checks directly to the
Review Coordinator.
Revised 1-29-16 mcy
Revised 1-29-16 mcy
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP # or ZMA #
Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # Ck# By:
Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit or��A;
Zoning Map Amendment � �IIY'ANtiPF
PROJECT NUMBER: ZMA201600022 PROJECT NAME: 2511 Avini1y Drive
X Resubmittal Fee is Required
Elaine Echols
Community Development Project Coordinator
Signature
Date
❑ Per Request
Name of Applicant
Signature
FEES
❑ Resubmittal Fee is Not Required
Phone Number
Date
Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit -- original Special Use Permit fee of $1,075
❑ First resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
$538
Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $2,150
❑ First resubmission FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission $1,075
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,688
❑ First resubmission FREE
X Each additional resubmission $1,344
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,763
❑ First resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
$1,881
❑ Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request — Add'l notice fees will be required
$194
To be paid after staff review for public notice:
Most applications for Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission
and one public hearing by the Board of Supervisors. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing
a legal advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. Therefore, at least two fees for public notice
are required before a Zoning Map Amendment may be heard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public notice will be
provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the application is heard by a public body.
MAKE CHECKS TO COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE/PAYMENT AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTER
Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices
$215 + actual cost of first-class postage
Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50)
$1.00 for each additional notice + actualcost of first-class postage
Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing)
Actual cost
(minimum of $280 for total of 4 publications)
County of Albemarle Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126
1/24/17 Page 1 of 1