No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201600022 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2017-08-30p� .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 August 30, 2017 Justin Shimp, PE Shimp Engineering 201 E. Main Street Suite M Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ZMA201600022 2511 Avinity Drive Third submittal dated August 7, 2017 Dear Justin: This letter contains comments to you from staff review of the initial submittal until now. 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 fib 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. Rev. 2: Applicant has indicated that both structures will be three stories in height. If elevations cannot be provided now, the applicant could describe features of the proposed development on the application plan describing how additional compatibility will be achieved. Staff acknowledges that the ARB will ensure compatibility with the Entrance Corridor. 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. Rev 2: Permission to obtain access from Avinity Drive and make improvements on the adjoining parcel is still unknown. This principle will be met when easement documents are provided granting permission for access and improvements. 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. 2 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 addresse Rev. 2: Note 7 on the application plan says, "20% affordable housing". Additional language will be needed to provide the parameters for providing this housing. Staff can provide language if requested. This principle is met in spirit. 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 v partially r~ Rev. 2: Sidewalks are shown to the adjoining property to the south. This principle is 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. 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: Th _ 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. Rev 2: The courtyard is shown now as a 48' x 56' area, which is approximately 113 larger than previously shown. Provided this area is not reduced in size, staff believes it can function as an outdoor amenity area. This principle is met; however, see EC comments from Margaret Maliszewski regarding setbacks. 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. Rev. 2: The only change has been to acknowledge that the buildings will be 3 stories in height. 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 wis 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. Rev. 2: This comment is partially addressed. Staff believes sufficient amenity area has been provided and that parking area can meet zoning requirements. Architectural compatibility continues to be a concern; however, staff acknowledges that the ARB will ensure compatibility with the Entrance Corridor. 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 21 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. Rev. 2: The CountyAttorney's office has reviewed the provided documentation you provided and your email from August 26 below: Hello Elaine, We have searched for this easement and it may not exist. It appears that the County did not require the developer of Avinity to create a deed that went along with the access easement that was required and shown on the plat. My current experience with the County Attorney is that the Avinity plat should not have been signed without that deed of easement. Jason has been given rights to the roads in Avinity via a separate deed, which we believe applies to both parcels he owns. We don't really see this as a zoning issue for us, although in a way it is related to Avinity's siteplan. If that open space and landscaping was required per their siteplan we could remove it and construct a road in the original 50' ROW that we have never released our right too. We have no intention of doing so, but it might be prudent for the Avinity developers to clean this issue up and create an easement that shifts the original 50' road to the new location and clarifies the easement. It would be unfortunate if the HOA had to deal with this ROW issue in the future because it was missed on the platting process by the original developer. I'll check with my client and see if he wants me to reach out to Redlight to discuss this issue. I'll reiterate that at this time we see this as a matter between my client and the developer of Avinity. We have the rights to that road. I do appreciate that the County might have an interest in this to prevent any future disagreements between the HOA and my client as the HOA might feel that the County could have resolved this while they had some leverage on the original developer with approvals/etc. To that end, we are on the same side of this issue and would be willing to work with the Avinity folks on cleaning up the mistake. I'll keep you posted if anything changes on our side. Please advise if the County has means to go back and require a correction to deal with the deed that was not recorded with the plat as normally required. Also note that as a condition of a commercial entrance the VDOT permit requires a shared connection for future commercial/development uses. I'll follow up with VDOT on that via a separate email. Thanks! Justin Shimp, P.E. The County Attorney's office does not agree that rights to use Avinity Drive for this development exist. Without a deed of easement or knowledge that such an easement will be granted by the owner of Avinity Drive and TMP 091AO-00-00-000AO, there is no way to guarantee that future residents of your development will be able to use Avinity Drive for access. As stated previously, this is a key issue in need of resolution. 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. Rev. 2: This item has not been addressed. 5 • 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. kr-_ . _.. „ur 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. Rev. 2: A special exception request has been submitted. 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; • 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. Rev. 2: This item has been addressed. • standards of development including proposed yards and open space characteristics -iff interprets the propose -tonr' 4s to bF ' ase shown - application plan. Rev. 2: Standards have been provided on the plan dated August 4, 2017. This item has been addressed. However, please see Entrance Corridor comments from Margaret Maliszewski. 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. Rev. 2: This item has not been addressed. 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 0 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 entranr - . rill br rovir'-d from that sidewalk as exists with Avinity. Rev. 2: This item has been addressed. • 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. 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. 7 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. Rev. 2: Outstanding issues with the revised plan are as follows: • Condition #1 has not been fully addressed. The note should be revised to indicate that stormwater facilities will be located under the parking lot. • Overhead lines exist along the EC frontage. The lines are not shown on the plan, but it appears that they are located 15' from the proposed trees. This does not allow sufficient space for required trees. • Planting area on the south side of the parking lots is extremely limited. All required planting should be shown on site. • Planting area on the north side of the proposed buildings is extremely limited. The applicant should note that sufficient architectural detailing will need to be provided on these elevations to eliminate the need for trees along the elevations. 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. Rev 2: A request has been provided; however, 1. The special exception request has been submitted for this project not meeting the minimum 3 acre size for PRD zoning. The special exception justification does not explicitly address the findings necessary under §$.2 b(3). Nor does it address the concerns listed in prior comments about whether the Smaller acreage can support the necessary infrastructure and amenities for a Planned Development district. Please address both for staff to properly review this request. This item has not sufficiently been addressed; however, staff acknowledges that the applicant and staff may have to agree to disagree on this item. 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. I 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 shawl 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 M requirements are being met. It is difficult to see how the several smaller areas are meeting the character and intent for open space. Rev. 2: Comments from Amelia McCulley: 2. 1 continue to have questions about whether the proposed open space meets the purpose and intent for common open space serving a Planned ❑evelopment. I see that the courtyard area has been expanded by 828 square feet. Please address this prior comment. Please also specifically address how open space within an emergency access can be used in such a way that it meets Section 4.7. (Prior review comment partially addressed. 1 continue to have concerns about how the character of open space is met and do not believe the resubmittal fully addressed this. I 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 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.) From Elaine: This comment relates to whether or not you have met the PRD requirement, which is not the same as whether or not there is sufficient land dedicated for amenities. The Zoning Administrator believes that the area you have designated does not meet the open space requirement. In this case, you will need to request a special exception, for which 1 believe there is justification. Please be advised that the sufficiency of open space may become an issue for the Planning Commission and the Zoning Administrator will be called on to provide her information. 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. Rev. 2: This item has not been addressed. 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. Rev. 2: This item has been addressed. 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. Rev. 2: This comment has not been addressed. 0 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. Rev. 2: This comment has not been addressed. • The new note on the plan proposing affordable housing does not address how many units will be provided, standards, and timing for when they will be built. Please provide this information. 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 SWM 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 maybe required. (Information for site plan) • Fire rescue should confirm emergency access meets their requirements. Rev. 2: • Comments have not been addressed 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. Rev. 2: No change. 10 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 Deel at 434422-9894. 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 is September 26, 2017. Please be advised that staff will not be able to accommodate any additional information for inclusion in the staff report if you 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 September 26 public hearing, the deadline for payment is noon July 6. 11 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 12