HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201700032 Review Comments Special Use Permit 2018-04-16COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
April 16, 2018
Nat Perkins
PO Box 400218
Charlottesville, VA 22904
nperkins e,uvafoundation.com / (434)-982-5304
Valerie Wagner Long
321 East Main St. Suite 400
Charlottesville, VA 22902
vlonggwilliamsmullen.com / (434)-951-5709
RE: Second Review Comment Letter for SP-2017-00032 (UVA Tennis — Amendment) and
ZMA-2017-00010 (Boar's Head Permanent Connector Road)
Dear Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Long:
Albemarle County staff and our partner agencies have reviewed your resubmittal materials
(received March 19, 2018) for your requests for Special Use Permit SP-2017-00032 (for the
proposed UVA Tennis Facility, Short Course addition to Birdwood Golf Course, and permanent,
unrestricted use of the connector road on the Birdwood property) and for Zoning Map Amendment
ZMA-2017-00010 (for the proposed permanent, unrestricted use of the connector road on the
Boar's Head Sports Club property).
Second review comments are provided below, organized by Department, Division, or agency. (For
reference, original review comments dated February 2 are attached.) Community Development
Department (CDD) staff acknowledge that many of the original review comments have been
addressed and/or clarified through the resubmitted application materials; and we remain
committed to meeting with you (as previously requested) to discuss these second review
comments prior to any decisions being made about requesting a public hearing with the Planning
Commission (or other next steps, as may be applicable). Despite having to postpone the
previously -scheduled meeting on April 17, please be in contact with me to schedule an alternative
date and time to discuss these applications and these review comments. And please also reference
the attached "Action After Receipt of Comment Letter" document for detailed information about
possible next steps.
Page 1 of 12
Planning
There are several outstanding issues that you should be aware of, we remain available to assist
you in addressing and resolving these issues, which include the following:
• Application for ZAIA-2017-00010:
o Staff acknowledge the resubmittal of an updated/modified Proffer Statement (Exhibit G)
in connection with this ZMA request. Thank you.
o Staff acknowledge the resubmittal of updated/modified "application plan" (Exhibit E)
for ZNIA-2017-00010. Updated (second) review comments include the following:
■ Exhibit E ("Application Plan for ZMA 2017-00010") and Exhibit B
("Birdwood SP 2017-00032 Tennis Facility and Illustrative Parking Options
Detail") have a notable discrepancy: Exhibit B shows a second possible future
connector road between the existing Clubhouse and existing Boar's Head
Sports Club, but Exhibit E only shows the one proposed connector road
between Golf Course Drive and Berwick Road. It may be appropriate to clarify
your proposal(s) by modifying Exhibit E to include a note and/or graphic
depiction of the "possible future connector road" between the Boar's Head
Sports Club and Birdwood Clubhouse, as is shown on Exhibit B.
• Application for SP-2017-00032:
o Staff acknowledge the inclusion in the resubmittal materials of Exhibit H ("DRAFT
Proposed Conditions of Approval for SP 2017-00032"). After reviewing your proposed
modifications to the existing conditions of approval that TMP 75-63 is currently subject
to, staff have identified specific language in the (draft) proposed conditions of approval
that requires further discussion, including:
■ Proposed Condition 1
■ Proposed Condition 2
■ Proposed Conditions 5 and 6
■ Proposed Condition 8
■ Your request/proposal on page 5 of your project narrative ("that the Special
Use Permit be valid for a period of at least five years") should also be included.
o Staff acknowledge the resubmittal of updated/modified "Birdwood SP 2017-00032
Conceptual Plan" (Exhibit A) and corresponding Exhibit B ("Birdwood SP 2017-00032
Tennis Facility and Illustrative Parking Options Detail"), Exhibit C ("Birdwood SP
2017-00032 Golf Practice Facility Detail"), and Exhibit D ("Birdwood SP 2017-00032
Connector Road Detail"). Updated (second) review comments include the following:
■ This approach does an effective job of consolidating previously -approved
concept plans and providing those site -specific exhibits in a well -organized
manner, in support of a new concept plan which provides more of a property -
wide depiction of uses and improvements.
■ Staff suggest that Exhibit C, Exhibit D, and Exhibit E be modified to include a
note which identifies the original application number for each previously -
approved legislative request (SP-2017-00023, SP-2017-00009, and ZMA-
2004-00015, respectively).
■ Exhibit A ("Birdwood SP 2017-00032 Conceptual Plan") and Exhibit B
("Birdwood SP 2017-00032 Tennis Facility and Illustrative Parking Options
Detail") have a notable discrepancy: Exhibit B shows a second possible future
connector road between the existing Clubhouse and existing Boar's Head
Sports Club, but Exhibit A only shows the connector road between Golf
Page 2 of 12
Course Drive and Berwick Road. It may be appropriate to clarify your
proposal(s) by modifying Exhibit A to include a note and/or graphic depiction
of the "possible future connector road" between the Boar's Head Sports Club
and Birdwood Clubhouse, as is shown on Exhibit B.
Exhibit B ("Tennis Facility and Illustrative Parking Options Detail") includes a
note which states "3. Parking options are for illustrative purposes only." Please
clarify if the disclaimer "for illustrative purposes only" applies only to the five
optional locations where parking may potentially be provided, or if this entire
exhibit (and all conceptual depictions of improvements and uses shown
thereon) are for illustrative purposes only.
• Staff confirm that the required Special Exception [to waive the grading buffer requirements
established by County Code § 18-21.7(c), in conjunction with ZMA201700010 and
SUB201700073] was granted by the BOS on 4/4/2018.
• Staff acknowledge that the required Community Meeting was conducted on Monday, February
121h at 5:30pm. Topics of discussion involving members of the audience (and a general
summary of answers provided by members of the applicant team) included:
o Questions and concerns about transportation impacts, including questions about possible future
intersection improvements at Golf Course Drive and Route 250, and questions about changes to
the existing signal at Ednam Drive and Route 250. (Answers: The decisions about the
intersection improvements at either location are ultimately VDOT's decisions to make, and are
not decision that we can make as applicants, or even decisions that the County can make.
VDOT has expressed their preference that the existing traffic signal at the intersection of
Ednam and 250 be removed and relocated to the intersection of Golf Course Drive and 250;
however, the traffic impact study that was completed for these projects and which was reviewed
by VDOT did not indicate that the changes to the traffic patterns created by the proposed
projects would warrant a traffic signal or require other improvements at Golf Course Drive and
250 in order to maintain the same level of service as currently exists.)
o Questions about the magnitude of the traffic impacts near residential neighborhoods and in the
center of the Inn and Sports Club areas. (Answers: The connector road will create a second
entrance and second exit which improves access and safety in the case of an emergency. These
projects will help to remove service vehicles from the Inn's pedestrian core. The designs will
include traffic calming materials and features and safe crosswalks. The connector road project
is being designed as an experiential entrance corridor — not a "break -neck cut through. ')
o Questions and concerns about visual changes and impacts to views from residences associated
with the new proposed connector road and the associated increase of traffic on existing Golf
Course Drive. (Answer: these projects will create short-term disruption and a short-term mess;
but in the long run these projects will be done well, and will improve the properties, and are
necessary in order to improve the experience for residents, guests, and visitors)
o Questions about whether the proposal(s) include an increased amount of parking. (Answer: Yes;
including through improved/expanded parking at Clubhouse, and additional parking at Sports
Club, and the lighting will be improved at these parking locations)
o Questions about outdoor lighting along proposed connector road or Golf Course Drive.
(Answer: outdoor lighting is probable in some locations, including at the entrance to the UVA
Golf Facility.)
o Questions about whether the proposed par 3 short course or the relocated practice facility will
involve the removal of trees or other vegetation. (Answer: short course will not involve removal
Page 3 of 12
of trees along Ednam Village; relocated practice facility will involve the removal/elimination of
some trees along Ednam Office Park and Route 250.)
o Questions about golf course management practices — will use of herbicides and pesticides
increase with the relocated and expanded elements of the golf course? (Answer: The entire
Birdwood Golf Course property is a "Certified Audubon Sanctuary" which requires an
environmentally -conscious approach to the use of chemicals, the use of water for irrigation,
and the management of the property for wildlife habitat.)
Comprehensive Plan
Comments on relevant aspects of these proposals' relationship with the Comprehensive Plan
(Comp Plan) were provided in the first review comment letter (dated 2/2/2018). The resubmittal
materials do not require any substantial changes or additions to the previous commentary, which
did not identify any aspects of the proposal that were contradictory to the Comp Plan (and which
identified specific ways in which the proposal affirmatively advances certain Comp Plan
objectives).
Neighborhood Model
Comments on relevant aspects of the Neighborhood Model Principles were provided in the first
review comment letter (dated 2/2/2018). The resubmittal materials do not create or require any
substantial changes or additions to the commentary provided previously, which did not identify
any aspects of the proposal that were contradictory to Neighborhood Model Principles.
Please note that the previous comments identified opportunities to separately address the
following NMD principles within the ongoing Birdwood Master Plan / Area B Study, separate
from the applications for SP201700032 or ZMA201700010: "Multimodal Transportation
Opportunities" and "Parks, Recreational Amenities, and Open Space."
Zoning
Second review comments from Zoning have not yet been finalized; all pending review comments
from Zoning will be promptly forwarded to the applicants upon receipt.
Per recent meetings conducted with Zoning staff on April 2 and on April 4, it is anticipated that
issues that will be addressed with Zoning's pending review comments will include (but not
necessarily be limited to): Exhibit A (`Birdwood SP 2017-00032 Conceptual Plan"); Exhibit H
("DRAFT Proposed Conditions of Approval for SP 2017-00032"); and Exhibit I (University of
Virginia Outdoor Tennis Facility — Special Exception Request: Project Lighting Waiver).
En2ineerin2
The following second review comments related to engineering have been provided by County
Engineer Frank Pohl, PE, CFM on April 12:
[ SP-2017-32 ] :
• Applicant's response to my first comment was: "Noted. Connector Road Plans, currently under
review by County staff, demonstrate the dimensions of the proposed road and how it connects
with the existing road system. " This response addresses the proposed road design but fails to
address the condition of the existing road. The road plan currently under review
(SUB201700203) does not address or show the existing road condition (slope or width) and has
been approved as a temporary road with the understanding that the applicant would demonstrate
conditions of the existing road before it was opened for permanent use.
Page 4 of 12
• Recommended Condition of Approval: Before the "Permanent Connector Road" is permanently
opened as a private street, the applicant shall demonstrate to the County Engineer that the
EXISTING Golf Course Drive, between Ivy Road (SR250) and the newly constructed
connector road, meets Private Street Standards for Albemarle County [Design Standards
Manual]. If the segment of Golf Course Drive between SR250 and the new connector road does
not meet private street standards, the applicant shall submit a Road Plan application for review
and approval detailing required improvements prior to the permanent opening of the "Permanent
Connector Road".
[ ZMA-2017-10 ]:
• No Objection.
Transportation — VDOT & Community Development
One comment pertaining to transportation was received from VDOT — Charlottesville Residency
on February 7 (after the initial review comment letter was finalized, and prior to this second
review comment letter). That comment, which was provided to you electronically on February 8,
was as follows:
"Our recommendation is that signal at Ednam Drive and Route 250 be relocated to Golf Drive
and Route 250. The provided analysis indicates that this signal relocation would have corridor -
wide benefits with improvements on Route 250 as well as the side streets, as the new location will
serve 4 approaches as opposed to the 3 currently being served. "
VDOT has not provided additional review comments in relation to your resubmittal materials for
SP201700032 or ZMA201700010. Any additional review comments received from VDOT will be
promptly forwarded upon receipt.
Additionally, Principal Planner Kevin McDermott indicated No Objection to ZMA201700010 on
April 11. Mr. McDermott specifically reiterated support for, and the importance of, In
collaboration with Mr. McDermott, staff have identified the following transportation -related
suggestions:
• Because the plan addresses parking as well as more comprehensive transportation issues (both
on -site and off -site), the title of Exhibit K would be more clear and accurate if it was modified
from "Event Parking Management Plan" to "Event Management Plan."
• The applicants should be prepared to demonstrate (or otherwise explain) how the tiered
strategies identified in Exhibit K account for internal road users and residents (in addition to
the visiting guests attending the events). Possible strategies could include: notifying nearby
property owners associations in advance of larger events; installing temporary signage with
information/directions pertaining specifically to residents; and/or providing credentials (such
as hangtags or windshield stickers) that would provide local residents with better ingress to and
egress from their neighborhoods, separate from the event queues, during the largest events.
Mr. McDermott has also previously provided (on February 2) the following recommendations for
your consideration that should be addressed during the site plan stage:
• Restriping of 250 at the Golf Course Dr/Coleridge intersection to define the left turn lanes,
instead of the continuous left turns left that currently exist (if VDOT concurs).
Page 5 of 12
• Set a trigger or timeline to reevaluate operations at the two intersections to make sure they are
operating as expected and see if warrants are/are not met. If there is any change required have
evaluate alternative controls at the intersections. (Note: staff acknowledge that the resubmittal
materials include a proposed condition of approval #8 in Exhibit H.)
• Ensure that the recommendations from the STARS study can be accommodated at the
intersections and, if necessary, dedicate future right of way.
• Suggestions on improvements to the internal pedestrian connections should be better defined.
Planning — ARB & Entrance Corridor
The following comments related to the US 250 / Ivy Road Entrance Corridor have been provided
by Principal Planner Margaret Maliszewski:
[ SP-2017-32 ]:
1. The use of full cutoff fixtures is recommended as a [recommended] condition of approval.
2. It is anticipated that the primary impact of this proposed development on the Entrance Corridor
and nearby historic resources will be the court lighting. Additional information on the intensity
of the illumination would allow a more complete assessment of potential impacts. In lieu of a
photometric plan, please provide the following:
a. The minimum level of illumination, in footcandles at the ground, that is considered
acceptable for nighttime televised play.
b. The maximum level of illumination that is typical for courts of this type, in
footcandles at the ground.
c. The average level of illumination that is typical for courts of this type, in
footcandles at the ground.
d. An estimate of the number of pole lights that would typically be required for courts
of this type. (A range is acceptable. The estimate can be based on whatever
conceptual court layout is current.)
[ ZMA-2017-10 ]:
• No Objection
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA)
The following comments related to ACSA (below) were provided by Richard Nelson on January
15. No additional written review comments have been received from ACSA since the resubmittal
materials were transmitted; however, in an Interdivisional meeting on April 4, Mr. Alexander
Morrison discussed the required replacement (upgrade) of an existing 6" water main with a new
10" water main. Mr. Morrison noted this upgrade was required in order to meet the fire flow test
minimum requirements. Mr. Morrison also noted that he would be coordinating with engineers at
Dewberry, to ensure the correct alignment of the 10" pipe would be represented accurately and
consistently on all the different plans and applications that are currently under review by ACSA.
[ SP-2017-32 ] :
• No Objection — recommend approval. Proposal does not require RWSA capacity certification.
[ ZMA-2017-10 ]:
• No Objection — recommend approval. Proposal does not require RWSA capacity certification.
Page 6 of 12
Albemarle Fire -Rescue
The following comments (and project support) related to Fire -Rescue were provided by Assistant
Fire Marshall Shawn Maddox, who indicated No Objection on April 1:
[ SP-2017-32 and ZMA-2017-10 ]:
1. Now that the road will remain permanent hydrant spacing must be reviewed and hydrants added
if required.
2. If the gate is to remain for event traffic control as indicated on the plans then the Knox system
must remain to allow emergency apparatus access.
3. Fire Rescue supports the permanent connector road as an additional entrance to serve the
facilities and neighborhood.
Action after Receipt of Comments
After you have read this second review comment letter, and after we have met to discuss these
second review comments (should you still want to, as previously requested), you will need to take
one of the actions identified on "Action After Receipt of Comment Letter" which is attached for
your reference.
Resubmittal
If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is no fee for the first resubmittal.
The resubmittal date schedule is provided for your convenience.
Notification and Advertisement Fees
Prior to scheduling public hearings with the Planning Commission, payment of the following fees
is necessary (note — SP fees and ZMA fees are identified separately):
[SP-2017-00032]: Payments of $929 and $457 received 3/19/2018; no additional fees required --
prior to scheduling public hearings. (Outstanding balance = $0)
[ZMA-2017-00010]: Payment of $789 received 3/19/2018; no additional fees required prior to
scheduling public hearings. (Outstanding balance = $0)
Please contact me with any questions and/or requests for assistance you may have. I can be
reached at tpadalinogalbemarle.org or 434-296-5832, ext. 3088.
Sincerely,
Tim Padalino, AICP
Senior Planner
Planning Division
enc: Action After Receipt of Comment Letter
Resubmittal Form
Resubmittal Schedule
Review Comment Letter (2/2/2018)
Page 7 of 12
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
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
Page 8 of 12
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 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 paid in cash or by check 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. Fees may also be paid by credit card using the secure online payment system,
accessed at http://www.albemarle.org/department.asp?department=cdd&relpage=21685.
Page 9 of 12
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP # or ZMA #
Fee Amount $ Date Paid BV Who? Receipt # Clot By:
Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit or
g P
Zoning Ma Amendment is
PROJECT NUMBER: SP Z -1 Oft32 PROJECT NAME: V VA ThOs * ginkAdey
X Resubmittal Fee is Required ❑ Per Request ❑ Resubmittal Fee is Not Required
11M pAfD�(1�n10
Community Development Project Coordinator
Signature Date
Name of Applicant
Signature
FEES
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
❑ 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'I 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
D 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 4publications)
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 I
Page 10 of 12
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP # or ZMA #
Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # Ck# Bv:
Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit or $ ��'��
Zoning Map Amendment ��`. ,�P`r
PROJECT NUMBER: ZMA - U 0 - 00010 PROJECT NAME: SOARS AVAD �LEL��R &AV
XResubmittal Fee is Required ❑ Per Request ❑ Resubmittal Fee is Not Required
TAIM &vOr AA0
Community Development Project Coordinator
__-L& I [to
Signature Date
Name of Applicant
Signature
FEES
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
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'[ 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 + actual
cost of first-class postage
i Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing)
Actual cost(minimum of $280 for total of 4publications)
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 I of 1
Page 11 of 12
Albemarle County, Virginia
2018 Submittal and Review Schedule
Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendments
Resubmittal
Schedule
Resubmittal Dates
Comments to applicant
for decision on whether to
proceed to Public Hearing
Payment Due for Public
Hearing Legal Ad
Planning Commission Public
Hearing Date*
No sooner than
Monday
Wednesday
Friday
Tuesday
Dec 18 2017
Jan 17
Jan 26
Feb 20
Wednesday, Jan 3
Jan 31
Feb 9
Mar 6
Tuesday, Jan 16
Feb 14
Feb 23
Mar 20
Jan 29
Feb 28
Mar 16
Apr 10
Feb 05
Mar 7
Mar 16
Apr 10
Tuesday Feb 20
Mar 21
Mar 30
Apr 24
Mar 5
Apr 4
Apr 6
May 1
Mar 19
Apr 18
Apr 27
May 22
Apr 2
May 2
May 18
Jun 12
Apr 16
May 16
Jun 1
Jun 26
Apr 30
May 30
Jun 1
Jun 26
May 7
Jun 6
Jun 15
Jul 10
May 21
Jun 20
Jun 29
Jul 24
Jun 4
Ju15
Jul 13
Aug 7
Jun 18
Jul 18
Jul 27
Aug 21
Jul 2
Aug 1
Aug 10
Sep 4
Jul 16
Aug 15
Aug 31
Sep 25
Jul 30
Aug 29
Aug 31
Sep 25
Aug 6
Sep 5
Sep 14
Oct 9
Aug 20
Sep 19
Sep 28
Oct 23
Tuesday Sep 4
Oct 3
Oct 5
Oct 30
Sep 17
Oct 17
Oct 19
Nov13
Oct 1
Oct 31
Nov 9
Dec 4
Oct 15
Nov 14
Nov 20**
Dec 18
Oct 29
Nov 28
Dec 21
Jan 15 2019
Nov 5
Dec S
Dec 21
Jan 15 2019
Nov 19
Dec 19
Dec 21
Jan 15 2019
Dec 3
Jan 2 2019
Jan 4 2019
Jan 29 2019
Dec 17
Jan 16 2019
Jan 25 2019
Feb 19 2019
Jan 7 2019
Feb 6 2019
Feb 8 2019
Mar 5 2019
2019 Dates are tentative; shading indicates a different year
*Public hearing dates have been set by the Planning Commission; however, if due to unforeseen circumstances the
Planning Commission is unable to meet on this date, your project will be moved to the closest available agenda
date.
**Off -date to accommodate holidays.
Dates in bold italics fall on a Tuesday due to a holiday.
Page 12 of 12
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
February 2, 2018
Nat Perkins
PO Box 400218
Charlottesville, VA 22904
nperkins e,uvafoundation.com / (434)-982-5304
Valerie Wagner Long
321 East Main St. Suite 400
Charlottesville, VA 22902
vlonggwilliamsmullen.com / (434)-951-5709
RE: First Review Comment Letter for SP-2017-00032 (UVA Tennis — Amendment) and
ZMA-2017-00010 (Boar's Head Permanent Connector Road)
Dear Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Long:
Your requests for Special Use Permit SP-2017-00032 (for the proposed UVA Tennis Facility,
Short Course addition to Birdwood Golf Course, and permanent, unrestricted use of the connector
road on the Birdwood property) and for Zoning Map Amendment ZMA-2017-00010 (for the
proposed permanent, unrestricted use of the connector road on the Boar's Head Sports Club
property) have been reviewed by members of Albemarle County staff and our partner agencies.
Review comments are provided below, organized by Department, Division, or agency.
Community Development Department (CDD) staff believe the various review comments should
be addressed through a resubmittal of application materials, prior to scheduling a public hearing
with the Planning Commission. However, you have the right to request a public hearing, or to
otherwise determine your course of action (please see the attached "Action After Receipt of
Comment Letter" document for detailed information).
As always, CDD staff remain available to provide assistance and discuss this comment letter, and
any other aspect(s) of your applications, at your request.
Page 1 of 16
Planning
There are several outstanding issues that you should be aware of, we remain available to assist
you in addressing and resolving these issues, which include the following:
• Application for ZMA-2017-00010:
o Please provide updated proffers in connection with this ZMA request.
■ Explanation: The subject property (TMP #59132-01-15) is currently subject to
proffers established through Board of Supervisors (BOS) approval of ZMA-
2004-00015. The application for this current ZMA request must include
updated proffers, as some of the existing proffers are no longer applicable (i.e.
Proffer #3 and associated language/information), and as other existing proffers
need to be replaced with updated information (i.e. Proffer #1 and associated
"Exhibit B").
o Please provide / clearly identify one graphic exhibit to be used as the official
"application plan" for ZMA-2017-00010.
■ Explanation: The submittal materials include multiple plans and exhibits, as
described on page 5 of your project narrative. It is not clear what document is
the official "application plan" for ZMA-2017-00010.
■ You may also provide additional supplemental exhibits for general reference,
provided that they are not discrepant with or contradictory to the official ZMA
application plan.
• Application for SP-2017-00032:
o Because this request is an amendment to an approved Special Use Permit (SP-2017-
00023) which has numerous conditions of approval, CDD staff are working to assess the
potential appropriateness and/or necessity of any additional, new (recommended)
conditions of approval. CDD staff are also working to potentially identify any
(recommended) modifications to the existing conditions of approval which may be
appropriate and/or necessary.
■ Explanation: The subject property (TMP #75-63) is currently subject to
conditions of approval established through BOS approval of SP-1996-00053,
SP-2015-00019, SP-2017-00009, and SP-2017-00023. As has been discussed
and explored with previous SP applications for the Birdwood property, there
may be opportunities to recommend updates to some of the existing conditions
of approval in ways that are appropriate and mutually agreeable to applicants
and staff, for review and consideration by the Planning Commission (PC) and
the BOS.
■ CDD staff are supportive of the opportunity to engage with the applicants in a
collaborative effort to evaluate the numerous SP conditions of approval, and to
identify potential (recommended) modifications to those conditions of
approval, as may be appropriate.
■ Staff acknowledge the applicants' request/proposal on page 5 of your project
narrative for an additional new condition of approval — "that the Special Use
Permit be valid for a period of at least five years."
o Please provide / clearly identify one graphic exhibit to be used as the official "concept
plan" for SP-2017-00032.
■ Explanation: The submittal materials include multiple plans and exhibits, as
described on page 5 of your project narrative. It is not clear what document is
the official "concept plan" for SP-2017-00032.
Page 2 of 16
■ You may also provide additional supplemental exhibits for general reference,
provided that they are not discrepant with or contradictory to the official SP
concept plan.
• Applications for SP-2017-00032 and ZMA-2017-00010:
o Please revise and resubmit the concept plan, application plan, and/or other graphic
exhibits which are consistent with one another and which do not contain discrepant
information.
■ Explanation: The submittal materials include multiple conceptual plans and
exhibits, with some of the important details being different or discrepant across
those different materials. Two examples of such inconsistencies include:
- Proposed new "Tennis Parking" is shown on Exhibit 1 ("Birdwood Golf
Course and Boar's Head Sports Club") and in Exhibit 2 ("Conceptual
Architectural Renderings"), but is not shown on Exhibit 4 ("Connector Road
Exhibit from SP 2017-23").
- Exhibit 1 ("Birdwood Golf Course and Boar's Head Sports Club") shows three
additional tennis courts to the north of the proposed "Tennis Stadium," but
these courts are not shown on Exhibit 2 ("Conceptual Architectural
Renderings") or Exhibit 4 ("Connector Road Exhibit from SP 2017-23").
• Please be advised that construction and grading activity for the proposed connector road on the
Boar's Head Sports Club property appears to involve grading within twenty (20) feet of the
adjoining Residential district. Per Zoning Ordinance Section 21.7(c) ("Buffer zone adjacent to
residential and rural areas districts"), grading within twenty feet of the adjoining R2
Residential district (Ednam Village) or the adjoining R1 Residential District (Birdwood)
requires Board of Supervisors approval of a special exception to waive the buffer zone
requirements.
As such, Planning Division staff recommend preparing and submitting such a special exception
request, along with pertinent grading plans and associated site plans or road plans, as quickly as
possible so that we can evaluate the request, make a recommendation, and get the request placed
on an upcoming BOS meeting agenda as soon as possible.
Note: Similarly, please draw your attention to the information from Zoning (below, pages 6-7)
regarding the preparation and submission of additional information, including requests for a
special exception and a shared parking study.
• Please note that all applications for special use permits or zoning map amendments require the
applicant to conduct a Community Meeting. Staff acknowledge that the required Community
Meeting has been scheduled for Monday, February 12t' beginning at 5:30pm. Please be advised
that the Community Meeting should be conducted before the Planning Commission (PC) public
hearing date is finalized.
We recommend that all issues, questions, and comments be resolved through a resubmittal of each
application before requesting a public hearing with the PC. If you do choose to resubmit, it may be
helpful to conduct the required community meeting first, as that optional approach would enable you
to incorporate any revised and/or new materials that you might wish to include with your resubmittal
after holding the meeting.
Page 3 of 16
Comprehensive Plan
Initial comments on how your proposal generally relates to the Albemarle County Comprehensive
Plan (Comp Plan) are provided below; additionally, comments regarding conformity with the
Comp Plan will be provided to the PC and BOS as part of the staff report.
The Comp Plan designates the subject property for "Institutional" land use(s) in the Future Land
Use Plan for the Southern and Western Urban Neighborhoods Master Plan. Institutional uses
include ancillary facilities such as sports facilities for the University. With regards to this
Institutional designation, the proposals to expand the existing golf course used by the University of
Virginia's varsity golf programs and to construct a new facility for the University of Virginia's
varsity tennis programs are generally consistent with the Future Land Use Plan.
The proposed connector road would accomplish the County's vision for a new vehicular
interconnection to be established between the Boar's Head property and the Birdwood property, as
specified in the Comp Plan. The inclusion of pedestrian connections (through new sidewalks and
additional golf cart paths accessible to pedestrians) would further achieve the stated vision in the
Comp Plan.
The Birdwood property is also within an area identified as "Area B" which is an area for
cooperative planning with the County of Albemarle, the University of Virginia, and the City of
Charlottesville. This three -party planning agreement takes place through the Planning &
Coordination Council (PACC). Development in these areas continues to be guided by the current
City and County Comprehensive Plans and the current University of Virginia Plan. The applicants
have recently initiated a study of the Birdwood section of Area B; this joint planning effort is
happening concurrently with, and separate from, these applications. The Area B Study / Birdwood
Master Plan will eventually be presented to PACC-Tech, PACC, and County officials.
Neighborhood Model
Projects located within the Development Areas are typically reviewed for consistency with each
of the Neighborhood Model Principles found in the Comprehensive Plan. Comments are provided
below on relevant aspects of the Neighborhood Model.
Pedestrian
Pedestrian infrastructure (including sidewalks, crosswalks, and outdoor lighting) is shown on the
Orientation
application materials, which would provide new pedestrian connections between various locations and
destinations on the two subject properties, and which would provide improved, safer conditions for some
existing connections. Some concerns exist with regards to ensuring that pedestrian infrastructure can be
provided in ways that are universally accessible, specifically as it relates to proposed pedestrian access
between the two subject properties, and (more particularly) as it relates to pedestrian access from
proposed new parking at the Boar's Head property over, up, and into the proposed UVA Tennis facility.
Principle is partially met.
Mixture of
The proposal(s) are supportive of mixed -use principles; the existing and proposed Institutional uses on
Uses
Birdwood would be supportive of, and symbiotic with, the existing and proposed uses and improvements
associated with the Boar's Head Inn and Boar's Head Sports Club.
Principle is met, to the extent that these subjectproperties are only partially appropriate for a mixture of
uses (Birdwood is zoned RI Residential and is designated for Institutional uses, whereas Boar's Head is
zoned HC Highway Commercial and is designated as a Center of neighborhood scale mixed use).
Neighborhood
The Master Plan designates Boar's Head as an existing Center of neighborhood scale mixed use, with
Centers
residential, office, commercial, and recreational uses which serve the neighborhood. The Master Plan
also recommends a Neighborhood Mixed Use Center for Boar's Head. The proposals provide for a
Page 4 of 16
concentration of recreational and institutional improvements, activities, and uses on a portion of the
Birdwood property that is adjacent to the existing Boar's Head Sports Club. This improves walkability
and pedestrian accessibility, and contributes to that location's identity as a prominent destination in the
Western Urban Neighborhood.
Principle is met.
Relegated
The proposals for these previously -developed parcels include new parking spaces on the Boar's Head
Parking
property (through the conversion of existing tennis courts), and new parking spaces on the Birdwood
property (through the expansion of an existing parking lot at the Clubhouse). Neither parking area would
be located in an area that would be prominently visible from the US 250/Ivy Road Entrance Corridor
(EC), or in visible locations between the EC and existing primary structures. The large existing
structures, and the natural landscape, would remain the primary features.
Principle is met, to the extent that it is applicable to these proposals on these properties.
Interconnected
The proposals involve the establishment of a new vehicular connection between the two adjoining subject
Streets and
properties. This interconnection would greatly improve the current situation, in which all vehicle trips
Transportation
between the two subject properties must exit and travel along US 250 / Ivy Road; such vehicle trips
Networks
would be able to occur internally (without use of public roads) and would reduce vehicle miles travelled.
The proposed interconnection would also satisfy an explicit County goal for the Birdwood property, as
contained in the Southern and Western Urban Neighborhoods Master Plan (S+W. 45).
Principle is met.
Multimodal
The proposals include sidewalk infrastructure with the proposed new road, as well as golf cart paths that
Transportation
would be accessible to pedestrians. It is unclear how public transit (CAT and/or UTS) might be
Opportunities
incorporated into the use of existing and proposed University athletic facilities, either on a regular basis
or in support of events transportations planning. The proposals do not include any information about a
possible shared -use path along or near Ivy Road / U.S. 250, which would support multi -modal goals
contained in the Comp Plan (such as Transportation Objectives 3, 4, and 6). Specifically, this type of path
would be a significant implementation of the proposed Three Notch'd Trail, which has become a project
of interest for the three members of the Planning and Coordination Council (PACC).
Principle is partially met, to the extent that it is applicable to these proposals on these properties.
Multimodal opportunities such as the proposed Three Notch'd Trail should be incorporated into the
recently -initiated Area B Study /Birdwood Master Plan process.
Parks,
The proposals include improved and expanded pedestrian infrastructure, which would be accessible to
Recreational
guests as well as to neighboring residents. The proposals would not alter any of the forested foothills or
Amenities, and
other undeveloped areas that are designated as "Parks and Green Systems" on the Future Land Use Plan.
Open Space
As noted above, the proposals do not include information about the proposed Three Notch'd Trail, which
would be an exceptional amenity for recreation (as well as alternative transportation).
Principle is generally met. The opportunity for the subject properties to support shared -use paths, such
as the proposed Three Notch'd Trail should be incorporated into the recently -initiated Area B Study /
Birdwood Master Plan process.
Buildings and
The proposals include existing and proposed structures which are designed and used for specific,
Spaces of
specialized (athletic) use. The UVA Tennis facility appears to be well situated within the rolling terrain
Human Scale
of Birdwood, and to utilize the existing topography in an advantageous way. Additionally, per ZMA-
2004-00015, the existing Sports Club structure was designed to have a segmented massing and a terraced
roofline, in order to better integrate with the existing landscape and to avoid a monumental structure that
is out of scale with the surrounding structures and dwelling units.
Principle appears to be met.
The proposals represent a relatively well -contained or concentrated intensification of uses that is
Redevelopment
somewhat akin to infill development (new athletic facilities on or adjacent to an existing Sports Club and
existing Golf Course). Some concerns exist with regards to potential impacts from outdoor athletic
Page 5 of 16
lighting on nearby residential properties. Opportunities exist to mitigate perceived potential impacts by
making context -sensitive specifications for light poles, outdoor light fixtures/luminaries, and other site
planning and design details.
Principle is partially met.
Respecting
Based on conceptual renderings and plans provided with the applications, it appears that the proposed
Terrain and
new athletic facilities and related improvements have been thoughtfully sited into the existing rolling
Careful
terrain. However, it is anticipated that the proposed improvements would require extensive site works.
Grading and
Without conceptual grading plans, it is somewhat unclear if the proposed improvements would embody
Re -grading of
context -sensitive design and planning principles, or not.
Terrain
Principle is potentially met; more information would be required in order to provide further
commentary.
Clear
Both subject properties are located within the Development Areas, and the proposals do not include any
Boundaries
improvements or changes in use near any boundaries with the Rural Area.
Between the
Development
Principle is not applicable to these proposals on these properties.
Areas and the
Rural Area
Zoning
The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Senior Planner Leah
Brumfield:
Tennis facility
1. Please provide further information and address impacts from lighting the facility and
connector road as well as compliance with the ACZO lighting regulations. Because this is
one of the primary impacts of this use, staff recommends that a photometric plan be
completed to address spillover onto adjoining properties and roadways.
a. Additional Information Relatingto o Proposed Lighting
i. Will lighting be utilized during nighttime practice and daily operations, or
will lighting be limited to televised matches?
ii. What is the proposed lighting pole height for the tennis facility?
M. What is the proposed lighting plan for the connector road?
iv. The illumination of the clay courts is of particular interest, as clay courts
generally reflect light more intensely than standard courts. The illumination
visible to the neighborhoods southwest of the tennis courts will also be of
interest, as they will be at a lower elevation than the court complex. Will
lighting of the tennis facility be limited to the nighttime televised matches
as mentioned in the narrative? If so, this will be considered for a condition
of approval.
b. Compliance with Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
i. Under Section 4.17.4(a), all outdoor lighting must be full cutoff. It is not
typical for athletic lighting to provide full cutoff Please address this
ordinance provision or submit a special exception for a waiver of
regulation per §4.17.5. Please be informed that without submittal of
further information, showing that lighting will comply or addressing the
criteria for a waiver, staff cannot find that lighting impacts are addressed.
Page 6 of 16
ii. Under Section 4.17.4 (b) (1), spillover shall not exceed %2 foot candle.
Please address this ordinance provision or submit a special exception for a
waiver of regulation per §4.17.5. Please be informed that without
submittal of further information, showing that lighting will comply or
addressing the criteria for a waiver, staff cannot find that lighting impacts
are addressed.
iii. Under Section 13.3, the R-1, Residential maximum structure height limits
the light poles to a maximum height of 35 feet. Please address this
ordinance provision or submit a special exception for a waiver of
regulation per §4.17.5.
2. Sound is another impact to be addressed. It will be impractical to regulate noise from
crowd cheering and the like. The amplified sound from commentators and referees on the
proposed tennis courts, particularly during televised matches, must meet the noise
ordinance as described in Section 4.18. It would be helpful to provide information about
expected maximum sound levels at the property line.
3. Current plans show a steep grade between the Boar's Head Sports Club parking facilities
and the proposed UVA Tennis Complex, and no safe crossings between the two.
a. Additional Information Relatingtposed Parking
b. Compliance with Albemarle Comp . Zoning Ordinance
i. The Boar's Head Sports Club parking is located on a separate parcel from
the proposed tennis complex, requiring compliance with §4.12.8. The
proposed shared parking arrangement between the squash complex and the
tennis complex is allowable as shared parking. Please provide a parking
study in accordance to §4.12.10, demonstrating the viability of shared
parking.
ii. The steep grade between the parking and tennis areas greatly reduces
accessibility for elderly or handicapped patrons. As currently shown on the
concept plans, access seems limited by multiple staircases. Per §4.12.8 (c),
please describe the plans for safe movement of pedestrians between the
parking area and the tennis complex.
Short Course
1. Please address the provision of parking, as the short course is some distance from the
current golf course parking. While the general use of the area will not change from golf
course use, the short course format encourages faster play, and patrons of the short course
would likely prefer to park closer to the start of the course. This is particularly true if short
course players are less likely to rent a golf cart. Please include in the application intended
parking spots and intended mode of travel to the course for short course players.
2. Partial pedestrian access from the Boar's Head Sports Club to the short course is outlined
on plans for the connector road. Please address full pedestrian access, as the Boar's Head
Sports Club is currently the closest parking to the proposed short course. Are golf cart
paths intended to serve as pedestrian access?
Parking
1. Parking concept plan shows a highlighted area of proposed parking, but depicts currently
existing spaces. How will the spaces be arranged to fit an additional 62 cars?
Page 7 of 16
Proposed Conditions (SPs)
1. Lighting will be consistent with the maximum height and specifications to be determined.
If full cut-off lights are available, per the applicant's additional information provided, they
will be required.
2. Pedestrian system shall be in general accord with the plan and major elements.
Engineering
The following comments related to engineering have been provided by County Engineer Frank
Pohl, PE, CFM on 1/24/2018:
[ SP-2017-32 ] :
• VSMP permitting is required since area of land disturbance appears to exceed 10,000 sf.
Phasing is allowed but the area of land disturbance will be considered on a cumulative basis.
SWM agreements, easements, deeds and bonding will be required for proposed facilities and
prior to commencing land disturbance. ESC bonding will also be required prior to commencing
land disturbance. [WPO-Chapter 17].
• Disturbance to managed slopes shall be completed in accordance with County design standards
[18-30.7.5].
• Refer to the Design Standards Manual for access road design guidance (e.g. access road shall
have a minimum width of 20-ft and maximum slope of 10%). Please show existing road meets
or state that improvements will be completed to meet these standards [Design Standards
Manual, Private Street Standards, pg 19].
[ ZMA-2017-10 ]:
• No objection with the condition that the proposed and existing access road shall meet County
design guidance (e.g. access road shall have a minimum width of 20-ft and maximum slope of
10%). Please show existing road meets or state that improvements will be completed to meet
these standards [Design Standards Manual, Private Street Standards, pg 19].
• VSMP permitting is required if area of land disturbance exceeds 10,000 sf. Phasing is allowed
but the area of land disturbance will be considered on a cumulative basis. SWM agreements,
easements, deeds and bonding will be required for proposed facilities and prior to commencing
land disturbance. ESC bonding will also be required prior to commencing land disturbance.
[WPO-Chapter 17].
Transportation — VDOT & Community Development
To date, no comments pertaining to transportation have been received from VDOT —
Charlottesville Residency. All comments and questions from VDOT be promptly forwarded upon
receipt.
Additionally, Principal Planner Kevin McDermott has stated that he has no objection with the
proposals, but has provided the following recommendations for consideration that should be
addressed during the site plan stage, including the following:
• Restriping of 250 at the Golf Course Dr/Coleridge intersection to define the left turn lanes,
instead of the continuous left turns left that currently exist (if VDOT concurs).
• Set a trigger or timeline to reevaluate operations at the two intersections to make sure they are
operating as expected and see if warrants are/are not met. If there is any change required have
evaluate alternative controls at the intersections.
Page 8 of 16
• Ensure that the recommendations from the STARS study can be accommodated at the
intersections and, if necessary, dedicate future right of way.
• Suggestions on improvements to the internal pedestrian connections should be better defined.
Planning — ARB & Entrance Corridor
The following comments related to the US 250 / Ivy Road Entrance Corridor have been provided
by Principal Planner Margaret Maliszewski:
[ SP-2017-32 ] :
1. It is anticipated that the primary impact of this proposed development on the Entrance Corridor
will be the court lighting. A Musco brand full -cutoff LED system is illustrated in the
applicant's submittal, but the proposal states that the Musco brand won't necessarily be used.
Since the Musco fixture confirms that a full cutoff sports light is now available, it is
recommended that use of a full cutoff fixture be made a condition of approval.
2. Additional information would be helpful to more fully understand the impacts of the proposal:
a. The intensity of the illumination of the proposed lighting at ground level;
b. Relative elevations of existing and proposed features (ffe of existing and proposed
tennis courts; ffe and maximum building height of tennis pavilion; height of
elevated terraces, bridges, seating; light fixture heights); and
c. Opportunities for landscaping to buffer impacts of lighting on the surroundings.
[ ZMA-2017-10 ]:
• (see above — same comments as for SP-2017-00032)
Albemarle Countv Service Authoritv (ACSA)
The following comments related to ACSA have been provided by Richard Nelson on 1/15/2018:
[ SP-2017-32 ] :
• No Objection — recommend approval. Proposal does not require RWSA capacity certification
[ ZMA-2017-10 ]:
• No Objection — recommend approval. Proposal does not require RWSA capacity certification
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA)
To date, no comments pertaining to utilities for these proposed projects have been received from
RWSA. All comments and questions from RWSA will be promptly forwarded upon receipt (as
may be applicable).
Albemarle Fire -Rescue
The following comments related to Fire -Rescue have been provided by Assistant Fire Marshall
Shawn Maddox on 1/14/2018:
[ SP-2017-32 ] :
• No comments / no objection.
[ ZMA-2017-10 ]:
• No comments / no objection.
Page 9 of 16