HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201800004 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2018-07-03p� .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
July 3, 2018
Steve Edwards
swedwards8168@gmail.com
RE: ZMA2018-04 Willow Glen Phases 2-4
Dear Mr. Edwards:
Staff has reviewed your initial submittal to rezone the property from PRD to NMD. We have a several
questions and comments which we believe should be resolved before your proposal goes to public
hearing. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss these issues.
Planning Comments (Rachel Falkenstein)
Staff's comments are organized as follows:
• How the proposal relates to the Comprehensive Plan
• The Neighborhood Model analysis
• Additional planning comments
• Additional comments from reviewers
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
Land use designation:
- The property is designated Urban Density Residential in the Places29 Master Plan, which has a
recommended density of 6-34 units per acre. Residential is the primary use with neighborhood
serving retail, commercial, office and institutional allowed as secondary uses.
Staff comments on land use:
- It is unclear what density is being proposed with this rezoning due to inconsistent information
on application materials. Please clarify the proposed density range, inclusive of carriage units.
- Some commercial, retail, office and flex uses could be appropriate in Block 2, with appropriate
restrictions. Maximum retail only building footprint should be limited to 5,000 sq. ft.;
Commercial building height should be limited to 3 stories.
- Laboratories/R&D/Testing and Manufacturing/Assembly/Fabrication/Recycling uses could be
appropriate with limitations. Staff recommends a limit of 4000 sq. ft. per use per site and a
requirement that all activities be indoors with no external noise, odor or other nuisance.
- Staff is of the opinion that storage/warehousing/distribution/transportation uses are not
consistent with the Urban Density Residential land use.
- See marked up plan for detailed notes on uses.
Neighborhood Model:
The following describes how the proposed development meets or does not meet the principles of the
Neighborhood Model.
There is no sidewalk shown along Dickerson Road. Buildings in Block 3
have no maximum setback and are shown on the application plan set
back 100' from the street with parking in front. The area labeled as a
Pedestrian Orientation
pedestrian connection between block 2 and 3 would put pedestrians
into a loading/delivery truck area with no clear connection to the front
pedestrian entrances of the buildings.
This principle is not met, specifically in block 3 and adjacent blocks.
The addition of nonresidential uses to the neighborhood would result
in a mixture of uses; however, the uses are not integrated into the
neighborhood. Stronger connectivity between the uses should be
Mixture of Uses
provided. Loading areas adjacent to the residential area should be
reduced and better screened where essential.
This principle is partially met, but better connectivity can increase the
effect of the mix of uses.
Several centers are nearby, including Hollymead Town Center and the
Neighborhood Centers
Airport.
This principle is met.
15% affordable housing is proposed. Multiple family houses are listed
as an allowable unit type, but the applicant has stated an intention to
Mixture of Housing
not construct this type of housing and the application plan does not
Types and Affordability
show any multi -family units. Carriage houses are now a permitted unit
type, which will increase the mix of housing in the community.
This principle is met, though maybe to a lesser degree than the
previous zoning.
The lack of interconnectivity with Block 2 is intended to keep truck
traffic out of the neighborhood; however, it is resulting in a design
Interconnected Streets
that would make it difficult for residents to access Block 2 without
and Transportation
driving. Staff recommends a better connected road and pedestrian
network with restrictions on the use types and signage to reduce cut
Networks
through truck traffic. Such improvements will provide opportunities
for interconnections and better compatibility within the development.
This principle is not met for Block 2.
Sidewalks should be provided along Dickerson Road. More information
Multi -modal
about trail types within the community should also be listed in the
Transportation
COD. Is a trail connection provided between Phase 1 and Phase 2-4? It
Opportunities
is unclear from the application materials.
This principle is partially met.
Parks, Recreational
Over 28% of the development is dedicated to open space and
Amenities, and Open
amenities.
Space
This principle is met.
Block 2 prioritizes automobile access and convenient parking above
Buildings and Space of
pedestrian access. To address this principle, bring buildings closer to
Human Scale
the street, provide sidewalks and pedestrian entrances along the
street, and relegate parking.
This principle is not met in Block 2.
Parking is located in front of the buildings that face Dickerson Road
Relegated Parking
and none of it is screened.
This principle is not met.
There are two existing vacant houses on the property that will be
Redevelopment
redeveloped.
This principle is met.
Respecting Terrain and
A buffer should be provided along the stream and development
Careful Grading and Re-
should be pulled back at least 100' from the stream.
grading of Terrain
This principle is not met.
Clear Boundaries with
This property does not share a boundary with the Rural Area.
the Rural Area
This principle is not applicable.
Additional Planning Comments
- See attached marked up application plan for detailed comments. General comments are
provided below.
- At their work session in February, the Planning Commission provided guidance about the
proposed plan and encouraged a design that better integrates the commercial and residential
uses, provides better connectivity between the two areas, while mitigating impacts of the
commercial/flex space on adjacent residences. The Planning Commission also encouraged a
design that works with the existing terrain and natural resources on the site, provides stream
protection, and treats the stream as a site amenity. Staff does not see how these comments
have been addressed in the proposed plan.
- All application materials should be consistent and provide a minimum and maximum unit count
and minimum and maximum commercial square footages. Provide minimum/maximums for
various unit types to ensure a mix of dwellings. Staff will comment on proffers once clear
information regarding density is provided.
- The COD should be organized and simplified as much as possible. For instance, consider
including all information relating to uses on the same page. Locate the street cross sections on a
sheet that shows the proposed street layouts. Consider consolidating sheets 5 and 6. Reduce
footnotes where possible.
- The COD should only include those things that are requirements of the development and that
are enforceable. Speculation about parking numbers, for instance, is not necessary on the COD.
The parking demonstration can be pulled out into the narrative or other exhibits. The zoning
ordinance parking requirements will dictate required parking, unless you submit a parking study
to reduce or change required parking. Specific uses, number of units, and square footages will
be needed with a parking study, which might be more appropriate at site plan review.
- Remove all requirements from the COD that would require architectural renderings for review
and approval (such as paint colors and roof styles). Only items relating to building massing,
entrance location, setbacks, landscaping, and screening should be retained on the COD.
3
The proposed streets seem unusually wide. Staff recommends reducing to minimum VDOT and
Fire Rescue street widths to increase safety and reduce impervious surface.
The transitional buffer area is not shown consistently on plan sheets. The proposed buffer
landscaping does not seem sufficient to screen loading areas and to mitigate sounds of trucks
backing up/loading/unloading. Staff recommends a more compatible design that does not
require a large amount of screening between the commercial and residential uses. Where
loading areas are necessary adjacent to residential, refer to 32.7.9.7 for minimum screening
criteria.
Demonstrate that residents of phase 1 will be provided access to amenities within phase 2-4.
- Have you considered residential as a use in Block 2 to allow the potential for live -work units?
The narrative is long and should be paired down to essential information.
Zoning Comments (Rebecca Ragsdale)
See attached comments
Virginia Department of Transportation Comments (Adam Moore)
See attached comments.
*Additional comments from the County Transportation Planner may be provided at a later date.
Engineering Comments (Frank Pohl)
1. The stream flowing through this property/project has been determined to be a perennial
stream. Stream buffers shall be retained if present and established where they do not exist on
any lands subject Chapter 17 of the Albemarle County Code containing perennial streams,
contiguous nontidal wetlands, or both. The stream buffer shall be no less than one hundred
(100) feet wide on each side of any perennial stream and contiguous nontidal wetlands,
measured horizontally from the edge of the contiguous nontidal wetlands, or the top of the
stream bank if no wetlands exist [17-600.A]. Refer to section 17-602 for improvements and
activities exempt from stream buffer requirements. Refer to section 17-604 for types of
structures, improvements and activities which may be allowed in a stream buffer by program
authority.
2. The cul-de-sac and perpendicular parking where the interparcel connection is proposed does
not meet VDOT/County standards for a through street. Design should anticipate interparcel
connection without requiring modifications to the cul-de-sac or parking areas.
ACSA (Richard Nelson)
As discussed in the previous Pre-App, an updated sewer capacity agreement will need to be necessary to
include all proposed parcels. This will be required before site plan approval.
RWSA (Victoria Fort)
• Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal None Known
• Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Capacity Certification Yes*
• Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal None Known
• "Red Flags" regarding service provision (Use attachments if necessary) None Known
*Note that a sewer flow capacity certification will be required prior to final site plan approval for Willow
Glen Ph. 2-4, as it is expected to produce an estimated 86,130 gal of wastewater flow/day.
4
Fire Rescue
Comments will be forwarded upon receipt.
Action after Receipt of Comments
After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified on "Action after Receipt of
Comment Letter" which is attached.
Resubmittal
If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is no fee for the first resubmittal. See
resubmittal schedule is for resubmittal dates.
Notification and Advertisement Fees
Additional information regarding fees for notification and advertisement will be provided when the
applications is scheduled for the Planning Commission.
Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. I can be reached at
rfalkenstein@albemarle.org or 434-296-5832, ext. 3272.
Sincerely,
Www:�--D
Rachel Falkenstein
Senior Planner
Planning Division
Enc: Zoning Comments
VDOT Comments
Action after receipt of comment letter
Resubmittal form
5
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To:
Rachel Falkenstein
From:
Rebecca Ragsdale
Division:
Zoning
Date:
July 2, 2018
Subject:
Comments on ZMA201800004 Willow Glen
Amending the PRD approved with ZMA200600019 and remaining PRD (Phase 1)
• The portion of the Willow Glen PRD that will remain must meet all requirements of the PRD district.
An exhibit must be provided that demonstrates that density, open space, and required recreation
according to 4.16 will remain with the existing PRD. You cannot meet these requirements with open
space, amenities, etc. provided in the newly proposed NMD planned development. Staff recommends
updating Sheets Z2 or Z3 of the plan set to provide this information.
• According to Section 33.2.b.1(a) and (b), signatures of other property owners are not required for the
proposed rezoning but written notice shall be required to other property owners subject to the same
proffers within the Willow Glen planned development.
Proffers -After responses to code of development and application plan comments below are provided,
proffer comments will be made.
Conformity with Zoning Ordinance Application Plan/ Code of Development
In general, there are too many notes and too many sheets that are not necessary. More recent codes of
development for NMDs have been simplified to 1-3 sheets with regulations (ex. Riverside Village). Where
possible, sheets should be consolidated and like regulations all in one place. See detailed comments
below. Additional detailed comments should be expected after the next resubmittal because of so many
substantive issues and inconsistencies in the code of development that need to be addressed.
• Sheet Z3
o Existing conditions should show the location of the temporary tot lot serving Phase I.
• Sheet Z4-
o The Development Block Summary table-
■ Lofts is not a use in the zoning ordinance and if it remains in the table, must be
defined.
■ What is really envisioned for Block 6? Is it truly mixed use or do you mean sales and
office uses accessory to the development? Does the Comprehensive Plan and
planning support true mixed use in this block?
■ Note 2-Phase 1 acreage should not be included in the NMD tables. It must only be
included in the remaining PRD.
■ Remove Note 2.
■ Remove Note 3.
■ Note 5 should provide an allowable % variation in block size as other codes of
development have included.
■ Note 7 should be moved to Sheet Z5 and included with Table IV notes
■ Is note that all private roads should have a public access over them necessary?
■ Note 8 indicates where residential uses are permitted, carriage houses are permitted.
Carriage houses must be accounted for as a unit in the Development Block Summary
table. Sheet Z5 indicates they will only be permitted with SFA/SFD. Please reconcile
these notes.
o Lot/Parking/Building Regulations for Residential Uses Table-
■ Discrepancy between # stories and building height 1/3 stories v. up to a 65 max
building height.
■ General conditions must be numbered
■ Remove condition that subterrain parking shall not be considered a story. This is
already covered by the ordinance.
■ Is shared driveways note necessary or is it already covered in the ordinance?
■ Why are encroachments of 5' proposed for block 1? Encroachment notes and
wording should be consistent throughout the code of development.
■ Why is Block 4 the only block with build -to line notes? I'm not sure what this note
means.
■ What does Note 4 mean?
o Lot/Parking/Building Regulations for Non -Residential Uses table
• General conditions must be numbered
■ Min/Max stories and building height need to be reconciled. See comment above for
residential table, including consideration of stepback requirement.
■ Note references "if residential structures are developed in Block 2" the table on Sheet
Z5 doesn't list residential uses as being permitted in Block 2, Not allowing accessory
structures may be overly restrictive.
• Shared parking agreement shall be established -recommend changing this to may.
This could be overly restrictive in the future if the block is subdivided. Any shared
parking agreement must be reviewed in the future to ensure the requirements of
Section 4.12 are met.
o Parking Data-
■ Note 1-It is not necessary to restate the requirements of the ordinance. Remove Note
1.
■ Why is the clubhouse included in the commercial parking calculations?
■ Shared parking can be approved at the time of site plan reviews and it is not
necessary to restate ordinance regulations in the code of development.
■ Note 4 needs to be restated as a regulation. Are SFD required to have 2-car
garages? If not, delete this note. The ordinance covers garage parking counting as
required parking.
■ No parking study meeting the requirements of Section 4.12 was submitted to support
the use of a parking calculation of 1/200 net floor area for non-residential uses.
■ Sheet Z7 also has parking notes? These notes should be deleted. Requiring parking
calculations is a requirement, not at the request of staff on a case by case basis. The
minimum ordinance requirements for parking must be met unless a parking study is
submitted and reviewed. With the range of uses allowed in Block 2, Zoning doesn't
support approving a parking study to reduce parking at the rezoning. This can be
addressed at site plan when uses are known and per 4.12.
Sheet Z5-
o III -Table of Residential Uses
■ Note (i) under permitted indicates carriage houses will count as dwelling units
towards overall limit of dwelling units within the project. Please add this note to the
table on Sheet Z4.
• Indicate which blocks carriage house will be permitted
o IV -Table of Non Residential Uses
■ This table should be reorganized by use categories such as office, service, retail,
R&D/flex
Zoning Comments July 2, 2018-Page 21
■ Lab uses are listed several times, several different ways. Delete labs,
medical/pharmaceutical and research and development from table. These uses are
covered in the broad category listed laboratories/research and
development/experimental testing.
• Update church to religious assembly use
■ Note1-Minimum screen standards must be established. Section 5.1.52 already
requires the following (below).
■ Delete Note 2-This is already covered by the ordinance.
■ Note 3-Will need to consult with zoning administrator, possibly legal, before making a
recommendation about this note.
■ Note 4-14,000 should be revised to 4,000 for consistency with the ordinance and
comprehensive plan.
5.1.52 OUTDOOR STORAGE IN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS
Except as otherwise expressly permitted for a particular use, the outdoor storage of parts, materials and
equipment in an industrial district shall be subject to the following:
a. Storage areas shall be screened by a solid wall or fence, including solid entrance and exit gates, not less
than seven (7) feet nor more than ten (10) feet in height.
b. No wall or fence screening a storage area shall encroach into a sight distance triangle.
c. The parts, materials and equipment stored in a storage area shall not be stacked higher than the screening
wall or fence.
d. No outdoor storage shall be located within fifty (50) feet of a residential or agricultural district.
e. The outdoor storage of recyclable materials at a recycling collection or recycling processing center is
prohibited.
o V-Architectural Standards -These are only required if planning determines they are needed.
(see ordinance language below) I recommend B-G be removed from the code of
development. A is a required Architectural styles, materials, colors and textures if these elements
are determined to be necessary in order for a proposed development to be compatible with its
contiguous developed surroundings. The provisions in a code of development adopted prior to October
14, 2009 pertaining to subsections 20A.5(g)(1) through (4) shall be the only architectural standards in
the code of development that apply to the planned development.
Sheet Z6-
o The open space percentages listed in the table do not seem to match up with what is
illustrated on the plan. For example, the table indicates greenspace for Block 2 but there
doesn't appear to be any in that block.
o The minimum dimensions and features for features for amenities to be provided are not
specified on the plan.
o Open space for the remaining PRD must be provided.
o Sheets Z6 and Z7 should be combined to simplify the plan set.
Sheet Z7-
o Parking notes should be moved to Sheet Z4. See comments above regarding parking.
o Tree preservation? -Are there preservation areas that should be designated on the plan based
on stream buffers, etc?
o Signage and architecture -this note should be removed -See comments above regarding
architectural requirements. Notes regarding signage are not necessary.
Zoning Comments July 2, 2018-Page 31
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange goad
Culpeper. Virginia 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
June 21, 2018
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Rachel Falkenstein
Re: Willow Glen Phases 2-4
ZMA 2018-00004
Review #1
Dear Ms. Falkenstein:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan and associated traffic impact analysis as
submitted by Dickerson Ridge, LLC dated 22 May, 2018 and offers the following comments:
1. The AM and PM thru volume going toward the residential driveway along Dickerson
Road shown in figure 10 is being flipped from what is shown in figure 9. Please clarify.
2. On table 3 (page 13), the method used to generate the volumes shown is mixing methods
between the equation based values and average based values. The TIA should analyze the
generated volumes for the worse -case scenario and not for the lowest predicted volumes.
3. At the Dickerson Road and Town Center Drive intersection, the analysis showed that the
WBL will operate at a LOS F with 231 seconds of delay and a queue length of 448 ft.
The distance between Dickerson Road and August Lane along Town Center Drive is 375
ft. The analysis shows that August Lane would be subject to blockage by the WBL
queues.
4. At the intersection of Town Center Drive and Shannon Glen Court the right turn taper
warrant is met at the design year build scenario. This is due in part to residents travelling
through the phase 1 section to the homes in phase 2. This traffic could be greater if
operations at the Dickerson Road intersection with Town Center Drive continue to
worsen.
5. The peak hour trip generation for the Research and Development Center constitutes a
small percentage of the average daily traffic. This is likely due to a lack of total studies in
the ite manual and the wide variation in types of businesses fitting this category. When
the data is unavailable VDOT recommends using I I% of ADT for peak hour estimations.
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
June 21, 2018
Rachel Falkenstein
Page 2
6. The analysis notes that a right turn taper into the commercial entrance is not
recommended in part because the PM peak hour warrant is not met. However the AM
peak hour warrant is met. The potential requirement of turn lanes or tapers into the site's
entrances along Dickerson Road (on site) can be determined at the site plan stage when
specific users, and therefore more detailed trip generation data, have been identified. The
applicant should prepare for the potential requirement of left and/or right turn lanes or
tapers at each entrance. Along with trip generation data, available sight distance for
approaching traffic on Dickerson Road, and estimated truck traffic using the entrances
will be considered as part of the turn lane requirement evaluation.
7. The trip generation table shows specific (presumably maximum) numbers of certain
residential land use types. These maximums are not reflected in the submitted ZMA. Is
the table provided in the TIA intended to represent maximum numbers of these types? If
not, the most conservative mix of unit types should be included in the analysis.
8. The re -zoning package submitted after the TIA shows the potential for carriage units as
part of the residential sections. The Department recommends that these units have
alternate trip generation rates based on the frequency with which these units are sublet.
9. The analysis shows minimal queues at the intersection of Town Center Drive at August
Lane in the Build 2023 condition. However, this appears to disregard the presence of the
queue from the Town Center/Dickerson intersection. Please consider revising the
analysis.
10. The proposed typical sections include pavement areas wider than required. In some
instances this is not recommended as it may lead to drivers travelling faster than desired.
The owner/developer may contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section at (434) 422-9399 with any questions regarding this review.
Sincerely,
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
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. 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
with your initial submittal or resubmittal. Please remember that all resubmittals must be made
on or before a resubmittal date.
4
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 may be paid in cash or by check and must be paid at the Community Development Intake
Counter. Make checks payable to the County of Albemarle. Do not send checks directly to the
Review Coordinator.
5
FEE SCHEDULE FOR ZONING APPLICATIONS
A. For a special use permit:
1.
Additional lots under section 10.5.2.1; application and first resubmission
Fee.....................................................................................................................................
$1,075.00
Each additional resubmittal..................................................................................................$538.00
2.
Public utilities; application and first resubmission
Fee.....................................................................................................................................
$1,075.00
Each additional resubmittal..................................................................................................$538.00
3.
Day care center; application and first resubmission
Fee.....................................................................................................................................
$1,075.00
Each additional resubmittal..................................................................................................$538.00
4.
Home occupation Class B; application and first resubmission
Fee.....................................................................................................................................
$1,075.00
Each additional resubmittal..................................................................................................$538.00
5.
Amend existing special use permit; application and first resubmission
Fee.....................................................................................................................................
$1,075.00
Each additional resubmittal..................................................................................................$538.00
6.
Extend existing special use permit; application and first resubmission
Fee.....................................................................................................................................
$1,075.00
Each additional resubmittal..................................................................................................$538.00
7.
All other special use permits; application and first resubmission
Fee.....................................................................................................................................
$2,150.00
Each additional resubmittal...............................................................................................$1,075.00
8.
Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request
Fee........................................................................................................................................
$194.00
B. For amendment to text of zoning ordinance:
Fee....................................................................................................................................$1,075.00
C. Amendment to the zoning map:
1. Less than 50 acres; application and first resubmission
Fee..................................................................................................................................... $2,688.00
2. Less than 50 acres; each additional resubmission
Fee..................................................................................................................................... $1,344.00
3. 50 acres or greater; application and first resubmission
Fee..................................................................................................................................... $3,763.00
4. 50 acres or greater; each additional resubmission
Fee..................................................................................................................................... $1,881.00
5. Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request
Fee........................................................................................................................................ $194.00
11
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP #
Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # Ck# Bv:
a
Resubmittal of information for
2,oning Alap Amendment �—
PROJECT NUMBER THAT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED: ZMA2018-00004 Willow Glen Phase 2-4
Owner/Applicant Must Read and Sign
I hereby certify that the information provided with this resubmittal is what has been requested from staff
Signature of Owner, Contract Purchaser Date
Print Name
FEES that may apply:
Daytime phone number of Signatory
❑
Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request
$194
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,688
®
First resubmission
FREE
❑
Each additional resubmission (TO BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF)
$1,344
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,763
❑
First resubmission
FREE
❑
Each additional resubmission (TO BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF)
$1,881
To be Daid after staff review for Dublic notice:
Most applications for a 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.
➢ 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)
$1.08 for each additional notice + actual
cost of first-class postage
➢ Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing)
Actual cost
(averages between $150 and $250)
County of Albemarle Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126
Revised 11/02/2015 Page 1 of 1