Loading...
ZMA202100006 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2021-06-07COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 June 7, 2021 Ashley Davies, Riverbend Development 455 2"a Street SE, Ste 201 Charlottesville, VA 22902 ashleyAriverbenddev. com Scott Collins, Collins Engineering 200 Garrett St, Ste K Charlottesville, VA 22902 scott@collins-engineering.com RE: Review Comment Letter #1 / ZMA2021-00006 Maplewood Mrs. Davies and Mr. Collins: Members of Albemarle County staff and our partner agencies have reviewed your application materials for Zoning Map Amendment ZMA2021-00006, which is a request to rezone an approximately 3.41-acre property identified as Tax Map Parcel 46B44 from C-1 Commercial to Planned Residential Development (PRD), with proffers, to allow for the development of up to 102 residential units, for a gross residential density of 30 dwelling units/acre. 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 without revision and resubmittal, 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 aspects) of your applications, at your request. CDD-Planning: The following CDD-Planning review comments are organized as follows: How the proposal relates to the Comprehensive Plan The Neighborhood Model analysis Additional Planning comments Page 1 of 10 Comprehensive Plan: Comments on how your project conforms to the Comprehensive Plan will be provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report that will be prepared for the work session or public hearing. The comments below are in preparation for the Planning Commission review, and may change based on direction from the Commission and/or with subsequent submittals. 32-41 B 3550 1791 35 12 38A RA 02—iD. 1821 31-� 3530 2399 Jb39 3506 3263 )2 iM 3504 �9�0/�b00 32A02 fA] r luo 32A-02--1A2 J2�37B1 �Ra ' 37-4tG 3190 3267 ;37A-02--1B l 2362 7-41 t 3166 3470 32 3762 /, 46B4.4 2371 ]2 30 3489 3195 464 3 I'Jr�7+rJ�o 32 3-7At 3479 32 3M 0 1]] G- 37A 3455 32 33 -3 3460 341 46B4.10 -' - 142fi 1111 1.30 293447 � lnt4) °"'1410 31 .•' D R into 2700 f•v it S2 _ 3412 f 1 (- 1500 311] T -1511 340e t G Isis 1401 i4U o 1514, 1519.,11;33 Inia 3396 - - ¢ 1740 7 Z1531 10 , 1041 ISie 1115 - 1iYi1 - 46842J15i7 3045, 151U 1541 a INS750 1tiSP � m 154Y InW ]HIS 154x b ]54J 1110 , 151, itxl 1;1. 3389 The property is located in the County's Development Area on Tax Map Parcel 46B4-4, within the Hollymead Community of the Places29 Master Plan. The Places29 Master Plan designates the subject property for "Urban Mixed Use (in Centers)" land uses (shown in pink with white hatching). This land use designation recommends "a balanced mix of retail, housing, commercial, employment, and office uses, along with some institutional and open spaces uses". As the applicant states in their narrative, this Center currently offers only retail and commercial uses. The proposed rezoning would advance the inclusion of residential uses in this area and contribute to the range of intended services and uses envisioned by the Master Plan. Staff find this aspect of the proposal consistent with the Master Plan. While the proposed gross residential density of 30 dwelling units per acre falls within the recommended residential density for this Center (6.01 — 34 dwelling units per acre), not all of the details of the proposed residential development currently align with the Master Plan. First, the Master Plan recommends that at least two different types of residential dwelling units are provided. The proposal currently offers one dwelling unit type. Secondly, the Master plan recommends a maximum building height of 4 stories. The proposal currently requests up to "5 stories/70 feet". Page 2 of 10 "RIM 111111I kkI�. _7r.mLii\`�'�H\\1l�U.r�_����� , 1•■�� I, The Master Plan also recommends a "Future Civic Space" (shown with the green asterisks) in the general area of the subject property. These Future Civic Spaces are meant to act as larger, consolidated public open spaces, being 0.25-acres to 1-acre in size, that are the focal points of the development. The proposed Application Plan shows fragmented open spaces that are primarily located around the outer edges of buildings and ranging in size from 0.04-acres to 0.29-acres. This aspect of the proposal does not fully align with the recommendations of the Master Plan. Better alignment with the Master Plan could be found by consolidating open spaces, placing them in more centralized locations, or otherwise demonstrating that open spaces will act as focal points of the development. Lastly, the Master Plan includes recommendations for street frontage characteristics along Proffit Road, which one side of this comer parcel is located. The rezoning proposal offers to provide the desired 10-foot wide multi -use path, however it is unclear whether this path will be separated from the roadway by the recommended 10-foot wide landscaping strip. Staff acknowledges that a cross- section provided in the Application Plan currently shows a `variable width shoulder & roadside ditch" separating the multi -use walkway from the roadway, however depending on the details of the this aspect — such as minimum width and ability to accommodate street trees — it may or may not align with the recommendations of the Master Plan. More information is needed. In addition to consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, please also be advised that all zoning map amendment applications are evaluated relative to the "factors to be considered" specified in County Code §18-33.27(B). Neighborhood Model: In 2001, the County adopted the Neighborhood Model (NM), which consists of twelve different recommended characteristics to guide the form of proposed development projects within the Development Areas. This proposal has been evaluated against the relevant aspects of the Neighborhood Model. Comments on the alignment of the proposal are provided below. These comments may be revised after additional information is submitted. Page 3 of 10 Pedestrian Orientation This principle is partially met. A 10-foot wide multi -use path is provided around the property, adjacent to Proffit Rd and Worth Xing, while sidewalks are provided within the development. Additional information should be provided to address whether a landscaped strip, at least 10-feet in width, will be provided to separate multi -use path users from the street and, also, whether a sidewalk will be provided along the road proposed within the development. A sidewalk facility along the proposed road would encourage safe travel options and stronger connections to retail/commercial/service businesses south of the property. Mixture of Uses This principle is not met but could be dismissible based on the holistic intent of the "Center" designation within the Master Plan. As discussed in the Comprehensive Plan section, this rezoning will only offer residential uses. However, since residential uses are not currently offered within this Center area, this development will contribute to an overall mixture of uses in this area. Neighborhood Centers This principle is not met. As also mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan section, the proposal does not currently provide a focal point or place where people can congregate. The proposal could be strengthened by providing a large, focal open space. Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability This principle is partially met. The development currently offers one type of residential unit — two -over -two townhouse units (multifamily). Please revise the materials to clearly indicate if additional housing types will be provided. (Note: The application could be strengthened by a proffered commitment to a mixture of housing types.) Affordable housing is proposed and included in the proffers submitted by the applicant. Please be aware that the Board of Supervisors is scheduled to consider adopting a revised housing policy on June 16, 2021. See comments from Housing staff below. Relegated Parking This principle is partially met. The applicant's narrative states that parking will be relegated away from Proffit Rd and Worth Xing, however the generalization of the proposed "building & parking envelops", shown on the Application Plan, do not confirm that this is the case. The proposal could be strengthened by showing parking envelops located away from street frontage areas. Interconnected Streets and Transportation Network This principle is partially met. The application does propose an interparcel connection to TMP 46134-3, however the connection is problematic. Since the neighboring parcel is not part of this application and an easement has not been provided to date, it has not been demonstrated that the road connection shown on the Application Plan can be made. Staff also understands from transportation -focused reviewers that a connection here would need to overcome possible grading issues. Additional information is needed to show that the proposed road connection can be made regarding grading, easements, and any relevant design standards. (Note: Providing pedestrian facilities along the interparcel connection would help to strengthen the proposal and show support for multiple transportation networks.) Multimodal Transportation Opportunities This principle is met. The proposal includes a 10-foot multi -use path along Proffit Rd and Worth Xing to accommodate active travel options (e.g. bicyclists and pedestrians). Page 4 of 10 Parks, Recreational This principle is met. The development is proposing multiple recreational Amenities, and and open space areas as well as sidewalks and a multi -use path. Open Space Buildings and This principle is not met. Additional information and detail should be provided to understand the relationship between proposed building Spaces of Human heights, building orientation, yards, parking, pedestrian paths, open Scale spaces, and architectural features. Redevelopment This principle is partially met. This proposal will utilize a site that is currently undeveloped within the Development area. It is not vet known how the building layout or architecture of the proposed buildings will integrate with the existing structures and character of the surrounding area. Respecting Terrain This principle is partially met. The subject parcel is relatively flat, except and Careful for a sloped area along its western boundary line. Additional information Grading and should be provided to understand how the proposed 8-foot grade change will be incorporated into the development. Potentially hazardous steep Regrading of Terrain slopes should be avoided, as well as stand-alone retaining walls that are taller than six feet. Clear Boundaries This principle is not applicable. The development is located well within a between the Development Area. Development Areas and the Rural Area Additional Planning Comments: 1. The Application Plan should show more detail by providing a conceptual lot layout, in accordance with Sec 33.18(B)(14). This will help the proposal satisfy the requirements for a rezoning application and also support a more complete evaluation against the NM Principles. 2. If the development will be subdivided later, frontage will need to be established for all future lots on either a public or private road. Please be aware, if a private road is proposed, it will require justification to and authorization by the Planning Commission and Board and there is some risk that it may not be approved. Be sure to address within the justification why the street cannot be made public. 3. Relatedly, there is a discrepancy in the materials as to the designation of the internal roadways. The proposed Application Plan suggests that internal streets will provide access to the units, however the application narrative states that private roadways will be provided. Please know that internal streets and private streets have different design standards. Please revise the application materials accordingly. 4. The application would benefit by providing an exhibit to show what the intended two -over -two unit type would look like and how units may be divided within the vertical structure. For example, would they look like a single townhouse and be divided into several flats, or would they look like a four-story multifamily structure and be divided into a combination of flats and townhouses? 5. Will parking be provided by surface lots or structured parking? 6. In addition to the comments provided in the NM analysis concerning proposed open space. The Application Plan could benefit by illustrating the programming of certain proposed open spaces. This could help demonstrate focal points within the development. Please keep in mind that one of the intentions of "Future Civic Spaces", as denoted in the Places29 Master Plan, is for these spaces to both feel and be publicly accessible. Page 5 of 10 7. The Application Plan notes a minimum density of 10 dwelling units per acre. Sec. 19 of County Code recommends, but does not require, that the "PRD he employed in areas where the comprehensive plan recommends densities in excess of 15 dwelling units per acre". As such, the proposed minimum density is lower than the recommendations of the zoning district. 8. Proposed building heights noted on Application Plan are inconsistent with the Master Plan and zoning ordinance. The Master Plan recommends a maximum building height of 4 stories in this Center. Also, building heights in the Planned Residential Development (PRD) zoning district cannot exceed 65 feet, per Sec. 19.7. A special exception to this regulation is not available. 9. The building setbacks proposed should provide at least the minimum building setbacks required by the zoning ordinance under Sec. 4.19. Please be aware, any modification to a required setback in Sec. 4.19 would require a special exception or multiple exceptions. 10. Add "Entrance Corridor" to the list of zoning overlay districts to which this property is subject. 11. Proffers a. Reference the proposed Application Plan within the proffer statement. Feel free to reach out to staff if you would like example language that has been used by previously approved rezonings. b. Please see additional comments regarding proffers provided by Zoning and Housing staff reviewers. Staff believes the questions, issues, and concerns identified in this comment letter should be addressed through revision and resubmittal of the application materials, including (but not necessarily limited to) the application plan and project narrative. CDD-Zoning: Rebecca Ragsdale, rragsdalena,albemarle.org Written review comments from Rebecca Ragsdale, Principal Planner / CDD-Zoning, are attached to this letter. CDD-Engineering: Frank Pohl, fpohl(7a,albemar1e.org The County Engineer has provided the following comments related to the rezoning proposal: 1. If subdivision is proposed and internal frontage is required, revise 'Public Access Easement" to clearly indicate this will be a Private Street. 2. Offsite nutrient credits must be purchased from the Ivy Creek nutrient bank, if offsite nutrient credits are used to satisfy quality requirements. Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA): Richard Nelson, rnelson(a,serviceauthority.org Page 6 of 10 1) Is this site in the jurisdictional area for water and/or sewer? Yes 2) What is the distance to the closest water and sewer line, if in the jurisdictional area? Sewer is on site. Water is located along Worth Xing. 3) Are there water pressure issues which may affect the proposed use as shown on plan? Water pressures in the area are high. PRVs will be required. 4) Are there major upgrades needed to the water distribution or sewer collection system of which the applicant and staff should be aware? There are multiple sewer segments that run along this site. Sections of these sewer mains may need to be relocated. The existing sewer main serves the North Fork Regional Pump Station and is —15' deep. Proposed structures will be required to have adequate separation from the critical sewer main. 5) Are there other service provision issues such as the need for grinder pumps? N/A 6) Which issues should be resolved at the SP/ZMA stage and which issues can be resolved at the site plan/plat stage? 7) If the project is a large water user, what long term impacts or implications do you forsee? 8) Additional comments? Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA): Dvon Veda, dveeann,rivanna.or¢ Written review comments have not been received from the RWSA. Any/all review comments will be promptly forwarded upon receipt from RWSA. Albemarle County Building Inspections: Betty Slough, bsloughna,albemarle.org Building Inspections has no comments regarding the zoning changes. Once more info is provided regarding the use, type of construction, and location on site, we will be able to provide more comments. Albemarle County Fire & Rescue: Howard Laeomarsino, hlagomarsino(d,albemarle.org Fire & Rescue has provided the following comments related to the rezoning proposal: 1. To accommodate emergency/fire vehicle access, emergency vehicle access road(s)/route(s) are required 2. Fire apparatus access roads shall extend to within 150 feet (45 720 mm) of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the buildings as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the buildings or facility 3. Due to the number of units, a minimum of two emergency access points meeting the above requirements are needed Fire & Rescue has provided the following comments related to a future site plan or project steps: 4. An emergency/fire vehicle access road/route needs to provide a suitable surface to sustain the weight of emergency apparatus weighing up to 85,000 lbs. 5. An emergency/fire vehicle access road/route needs to provide an unobstructed travel way width of 20 ft. if buildings/structures are under 30 feet tall and 26 ft. if buildings/structures are over 30 feet tall 6. Emergency/fire vehicle access roads need to be clear of overhead obstructions at 13 ft 6 in. and below 7. To accommodate fire apparatus, turn radii serving fire apparatus access must be a minimum of 25 ft. Page 7 of 10 8. To ensure that parking does not obstruct the emergency apparatus travel way as described above, no parking signs are required in appropriate areas 9. Any dead-end longer than 150 ft requires an approved turn around for emergency apparatus 10. Road grade cannot exceed 10 % 11. Provide a note of the required ISO fire calculation for the buildings 12. Indicate on the plan the latest ACSW flow test to ensure adequate fire flow per calculation in comment # 6 13. Provide the locations of required fire hydrants as determined by calculations in # 6 with spacing in accordance with the required fire flow calculation (minimum of 500 feet and arranged so that no building is more than 250 feet from a hydrant) 14. Fire suppression, fire alerting systems and other building design features, such as exits, interior finishes, building access etc., are the purview of the building official and required as directed by that office. 15. If fire suppression systems or standpipes are installed the FDC must face the road, on address side and there needs to be hydrant within 100 ft. of the FDC, arranged so that when hydrant and FDC are in use for emergency operations, hose does not obstruct travel way. CM -Planning (Transportation): Daniel Butch, dbutchna albemarle.org CDD-Planning (Transportation) has provided the following comments related to the rezoning proposal: 1. The proposed trailway should be referenced as a 10' shared use path on Proffit Rd and Worth Crossing and be completely in VDOT's right-of-way built to standard. 2. Provide ITE daily trip generation numbers. 3. The Places29 Masterplan calls for a roundabout at the Worth Crossing and Proffit Rd intersection. Provide your justification for the right-of-way dedication area shown on plan. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT): Adam Moore, adam.moorena,vdot.virginia.zov Written review comments from VDOT are attached to this letter. CDD-Architecture Review Board (ARB): Margaret Maliszewski, mmaliszewski(a,albemarle.om ARB has provided the following comments related to the rezoning proposal: 1. The 6'-wide landscape buffer on the west side of the site is likely too narrow to establish a true buffer. A minimum width of 10' is recommended. 2. Confirm that trees can be planted in the slope and drainage easement on the west side of the site. 3. Show where street trees will be located along Proffit Road, clear of utilities and easements. Housing: Stacy Pethia, spethiana,albemarle.org Housing has provided the following comments related to the rezoning proposal: Proffer 1: Affordable Housing The proposed housing policy recommends the percentage of affordable units to be provided increase from the current 15% of total residential units to 20% of total residential units. The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to consider adopting the proposed housing policy on June 16, 2021. Page 8 of 10 Proffer 1L1: For -Sale Affordable Dwelling Units • Remove the phrase beginning with, `such that housing costs consisting of through to `maximum sales price/loan limit for firsts -time homebuyer programs' • Replace with, `in no event shall the selling price for such affordable units be more than sixty-five (65916) of the applicable federal HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) Homeownership Value Limits'. Proffer 1.A.1: Role of County Community Development Department • The Housing Planner has re -merged with the Office of Housing as of April 1, 2021. Replace all references to County Community Development Department with County Office of Housing. • Consider adding language that after the initial 90-day qualification period, if no income - qualifying purchaser has been identified, the developer may market the affordable for -sale units to local non-profit affordable housing providers. This is simply a suggestion to be added at the discretion of the developer. • The proposed housing policy recommends affordable for -sale units have mechanisms in place to keep the units affordable for a minimum of 40 years. Proffer 1.B.1: Rental Rates • The proposed housing policy recommends For -Rent Affordable Dwelling Units be affordable to households less than equal to 60% AMI • Rents for affordable dwelling units shall not exceed the area median income times the applicable factor per unit size. Unit Size F Efficiency 0.009479 1 bedroom 0.010833 2 bedroom 0.013542 3 bedroom 0.016927 4 bedroom 0.018958 5 bedroom 0.021802 6 bedroom 0.024646 • The proposed housing policy recommends affordable rental dwellings units have mechanisms in place to keep the units affordable for a minimum of 30 years. Action after Receipt of Comments After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified on the following pages titled "Action After Receipt of Comment Letter." Resubmittal If you choose to resubmit, please submit revised application materials on one of the formal resubmittal dates. There is no fee for the first resubmittal. The resubmittal date schedule and other related resources are attached and provided for your convenience online at httDs://www.albemarle.orgJgovemment/communitv-develoDment/aDDIv-for/Dlannin2-and-site- development-applications under "Zoning Map Amendments (ZMA)" Notification and Advertisement Fees Page 9 of 10 Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining owners need to be notified of a new date. Community Meeting Prior to requesting a public hearing with the Planning Commission and Board, a community meeting must be held in accordance with Zoning Ordinance Section 18-33.37. This application has been scheduled for a virtual community meeting on Thursday, June 10, from 6:30pm — 8:00pm with the Places29-North Community Advisory Committee. Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is m leg ason(a)albemarle.org. Sincerely, Mariah Gleason Senior Planner, Planning Division, Community Development 434-296-5832 x3097 m legl ason"bemarle.org Page 10 of 10 V REBECCA RAGSDALE County of Albemarle Principal Planner, Zoning COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT rraesdalePalbemarle.orQ 434-296-5832 ext. 3226 To: Mariah Gleason, Senior Planner Date: June 4, 2021 Re: Zoning Review for ZMA202100006 Maplewood (Plan set dated April 19, 2021, Proffers dated April 4) The following comments are provided as input from the Zoning Division regarding the above noted application. Application Plan Sheet 1- • Greenspace is a term only applicable to NMD districts. Eliminate all use of the word Greenspace on the application plan. PRD requires 25% common open space and Section 4.16 requires minimum recreational areas and recreational facilities within that common open space. Please use those three terms instead of greenspace both in the notes and on Sheet 1. • What standards are applicable to the internal pedestrian sidewalks/paths shown on the application plan? Sheet 2- • For clarity and ease of administration, please do not write out notes in all CAPS. • Residential Density -Both gross and net density as required by Section 19.4 have not been provided on the application plan. • Allowable uses- I understand the intent of this note to indicate housing types that will be permitted. Uses must be listed consistent with Section 19.3.1. Change "allowable" to "permitted" for consistency with ordinance language. Also, is there a commitment to a minimum of two housing types consistent with the project narrative? If so, that should be added to this notes section. • Attached single family units should be changed to: Semi-detached and attached single-family dwellings such as two-family dwellings, triplexes, quadraplexes, and townhouses, provided that density is maintained, and provided further that buildings are located so that each unit could be provided with a lot meeting all other requirements for detached single-family dwellings except for side yards at the common wall. • Building Requirements -This table is not consistent with regulations found in Section 19.7 or Section 4.19. • Height regulations are proposed to be more restrictive which is permitted without a special exception. • Some regulations propose to be different or less restrictive than 4.19. 1 recommend supplemental information include a typical lot exhibit so that is clear how setbacks are to be measured. Also, Zoning staff will need to confirm if there are any additional processes needed to approve modified setbacks. • Land dedicated to public use- Provide a copy of the DB and PG that is referenced. "During the site plan process" must be revised to "prior to final site plan approval." • Trailway-When will construction of the trailway occur? The completion trigger must be added to this note, such as "prior to issuance of the first CO" as an example. • Buffers -Is 6' an adequate buffer? Standards for the buffer and screening must be established in the note. Standards for screening are found in Section 32.7.9.7. • Building Architecture- This note is not enforceable as written. If there are important features that must be provided, specific minimum standards must be included. If ARB or Planning does not believe they are necessary, the note may be eliminated. Pd1'J1'dAn14.1 a S I_1114 :X•]:ih 401 McIntire Road, Suite 2281 Charlottesville, VA22902-4596 • Greenspace/Openspace-Greenspace is a term only applicable to NMD districts. Eliminate all use of the word Greenspace on the application plan. PRD requires 25% common open space which is 0.85 acres and Section 4.16 requires minimum recreational areas and recreational facilities within that common open space. Please use those three terms instead both in the notes and on Sheet 1. Also, please list out rec requirements instead of a narrative form. The plan does not demonstrate that 0.85% will be located in common open space. The proposed amenities (list below) do not meet the minimum requirements for up to 102 units. • Min. 4,000SF recreational grass field • Min. 3,500 SF tot lot • Min 500 SF plaza/meeting area with a gazebo Section 4.16 requires the following for 102 units: • Two tot lots a minimum of 2,000 SF • 30x30 half court basketball The Planning Director may make certain substitutions administratively but reductions can only be approved through the special exception process. The proposed rec field and plaza area could substitute for the basketball court if approved. The two tot lots could be combined and the one proposed increased to 4,000 to meet minimum requirements. The minimum rec. equipment must be provided for two tot lots. Proffers • Why is Bamboo Grove referenced in the proffers? • Affordable Housing -The Housing Planner should review these regulations before they are finalized for consistency with the housing policy. PJ1'J1'JAn14.1 a S I_1114 :X•]:ih 401 McIntire Road, Suite 2281 Charlottesville, VA22902-4596 Stephen C. Brich, P.E. Commissioner 2() COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 East Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 May 13, 2021 Mariah Gleason County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: ZMA-2021-00006 - Maplewood (804)786-2701 Fax: (804)786-2940 Dear Ms. Gleason: The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section, has reviewed the above referenced Maplewood ZMA, as submitted by Collins Engineering, dated April 19, 2021 and find the following: 1. The proposed 10' asphalt pathway will need to be on one side of the right of way in its entirety. If within the R/W path will need to meet the Shared Use Path criteria. 2. Turn lane warrants will be required with the site plan and can be reviewed prior, if so desired. 3. Please provide the justification for the proposed right of way dedication. Has a typical section for Proffit Road been evaluated/approved? What pedestrian accommodation will the county require for that right of way? 4. Note that the final plan must show conformance with the VDOT Road Design Manual Appendices 13(1) and F, as well as any other applicable standards, regulations or other requirements. A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right of way. The owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency land Use Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process. If you have further questions please contact Max Greene at (434) 422-9894. 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 FIRST SET OF COMMENTS Your project has been scheduled for a public hearing by the Planning Commission for August 3, 2021, which is 90 days from the date your application was accepted for review. State Code requires a 90-day review by the Planning Commission unless the applicant requests deferral. As you will read in this comment letter, staff recommends changes to your project to help you achieve approval. Without these changes, staff cannot recommend approval to the Planning Commission. If you need more time to make these changes, and if you prefer to move forward to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for approval, you must request deferral. If you choose not to request deferral, staff will take your project to the Commission as originally submitted, but without a recommendation of approval. Instructions for requesting a deferral are outlined below. Within one week please do one of the following: 1) Request deferral, as required by Section 33.52(A)1, if you will resubmit, but would like to receive comments on the revised submittal, and understand the Planning Commission date will be later than August 3, 2021 2) Proceed to Planning Commission public hearing on August 3, 2021 3) Withdraw your application (1) Deferral requested To request deferral, you must submit a request in writing to defer action by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The request may be made by email. (2) Proceed to Planning Commission Public Hearing on June 15, 2021 At this time, you may request that your application proceed to public hearing with the Planning Commission on August 3, 2021. With this option no additional documents will be accepted, and staff will take your project to the Commission as originally submitted, but without a recommendation of approval. (3) Withdraw Your Application If at any time you wish to withdraw your application, please provide your request in writing. Revised 9-17-19 MCN Failure to Respond An application shall be deemed to be voluntarily withdrawn if the applicant requests deferral pursuant to subsection 33.52(A) and fails to provide within 90 days before the end of the deferral period all of the information required to allow the Board to act on the application, or fails to request a deferral as provided in subsection 33.52(B) or (C). 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.a lbema rle.ore/depa rtment.asp?department=cdd &rel page=21685. Revised 9-17-19 MCN FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP # Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # Ck# By: Resubmittal of information for Zoning Mau Amendment PROJECT NUMBER THAT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED: 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 Print Name FEES that may apply: Date Daytime phone number of Signatory ❑ Deferral of scheduled blchearin at applicant's request $194u 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 2021 Submittal and Review Schedule Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendments Resubmittal Schedule Resubmittal Dates (1st and 3rd Monday of the month) Comments given to the Applicant Applicant requests PC Public Hearing AND Payment Due for Legal Ad (no additional resubmittals) Planning Commission Public Hearing No sooner than* Monday Wednesdav Friday Tuesday Jan 04 Feb 03 Feb 05 Mar 02 Tues Jan 19 Feb 17 Feb 26 Mar 23 Feb 01 Mar 03 Mar 12 Apr 06 Feb 15 Mar 17 Mar 26 Apr 20 Mar 01 Mar 31 A r 09 May 04 Mar 15 Apr 14 Apr 23 Ma 18 Apr 05 May 05 May 07 Jun 01 Apr 19 May 19 May 21 Jun 15 May 03 Jun 02 Jun 11 Jul 06 Ma 17 Jun 16 Jun 25 Jul 20 Jun 07 Jul 07 Jul 09 Aug03 Jun 21 Jul 21 Jul 30 Aug24 Tues Jul 6 Aug04 Aug13 Sep 07 Ju119 Aug18 Aug27 Sep 21 Aug02 Sep 01 Sep 10 Oct 05 Aug16 Sep 15 Se 24 Oct 19 Tues Sep 7 Oct 06 Oct 08 Nov 02 Sep 20 Oct 20 Oct 22 Nov 16 Oct 04 Nov 03 Nov 12 Dec 07 Oct 18 Nov 17 Nov 19 Dec 14 Nov 01 Dec 01 Dec 17 Jan 11 2022 Nov 15 Dec 15 Tues Dec 22 Jan 18 2022 Dec 06 Jan 05 2022 Jan 07 2022 Feb 01 2022 Dec 13 Jan 12 2022 Jan 21 2022 Feb 15 2022 Bold italics = submittal/meeting, day is different due to a holiday. Dates with shaded background are not 2021. 2022 dates are tentative. `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 aaenda date.