CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Monday, October 2, 2017 5:00 p.m. Closed session as provided by Section 2.2-3712 of the Virginia Code Second Floor Conference Room (annual performance evaluation of City Manager; consultation with legal counsel regarding probable litigation) 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting - CALL TO ORDER Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL AWARDS/RECOGNITIONS School Yard Garden; Domestic Violence Awareness Month; ANNOUNCEMENTS Imagine a Day Without Water; Energy Efficiency Day CITY MANAGER RESPONSE TO MATTERS BY THE PUBLIC (Independent Review Update with Timothy Heaphy) MATTERS BY THE PUBLIC Public comment is provided for up to 15 speakers at the beginning of the meeting (limit 3 minutes per speaker.) Pre-registration is available for up to 10 spaces, and pre-registered speakers are announced by noon the day of the meeting. The number of speakers is unlimited at the end of the meeting. 1. CONSENT AGENDA* (Items removed from consent agenda will be considered at the end of the regular agenda.) a. Minutes for September 18, 2017 b. APPROPRIATION: Risk Management Fund Line of Duty Act (LODA) Insurance Reimbursement – $28,200 (2nd of 2 readings) c. APPROPRIATION: Fiscal Year 2018 Fire Programs Aid to Locality Funding (Firefund) Appropriation – $145,343 (2nd of 2 readings) d. APPROPRIATION: Virginia Homelessness Solutions Grant (VHSP) – $477,151 (2nd of 2 readings) e. APPROPRIATION: State Of Good Repair (SGR) for bridge repairs –$10,079,968.00 (1st of 2 readings) f. APPROPRIATION: Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act Grant – $452,704 (1st of 2 readings) g. APPROPRIATION: Virginia Department of Health Special Nutrition Child and Adult Care Food Program – $32,000 (1st of 2 readings) h. RESOLUTION: Seminole Square Shopping Center – Critical Slopes Waiver (1st of 1 reading) i. RESOLUTION: Pepsi Bottling Plant – Critical Slopes Waiver (1st of 1 reading) j. RESOLUTION: Special Use Permit (SUP) for Automobile Sales at 1530 E. High Street (1st of 1 reading) k. RESOLUTION: Washington Park / Madison Avenue bicycle connector path (1st of 1 reading) deferred to 10/16 2. RESOLUTION*: Honorary Street Naming – Heather Heyer Way (1st of 1 reading) – 15 mins 3. RESOLUTION*: Meadow Creek Valley Trail Bridge Grant – $375,000 (1st of 1 reading) – deferred to 10/16 4. RESOLUTION*: 250 Bypass Commuter Path Grant – $250,000 (1st of 1 reading) – deferred to 10/16 5. ORDINANCE*: Solar Energy Systems Zoning Text Amendment (2nd of 2 readings) – 15 mins 6. RESOLUTION*: Loan Extension for Dogwood Properties – $850,000 (1st of 1 reading) – 20 mins 7. RESOLUTION*: Implementation Plan for the Charlottesville Supplemental Rental Assistance Program (CSRAP) -- $900,000 – 20 mins 8. REPORT ONLY: RWSA Quarterly Update (no verbal presentation) OTHER BUSINESS MATTERS BY THE PUBLIC *ACTION NEEDED GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC COMMENT We welcome public comment; it is an important part of our meeting. Time is reserved near the beginning and at the end of each regular City Council meeting for Matters by the Public. Please follow these guidelines for public comment: • If you are here to speak for a Public Hearing, please wait to speak on the matter until the report for that item has been presented and the Public Hearing has been opened. • Each speaker has 3 minutes to speak. Please give your name and address before beginning your remarks. • Please do not interrupt speakers, whether or not you agree with them. • Please refrain from using obscenities. • If you cannot follow these guidelines, you will be escorted from City Council Chambers and not permitted to reenter. Persons with disabilities may request reasonable accommodations by contacting ada@charlottesville.org or (434) 970-3182. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: September 18, 2017 Action Required: Approve Appropriation Presenter: Chris Cullinan, Director of Finance Staff Contacts: Chris Cullinan, Director of Finance Jessica Rice, Risk Management Specialist Title: Risk Management Fund Line of Duty Act (LODA) Insurance Reimbursement – $28,200 Background: The City’s insurer, Virginia Municipal League (VML), provided a check in the amount of $28,200, as reimbursement for the City’s FY 18 out-of-pocket payments to the Virginia Department of Human Resource Management for Line of Duty Act accepted claim benefits. The Virginia Line of Duty Act (LODA), enacted in 1972, provides benefits to family members of public safety employees and volunteers killed or disabled in the line of duty. Discussion: The City has an insurance policy with Virginia Municipal League for coverage of LODA claims and associated benefits as outlined in the Code of Virginia. Currently, the City’s insurance policy is providing coverage for benefits of one accepted claim. Prior to July 1, 2017, the claimant was obtaining medical coverage through the City’s self-funded healthcare program, and VML issued payment directly to the City for that insurance coverage. Beginning on July 1, 2017, a new law took effect which mandated all LODA benefit recipients to obtain medical insurance from the Commonwealth of Virginia. Additionally, Local Government agencies are now billed directly for the recipient’s medical insurance. The City is issuing $2,350 to the Virginia Department of Human Resource Management each month to pay for the claimant’s medical insurance. VML has advanced payment for the annual total of the City’s estimated payments to the Commonwealth. Community Engagement: N/A Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: Approval of this agenda item aligns directly with goal number 5 of the City’s Strategic Plan, to be a well-managed responsive organization, and specifically pertains to 5.1 Integrate effective business practices and strong fiscal policies. Budgetary Impact: Funds appropriated into Charlottesville’s Risk Management operating budget will off-set the cost of mandated payments to Virginia Department of Human Resource Management, and will utilize an insurance policy for which the City pays premiums. Recommendation: Approve appropriation. Alternatives: City Council may choose not to appropriate $28,200 to the Risk Management Fund which will result in an operating loss for the Fund. Attachments: N/A APPROPRIATION Risk Management Fund Line of Duty Act (LODA) Insurance Reimbursement $28,200 WHEREAS, the City’s insurer, Virginia Municipal League (VML), provided a check in the amount of $28,200, as reimbursement for the City’s FY 18 out-of-pocket payments to the Virginia Department of Human Resource Management for Line of Duty Act (LODA) accepted claim benefits. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that $28,200 is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenues - $28,200 Fund: 711 Cost Center: 2061001000 G/L Account: 451110 Expenditures - $28,200 Fund: 711 Cost Center: 2061001000 G/L Account: 530135 This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: September 18, 2017 Action Required: Appropriation Presenter: Mike Rogers, Deputy Chief – Operations, Charlottesville Fire Dept. Staff Contacts: Mike Rogers, Deputy Chief – Operations, Charlottesville Fire Dept. Title: Fiscal Year 2018 Fire Programs Aid to Locality Funding (Firefund) Appropriation - $145,343 Background: The Code of Virginia provides for the collection of an annual levy each fiscal period from the insurance industry. Such levy is collected by the State Corporation Commission, and the amounts collected are then transferred into the Fire Program Fund (Firefund). These aid to locality monies are then distributed to the jurisdictions to supplement the localities funding for fire service based training, training supplies, training equipment, prevention activities, and some response equipment. This is an annual allotment of funding. All usage and any carryovers are reported out to the Department of Fire Programs at the end of the fiscal period before the next fiscal period monies are granted. The City of Charlottesville has been awarded $145,343 in these funds for FY 2018. Discussion: The Aid to Locality monies are distributed annually to aid departments in their training, prevention, and equipment efforts. While the monies cannot be used to directly/indirectly supplant or replace other locality funds, they help us to provide for additional firefighting training resources, logistics, courses, and equipment as outlined in the Department of Fire Programs Aid to Locality allowable uses chart. Alignment with Council Vision Areas and Strategic Plan: The Aid to Locality/Firefund allocation supports the City’s mission “We provide services that promote equity and an excellent quality of life in our community” by providing supplemental training and equipment funding for fire prevention, firefighting, hazardous materials, and technical rescue. With this additional funding being put towards these purposes we are better able to prepare our responders to deliver emergency services and/or information to the citizens, students, business community members, and guests of the City. The assistance from this annual funding allotment also aligns with Goal 2.1, Reduce adverse impact from sudden injury and illness and the effects of chronic disease, as well as the elements within Goal 5 - A Well-managed and Responsive Organization. Community Engagement: N/A Budgetary Impact: There is no impact to the General Fund, as these are grant funds. The FY 2018 disbursement is slated to transfer to the City’s grant fund in September. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and appropriation of grant funds. Alternatives: If Aid to Locality funding is not appropriated, the Fire Department will not be able to utilize this supplemental funding to help support its training, prevention, and equipment efforts. Attachments: N/A APPROPRIATION Fiscal Year 2018 Fire Programs Aid to Locality Funding (Firefund) Appropriation - $145,343 WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Fire Programs has awarded a grant to the Fire Department, through the City of Charlottesville, specifically for fire service applications; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that a total of $145,343.00 be appropriated in the following manner: Revenues - $145,343 $145,343 Fund: 209 I/O: 1900010 G/L Account: 430110 Expenditures - $145,3432 $145,343 Fund: 209 I/O: 1900010 G/L Account: 599999 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of $145,343 from the Virginia Department of Fire Programs. This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: September 18, 2017 Action Required: Approval and Appropriation Presenter: Kaki Dimock, Director, Human Services Staff Contacts: Kaki Dimock, Director, Human Services Leslie Beauregard, Assistant City Manager Title: Virginia Homelessness Solutions Grant (VHSP) - $477,151 Background: The Department of Human Services in coordination with the Thomas Jefferson Area Coalition for the Homeless (“TJACH”) and the Service Provider Council (“SPC”), applied for and received the Virginia Homelessness Solutions Grant (“VHSP”) from the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development (“DHCD”) for $477,151. Discussion: The City of Charlottesville has staff from Human Services, Social Services, and Neighborhood Development Services all taking a leadership role in the governance of TJACH. The VHSP Grant is an important resource in our community’s efforts to end homelessness. The grant provides services in seven key areas. 1. Rapid Rehousing: The Haven is the sub-recipient of the VHSP funds for Rapid Re- Housing. Supportive Services will be provided to all recipients of financial subsidies for up to 24 months. A small portion of the rapid re-housing funds will be used to address the needs of women experiencing homelessness as a result of domestic violence. The remainder will be used to serve the most vulnerable households experiencing homelessness based on evidence-based decision-making tools. This category will also fund ¼ of a position for Housing Navigation to supplement the investment made by the local governments during the Agency Budget Review Team (ABRT) process. 2. Prevention: The Haven will provide prevention services and subsidies to individuals and families in order to avoid the need for emergency shelter stays. Rental subsidies and utility payments will be provided to those individuals and families determined eligible through the use of a validated, structured decision-making tool. Priority will be given to those households with a previous experience of literal homelessness. The Haven will use a service approach focused on providing the least amount of subsidy necessary to avoid literal homelessness and will make use of all available informal and mainstream resources in this effort. Ongoing eligibility for subsidies will be assessed every 90 days, at a minimum. Monthly case management will be provided to develop and implement a housing stability plan. 3. Shelter: PACEM is the recipient of VHSP funds for shelter. PACEM will continue to provide emergency, low barrier shelter beds during the winter months for the Charlottesville area. With ten years of experience as a DHCD grantee, PACEM offers the community 60 emergency beds (55 ongoing plus 5 thermal triage beds) between late October and early April when the risk of freezing is tangible for those on the streets. Annually, PACEM shelters between 200 and 225 adults. As a last resort, low barrier shelter, PACEM does not screen for substance use, mental health status, or criminal record, and provides shelter to registered sex offenders. The Families in Crisis program in the Albemarle County Public Schools is an additional recipient in this category. The program is meant to ensure the enrollment, attendance, and the success of homeless children and youth in school. In addition, emergency services, referrals for health services, transportation, school supplies, and costs related to obtaining school records may be provided. 4. Homeless Management Information System (“HMIS”): The City of Charlottesville as the award recipient will ensure that HMIS data is complete through an agreement with TJACH to have the Executive Director ensure data quality. Our Continuum of Care (“CoC”) has a well-populated database for individuals experiencing homelessness. HMIS collaboration provides real-time monitoring of the needs and progress of individuals and households facing homelessness. Collaborative use of HMIS among TJACH CoC Service Providers expedites communication and reduces the need to interface disparate documentation systems. 5. Coordinated Assessment process: TJACH, with service delivery through The Haven, will establish and publicize a daily central intake process for individuals and families in need of prevention, outreach, or shelter services. These assessments will be based on the agreed-upon Coordinated Assessment Packet developed through the Community Case Review which includes required demographic data elements, a vulnerability assessment, and release of information forms. Based on information gathered through the coordinated assessment process, clients will be referred to prevention services, emergency shelter services, housing navigation services, rapid re-housing services or permanent supportive housing resources. TJACH has made a commitment to using best-practice approaches and validated, structured decision-making tools to determine which resources will be most effective for people experiencing homelessness. These tools include the Shinn/Greer brief screener for access to prevention services, the Vulnerablity Index for Service Provision and Decision-Making Assessment Tool (VI-SPDAT) for access to rapid re-housing services, and the Community Case Review for collaborative problem- solving when the correct resource is not evident or available. 6. Continuum of Care Planning: TJACH will act as the lead agency of homelessness, conducting an annual Point in Time homeless census and submitting an annual Housing Inventory Chart. TJACH will track progress made on the goals of the Community Plan to End Homelessness, revising this plan as directed by the TJACH Governance Board. TJACH will support the operation of the Community Case Review, identifying a convener and anchor agencies willing to work collaboratively on the development of housing stabilization plans for people who have been housed through rapid re-housing services. TJACH will review sub-contractor invoices, collect documentation, establish monitoring protocols and submit monthly invoices to the City for activities conducted under the VHSP. 7. Administration: The City of Charlottesville as the award recipient is eligible for an administrative fee. Staff proposes that we pass these dollars through to TJACH to support the planning efforts of the Coalition. Community Engagement: This grant and plan are the product of extensive engagement of the service provider community for persons experiencing homelessness. This partnership is reflective of the new governance model for TJACH and the priority requests of the Interfaith Movement Promoting Action by Congregations Together (IMPACT). Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: This grant advances the City of Charlottesville’s Strategic Plan goal #1 of “An Inclusive Community of Self-sufficient Residents”. Specifically, it will facilitate the objective of increasing affordable housing options. This item primarily aligns with Council’s vision for Quality Housing Opportunities for All. Outcomes will demonstrate a coordinated assessment process, individuals and families linked to housing and other resources, and the length of time homelessness was experienced. This grant also fosters the ideals of Community of Mutual Respect and Economic Sustainability by providing services to vulnerable citizens and promoting self-sufficiency. Budgetary Impact: This grant will be entirely State, and Federal pass-through funds. No local match is required. There is no budget impact for the City of Charlottesville. All funds will be distributed to sub- recipients for service provision. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and appropriation of grant funds. Alternatives: Council may elect to not accept the funds and the community will not have the capacity to administer the following services to persons experiencing homelessness: shelter, prevention funds, rapid rehousing, HMIS, and administration. Attachments: Appropriation; Sub Grant agreement and amendment APPROPRIATION Virginia Homelessness Solutions Grant $477,151 WHEREAS, The City of Charlottesville, through the Department of Human Services, has received the Virginia Homelessness Solutions Grant from the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development in the amount of $477,151; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville,Virginia that the sum of $477,151 is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenues $405,225 Fund: 209 IO: 1900290 (VHPS) G/L: 430110 State Grants $ 71,926 Fund: 209 IO: 1900290 (VHSP) G/L: 430120 Federal Pass-Thru State Expenditures $477,151 Fund: 209 IO: 1900290 (VHSP) G/L: 530550 Contracted Services BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon receipt of $477,151 in funds from the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: October 2, 2017 Action Required: Approve Appropriation of Funds Presenter: Marty Silman, City Engineer Staff Contacts: Marty Silman, City Engineer Tony Edwards, Neighborhood Development Services Manager Title: State Of Good Repair (SGR) for bridge repairs – Appropriation of $10,079,968.00 Background: The Code of Virginia authorizes the Commonwealth Transportation Board to use funds allocated to state of good repair purposes for reconstruction of structurally deficient locally owned bridges. The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) approved the prioritization process and methodology for selecting SGR Bridge projects at their June 14, 2016 meeting. The State of Good Repair Program was planned to begin in FY2021. However, based on a more positive revenue outlook, VDOT began using funding through the State of Good Repair Program beginning this year (starting in FY2017). The City submitted applications for each of our structurally deficient bridges and was fortunate to receive 100% funding for 4 of our structurally deficient bridges. Discussion: Staff is requesting that $10,079,968.00 be appropriated to new project accounts for each of the 4 bridges that were awarded funding. The appropriation is needed to allocate the state funding that will be received on a reimbursement basis. The breakdown for the projects that were awarded the SGR funding is as follows:  Route 250 Bypass over Route 29 Business - $3,847,554  Route 250 Bypass over Rugby Ave - $2,488,292  Route 250 Bypass over Norfolk Southern Railroad - $1,303,496  Melbourne Road over Norfolk Southern Railroad - $2,440,626 Repairs are bridge specific, but range from minor work to address erosion around bridge abutments to full bridge deck replacement. In general, repairs consist of various items such as bearings, anchor bolts, beams, painting, railing, concrete, etc. Each of the bridges awarded for funding are classified as structurally deficient for one or more items (deck, superstructure or substructure). It should be noted that while these bridges may be classified as structurally deficient they are adequate to support the required loads of today’s vehicles. Structurally deficient is classified as a score of 0-4 out of 10. None of the bridges have a rating below 4. Following the improvements, each bridge should be off the structurally deficient list with a minimum rating of 5 or greater. Community Engagement: Because this funding is specific to repair of existing bridge structures, no community engagement is anticipated. However, we will issue notices and project updates to keep users and the surrounding residents apprised of the project status and traffic impacts. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Priority Areas: Approval of this agenda item will help meet the City’s commitment to create “a connected community” by improving our existing transportation infrastructure. Budgetary Impact: There is no match requirement as the grant applications awarded are based on 100% funding. Acceptance of this funding will allow existing bridge repair funding to be used on other structures. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of appropriation and creation of a new project number/account for each bridge. Alternatives: N/A Attachment: Appropriation APPROPRIATION State of Good Repair Program - $10,079,968.00 WHEREAS, a total of $10,079,968.00 in state funds for the State of Good Repair Program requires appropriation; WHEREAS, a total of $0.00 in matching city funds are for the State of Good Repair requires transferring; WHEREAS, the total appropriation will be allocated to the following projects (and associated project numbers listed below): - Route 250 Bypass over Route 29 Business - $3,847,554 - Route 250 Bypass over Rugby Ave - $2,488,292 - Route 250 Bypass over Norfolk Southern Railroad - $1,303,496 - Melbourne Road over Norfolk Southern Railroad - $2,440,626 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the following is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenues $ 3,847,554 Fund: 426 WBS: P-00953 G/L Account: 599999 $ 2,488,292 Fund: 426 WBS: P-00954 G/L Account: 599999 $ 1,303,496 Fund: 426 WBS: P-00955 G/L Account: 599999 $ 2,440,626 Fund: 426 WBS: P-00956 G/L Account: 599999 Expenditures $ 3,847,554 Fund: 426 WBS: P-00953 G/L Account: 430110 $ 2,488,292 Fund: 426 WBS: P-00954 G/L Account: 430110 $ 1,303,496 Fund: 426 WBS: P-00955 G/L Account: 430110 $ 2,440,626 Fund: 426 WBS: P-00956 G/L Account: 430110 This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: October 2, 2017 Action Required: Appropriation Presenter: Rory Carpenter, Human Services Department Staff Contacts: Rory Carpenter, Human Services Department Kaki Dimock, Human Services Department Title: Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act Grant (VJCCCA) - $452,704 Background: In July 2010, the City of Charlottesville became the fiscal agent for the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act (VJCCCA) funds for both Charlottesville and Albemarle County. This funding stream was established by the 1995 Virginia General Assembly to create balanced, community-based systems of sanctions, programs and services for juvenile offenders. These funds are used to support the Community Attention programs. In Fiscal Year 2018, $292,058 in VJCCCA funds will be received from the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice with a required local maintenance of effort of $52,231 from Albemarle County, and $108,415 from the City. The grant period is from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. Discussion: The VJCCCA grant funds the delinquency prevention and youth development services provided by Community Attention for Charlottesville/Albemarle youth involved in the juvenile justice system. These services include the following programs: the Teens GIVE service learning program that provides community service opportunities during both the school year and the summer; the Community Supervision Program that provides pro-social skills training like anger management, individual and group counseling services and case management services for youth on electronic monitoring; the Community Attention Youth Internship Program (CAYIP) paid internship program; and the Juvenile Court Case Manager position providing supervision and case management services for youth identified by the court as truant. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: The VJCCCA grant aligns with the City of Charlottesville's Strategic Plan - Goal 2: A Healthy and Safe City Objective 2.3: Improve community health and safety outcomes by connecting residents with effective resources. Community Attention’s VJCCCA funded programs provide community based services that prevent delinquency and promote the healthy development of youth. Expected outcomes include decreased delinquent behavior during and after program participation. Community Engagement: The VJCCCA funded programs engage youth involved in the juvenile justice system and their families by providing delinquency prevention and youth development programs. The programs also engage and coordinate with other local agencies and organizations in the provision of services to the youth. Budgetary Impact: There is no impact on the General Fund. The funds will be expensed and reimbursed to the VJCCCA Fund. The required City contribution has already been appropriated as part of the Fiscal Year 2018 Council Adopted Budget so no new funds are required to cover the match. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and appropriation of funds. Alternatives: If the VJCCCA funds are not appropriated, Community Attention would have to serve fewer youth and eliminate programs and staff. Attachments: Appropriation APPROPRIATION Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act Grant (VJCCCA) $452,704 WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville has been awarded $292,058 from the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice; and WHEREAS, this grant requires local maintenance of effort funds in the amount of $52,231 from Albemarle County and $108,415 from the City; and WHEREAS, the grant award covers the period from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the sum of $452,704 is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenue – $452,704 $292,058 Fund: 220 Cost Center: 3523001000 G/L Account: 430080 $52,231 Fund: 220 Cost Center: 3523001000 G/L Account: 432030 $108,415 Fund: 220 Cost Center: 3523001000 G/L Account: 498010 Expenditures - $452,704 $ 52,832 Fund: 220 Cost Center: 3523001000 G/L Account: 519999 $399,872 Fund: 220 Cost Center: 3523001000 G/L Account: 530010 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of $292,058 from Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice, and $52,231 from Albemarle County. This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: October 2, 2017 Action Required: Approval and Appropriation Presenter: Riaan Anthony, Park and Recreation Management Specialist Staff Contacts: Riaan Anthony, Park and Recreation Management Specialist Vic Garber, Manager, Recreation Division Title: Virginia Department of Health Special Nutrition Program Child and Adult Care Food Program - $32,000 Background: The City of Charlottesville, through Parks and Recreation, has received approval for a reimbursement of up to $32,000 from the Virginia Department of Health-Special Nutrition Program to provide free dinner to children 18 and under attending our drop-in afterschool programs through their Child and Adult Care Food Program. Discussion: Charlottesville Parks and Recreation will operate an afterschool meals program for 36 weeks, during the course of the regular school year. There are currently 4 locations, Friendship Court, Greenstone on 5th, South First Street and Westhaven Community Centers that serve children 18 years and under. The reimbursement will cover the costs of a nutritious dinner at these locations, which also have an educational/enrichment component Most of the children served receive free or reduced meals during the school year. Over 300 children will be served each week during the months of September toMay. The dinners are purchased through the City of Charlottesville School Food Service. The Parks and Recreation Department pays the bills to the City of Charlottesville Food Service and is then reimbursed by the Virginia Department of Health Special Nutrition Programs. Community Engagement: N/A Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: Approval of this agenda item aligns directly with Council’s vision for Charlottesville to be America’s Healthiest City and it contributes to Goal 2 of the Strategic Plan - Healthy and Safe City. Children will receive a nutritious dinner, hopefully replacing a meal that did not exist or providing a healthier balanced option for them. Budgetary Impact: The funds will be expensed and reimbursed to a Grants Fund. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and appropriation of funds Alternatives: If money is not appropriated, the free dinner program will not be offered to youth, most of whom receive free or reduced meals during the school year. APPROPRIATION Virginia Department of Health Special Nutrition Program Child and Adult Care Food Program $32,000 WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville, through Parks and Recreation, has received approval for reimbursement up to $32,000 from the Virginia Department of Health Special Nutrition Program to provide free dinner to children attending select drop-in afterschool centers; and WHEREAS, the grant award covers the period from period October 1, 2017 through September 30, 2018; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the sum of $32,000, received from the Virginia Department of Health Special Nutrition Program is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenue – $ 32,000 Fund: 209 Internal Order: 1900292 G/L Account: 430120 Expenditures - $32,000 Fund: 209 Internal Order: 1900292 G/L Account: 530670 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of $32,000 from the Virginia Department of Health Special Nutrition Program. This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: October 2, 2017 Action Required: Consideration of a Critical Slope Waiver Presenter: Heather Newmyer, City Planner, Neighborhood Development Services Staff Contacts: Heather Newmyer, City Planner, Neighborhood Development Services Title: Seminole Square Shopping Center Critical Slope Waiver Background: On August 15, 2017, Scott Collins, on behalf of Great Eastern Management, is requesting a waiver from Section 34-1120(b) of the City Code (Critical Slope Ordinance) to allow for the construction of two, segmented retaining walls, totaling 1180’ in length, along the northern portion of the Seminole Square Shopping Center property, containing existing slopes greater than or equal to 25%. The applicant states the reason for the critical slope waiver request is to accommodate redevelopment of the Seminole Square Shopping Center. The applicant states Seminole Square is proposing to modify and redevelop other portions of the property with landscaping improvements, future building sites to help create a more attractive shopping center along Hillsdale Drive; and, as a result of the improvements in conjunction with Hillsdale Drive, parking is being proposed in the North Wing to accommodate parking spaces that are lost due to proposed improvements/construction of Hillsdale Drive. The site plan proposes 88 new parking spaces and supporting retaining walls located to the North and directly behind existing buildings at Seminole Square should the critical slope waiver be approved (14 new spaces located behind the existing Plaza Azteca on Tax Map 41C Parcel 3.3 and 74 new spaces and retaining walls located behind the series of retail buildings on the north side of Seminole Square on Tax Map 41C Parcel 3.1). Existing critical slopes areas located on this Property include 1.56 acres/8% percent of the project site. The applicable definition of “critical slope” is as follows: Any slope whose grade is 25% or greater, and (a) a portion of the slope has a horizontal run of greater than 20 feet, and its total area is 6,000 SF or greater, and (b) a portion of the slope is within 200 feet of a waterway. See City Code Sec. 34- 1120(b)(2). Note: This application has been through several submittals starting in January 26, 2013. For a more detailed history of the application process, please see the Memo provided on the first page of Attachment 2 – Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 28, 2017. Since the January 26, 2013 submission, the applicant has provided in an on-going process: • The engineering analysis required by the City to show how the proposed retaining walls would impact the existing stormwater management facility. The City Engineering Department has determined the proposed modification (addition of retaining walls) to the existing stormwater management facility would not adversely impact the facility. • A Concept Plan (Titled “Concept Plan Exhibit Series” included in Attachment 2) showing a series of future improvements (landscaping islands, future building pad site, improved pedestrian connections) • A Trailway Exhibit (Titled “Proposed Seminole Square and Pepsi Trailway Exhibit” included in Attachment 2) showing (i) the addition of an eight (8) foot multi-purpose travel way (constructed to the City of Charlottesville design standards) and variable width greenway (13’ – 25’ in width) between the proposed parking areas and the retaining wall system, (ii) An access and construction easement to the City of Charlottesville in order for Parks and Recreation to construct a connection from Meadow Creek to the Shopping Center. (This addition to the application was most recent in efforts to eliminate Planning Commission’s concern that this proposal would encroach on an existing green amenity that is in close proximity to the restored Meadow Creek where there might be a missed opportunity for connectivity.) Discussion: Per Sec. 34-1120(b)(6)(3), City Council (in granting a modification or waiver) may allow the disturbance of a portion of the slope, but may determine that there are some features or areas that cannot be disturbed. These include, but are not limited to: large stand of trees, rock outcroppings and slopes greater than 60%. The Subject Property’s critical slope The application materials provide the following information relevant to your evaluation of this request: • Large stands of trees: The critical slopes are heavily vegetated where approximately 90% of the area contains vegetation. The proposal indicates that approximately 0.77 acres (33,500 SF) of the critical slope area’s vegetation would be disturbed and 0.63 acres (27,500 SF) of the critical slope area’s vegetation preserved. Note: The Landscape Plan proposes 12,488 SF or 0.29 acres of new plantings, including a series of evergreen shrubs to screen retaining walls. The proposed cover meets and exceeds the 10% cover requirement per Sec. 34-869 which equates to 9670 SF cover required for the project area. • Rock outcroppings: None. • Slopes greater than 60%: None. City Council shall consider the potential negative impacts of the disturbance and regrading of critical slopes, and of resulting new slopes and/or retaining walls. City council may impose conditions as it deems necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare and to insure that development will be consistent with the purpose and intent of these critical slopes provisions. Conditions shall clearly specify the negative impacts that they will mitigate. *Please see the staff report (Attachment 2) for a more detailed analysis on the above mentioned features and also includes the Critical Slope Ordinance for reference. The Planning Commission considered the most recent version of this application dated August 15, 2017 at their regular meeting on September 12, 2017. Planning Commission reviews the critical slope waiver based off of Finding 1, noted in Code Sec. 34-1120(b)(6)(d.i) as, “the public benefits of allowing disturbance of a critical slope outweigh the public benefits of the undisturbed slope (public benefits include, but are not limited to, stormwater and erosion control that maintains the stability of the property and/or the quality of adjacent or environmentally sensitive areas; groundwater recharge; reduced stormwater velocity; minimization of impervious surfaces; and stabilization of otherwise unstable slopes)” or Finding 2 noted in Code Sec. 34-1120(b)(6)(d.ii) as, “due to unusual size, topography, shape, location, or other unusual physical conditions, or existing development of a property, one (1) or more of these critical slopes provisions would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use, reuse or redevelopment of such property or would result in significant degradation of the site or adjacent properties.” Staff noted the following in their staff analysis regarding the critical slope waiver request: • The overall site has an excess of parking with what the City parking regulations require (proposed parking that takes into account Hillsdale Drive and future improvements shown in Concept Plan – 1,027 spaces or 179 spaces over City requirements). While staff recognizes the excess in the number of parking spaces as a result of this project may serve a future need as the development of this site improves and changes over time, staff reserves the concern that this site has an excess of parking. • The series of improvements (landscape improvements, future building site and pedestrian connection improvements) shown in the Concept Exhibit Series will provide a public benefit by reducing impervious area, increase connectivity and improve the overall aesthetics with increased tree cover/large trees lining the improved building fronts. Staff’s only concern is that the improvements shown in the Concept Plan are not tied directly to the current site plan amendment currently under review in association with this critical slope waiver request. The current site plan amendment is limited to the parking additions to the North Wing, the retaining walls and proposed multiuse trail/greenway/variable easement. Staff has included in the proposed resolution a condition that any future site plan amendment specific to this site must comply with the improvements shown in the Concept Plan series provided in this application. • The proposed trail, greenway and variable easement shown in the Proposed Seminole Square and Pepsi Trailway Exhibit provides a public benefit by creating increased connectivity to Route 29 and a future connection from Meadow Creek to the shopping center. In light of the listed concerns above, staff recommended that should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval, they do so based on Finding 1 with the following seven (7) conditions: (1) The existing stormwater easement that was created in 1985 be vacated, as there is no apparent reason that the City should be maintaining any part of this private facility. Vacation of the existing easement could also serve as a public benefit by taking the maintenance burden of a private facility off of the public tax dollar. (2) A detailed survey by a licensed professional should be provided following construction to capture any deviation from the approved plans. Upon completion of the as-built survey, the stormwater routing analysis should be verified using the as-built data. (3) The improvements depicted in the Concept Plan Exhibit Series dated ‘received January 13, 2017’ (Seminole Square Shopping Center Base Exhibit, Parking Calculation, Impervious Calculation) attached to this critical slope waiver request shall be incorporated in the site plan amendment submitted for future redevelopment of the site and further reflect staff’s recommended modifications prior to site plan approval: a. Eliminate the proposed pedestrian crossing along Hillsdale given its proximity to the signalized intersection b. Ensure proposed pedestrian areas meet ADA standards (including curb ramps, minimum width and cross-slope) c. Ensure proposed bicycle racks are located close to building entrance, visible from the multi-use trail, and the number of racks meet the standards outlined in Sec. 34-881. (4) Construction begins after the Hillsdale Road extension project is complete. (5) Proposed 8’ trail: is asphalt, includes a buffer no less than three (3) feet from parking lot and the proposed fence’s type and height is determined with Parks and Recreation Department prior to site plan approval. (6) The 10’ easement proposed to encompass the 8’ trail is strictly for maintenance of the trail itself and not the retaining wall. The easement documentation shall be worked out with City Parks, NDS and City Attorney’s staff prior to site plan approval. (7) The previously submitted routing analysis for the existing stormwater basin between Seminole Square and Pepsi shall be revised and resubmitted to Engineering staff should the retaining walls located on the Seminole Square site require adjustment due to development activities on either the Seminole Square property or the Pepsi property. The Planning Commission discussed the following in regards to this application at their September 12, 2017 meeting: • If the improvements proposed (e.g. trail and greenway) equate to a public benefit at the expense of encroaching on stormwater facility • If the stormwater facility, having slopes that are “man-made,” is a feature that, if preserved, would outweigh the property owner’s proposal to disturb the critical slopes in order to adapt to Hillsdale Drive and make the desired improvements to the shopping center Citizen Engagement: There was no public input regarding this application. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Priority Areas: The proposed pedestrian improvements and proposed multiuse trail/greenway/variable easement align with the City Council Vision of A Connected Community and Strategic Plan, Goal 3.3, “provide a variety of transportation and mobility options.” Allowing for the shopping center to expand and re-allocate space for future building and aesthetic improvements aligns with the City Council Strategic Plan, Goal 4.3, “Grow and retain viable businesses.” Budgetary Impact: N/A Recommendation: The Planning Commission considered this matter at their September 12, 2017 meeting. The Commission took the following action: Mr. Santoski moved to recommend approval of the critical slope waiver with conditions for Tax Map 41C, Parcel 3.1 (Seminole Square Shopping Center), based on a finding that due to unusual physical conditions, or the existing development of the property, compliance with the City’s critical slopes regulations would prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use or development of the property per City Code 34-1120(b)(6)(d.ii). Planning Commission recommended the following conditions as being necessary to mitigate the potential adverse impacts of approving the waiver in the location requested: 1. The existing stormwater easement that was created in 1985 be vacated, as there is no apparent reason that the City should be maintaining any part of this private facility. Vacation of the existing easement could also serve as a public benefit by taking the maintenance burden of a private facility off of the public tax dollar. 2. A detailed survey by a licensed professional should be provided following construction to capture any deviation from the approved plans. Upon completion of the as-built survey, the stormwater routing analysis should be verified using the as-built data. 3. The improvements depicted in the Concept Plan Exhibit Series dated ‘received January 13, 2017’ (Seminole Square Shopping Center Base Exhibit, Parking Calculation, Impervious Calculation) attached to this critical slope waiver request shall be incorporated in the site plan amendment submitted for future redevelopment of the site and further reflect staff’s recommended modifications prior to site plan approval: a. Eliminate the proposed pedestrian crossing along Hillsdale given its proximity to the signalized intersection b. Ensure proposed pedestrian areas meet ADA standards (including curb ramps, minimum width and cross-slope) c. Ensure proposed bicycle racks are located close to building entrance, visible from the multi-use trail, and the number of racks meet the standards outlined in Sec. 34-881. 4. Construction begins after the Hillsdale Road extension project is complete. 5. Proposed 8’ trail: is asphalt, includes a buffer no less than three (3) feet from parking lot and the proposed fence’s type and height is determined with Parks and Recreation Department prior to site plan approval. 6. The 10’ easement proposed to encompass the 8’ trail is strictly for maintenance of the trail itself and not the retaining wall. The easement documentation shall be worked out with City Parks, NDS and City Attorney’s staff prior to site plan approval. 7. The previously submitted routing analysis for the existing stormwater basin between Seminole Square and Pepsi shall be revised and resubmitted to Engineering staff should the retaining walls located on the Seminole Square site require adjustment due to development activities on either the Seminole Square property or the Pepsi property. Ms. Dowell seconded the motion. The Commission voted 4-2 (Green-Lahendro) to recommend approval of the critical slope waiver. Alternatives: City Council has several alternatives: (1) by motion, take action to approve the attached resolution (granting a waiver of critical slope provisions as recommended by the Planning Commission); (2) by motion, request changes to the attached Resolution, and then approve a waiver of critical slope provisions (3) by motion, defer action on the waiver of critical slope provisions (4) by motion, deny the requested waiver of critical slope provisions. Attachment: (1) Proposed Resolution approving a Critical Slope Waiver (2) Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 28, 2017 with Application Materials attached RESOLUTION APPROVING A REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CRITICAL SLOPES PROVISIONS PURSUANT TO CITY CODE SECTION 34-1120(B)(6) FOR SEMINOLE SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER WHEREAS, Towers Limited Partnership, owner of property designated on City Tax Map 41C, Parcel 3.1, consisting of approximately 18.81 acres of land, and known as Seminole Square Shopping Center (the “Property”), seeks a waiver of the critical slopes requirements of City Code Sec. 34-1120(b)(6) in connection with the construction of two (2) segmented retaining walls, totaling 1,180’ in length, along the northern portion of the Property (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered this request at their regular meeting on September 12, 2017, and recommended approval of the request, with conditions, to waive the critical slopes requirements, pursuant to City Code Sec. 34-1120(b)(6); and WHEREAS, upon consideration of the information and materials provided by the applicant, and the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the City Council finds and determines pursuant to City Code Sec. 34-1120(b)(6)(d)(ii) that due to unusual size, topography, shape, location, or other unusual physical conditions, or existing development of the Project, one (1) or more of these critical slopes provisions would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use, reuse or redevelopment of such property; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council for the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the request by Towers Limited Partnership for a waiver of the critical slopes requirements for the above-described Project on the Property, is hereby granted, conditioned upon the following: 1. The Applicant shall petition City Council to vacate the existing 1985 stormwater easement, in order to transfer the burden of maintenance of the stormwater facility from the City to the owner of the Property. 2. A detailed survey by a licensed professional should be provided following construction of the retaining wall to capture any deviation from the approved plans. Upon completion of the as-built survey, the stormwater routing analysis should be verified using the as-built data. 3. The improvements depicted in the Concept Plan Exhibit Series attached to the critical slopes waiver request shall be incorporated in any site plan amendment for future redevelopment of the Property, including the following modifications recommended by staff: a. Elimination of the proposed pedestrian crossing along Hillsdale Drive given its proximity to the signalized intersection; b. Proposed pedestrian areas shall meet ADA standards (including curb ramps, minimum width and cross-slope); and c. Proposed bicycle racks shall be located close to the building entrance, visible from the multi-use trail, and the number of bicycle racks shall meet the standards outlined in City Code Sec. 34-881 (in effect on the date of this SUP approval). 4. Construction shall not begin until after the Hillsdale Road extension project is complete. 5. The proposed 8’ wide greenbelt trail shall be asphalt, and include a buffer no less than three (3) feet from the parking lot, and the proposed type and height of the fence will be determined by Parks & Recreation staff prior to site plan approval. 6. Proposed 10’ wide easement encompassing the 8’ wide greenbelt trail shall be for maintenance of the trail itself and not for any improvements placed within the easement by the Property Owner (i.e. the retaining wall), which shall be maintained by the Property owner. A deed of easement from the Property owner to the City, in form approved by the City Attorney, for the greenbelt trail shall be signed prior to site plan approval. 7. The previously submitted routing analysis for the existing stormwater basin between Seminole Square and Pepsi shall be revised and resubmitted to Engineering staff should the retaining wall located on the Seminole Square site require adjustment due to the development activities on either the adjoining Pepsi property or the Seminole Square property. City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services Memorandum To: City of Charlottesville Planning Commission From: Heather Newmyer, AICP Date of Memo: August 28, 2017 RE: Seminole Square Critical Slope Waiver Request Updated August 2017 Background On January 26, 2013, Scott Collins, on behalf of Towers Limited Partnership, requested a waiver from Section 34-1120(b) of the City Code, relating to the construction of two, segmented retaining walls, totaling 1180’ in length, along the northern portion of the Seminole Square Shopping Center property, containing existing slopes greater than or equal to 25%. The critical slope waiver request went before the Planning Commission on June 11, 2013 where the Planning Commission deferred the application due to there being a lack of information which included the need for an engineering analysis showing the proposed retaining wall would not decrease the capacity of the existing stormwater management facility (basin). On March 30, 2016, Scott Collins, on behalf of Great Eastern Management, resubmitted the critical slope waiver request described above with the addition of an engineering analysis (Attachment 5) in efforts to show how the proposed retaining walls would affect the existing basin using current conditions. A site plan amendment proposing additional parking for the shopping center was resubmitted at the same time as the critical slope waiver request and is currently under review by staff, having gone through several rounds of staff comments. Engineering staff has worked with the applicant through the review of the site plan amendment and critical slope waiver request to acquire the engineering analysis needed for staff to make a recommendation. In addition, staff met with the applicant November 17, 2016 to discuss the critical slope waiver request and its relation to the overall future development plan for Seminole Square Shopping Center. On March 14, 2017, the March 2016 application went before the Planning Commission. The engineering analysis provided by the applicant indicated the proposed modification (addition of retaining walls) to the existing stormwater management facility would not adversely impact the facility; this was a major concern in the review of the January 2013 request. One of staff’s concerns was the project area already being “over parked” per City standards without the proposed additional parking of this request. The applicant noted that although the overall site has surplus parking, the parking relative to the North Wing and the building’s square footages is not enough and that part of the plan is to add additional buildings in the future that will take away parking in the area that fronts Hillsdale. While staff noted the Concept Plan submitted with the waiver request depicted reduced impervious area, provided increased connectivity and increased tree cover lining the building fronts, staff also noted the concern that the Concept Plan was not tied directly to the current site plan in review for the retaining walls/additional parking and that there was no set date for when a site plan amendment showing the Concept Plan improvements would be submitted for review and constructed. The Planning Commission voiced their concern that this proposal would encroach on an existing green amenity that is in close proximity to the restored Meadow Creek and there was a missed opportunity for connectivity. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the critical slope waiver for Tax Map 41C, Parcel 3.1, Seminole Square Shopping Center with a vote 4-2 (Santoski-Keesecker). Following the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the applicant withdrew their current application prior to it moving on to City Council. On August 15, 2017, Scott Collins, on behalf of Great Eastern Management, submitted an updated critical slope waiver request in efforts to respond to Planning Commissions concerns voiced in March 2017. The updated critical slope waiver request includes the same information presented in the March 2017 application, except: (i) a modified Critical Slope Waiver Request Supplement and (ii) the addition of an eight (8) foot multi-purpose travel way (constructed to the City of Charlottesville design standards) and variable width greenway (13’ – 25’ in width) between the proposed parking areas and the retaining wall system (See Attachment 3 – Proposed Seminole Square & Pepsi Trailway Exhibit). The staff report (Attachment 1) providing analysis on this request is significantly the same as the staff report provided at the March 14, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. Additional analysis provided regarding the modified critical slope waiver request supplement and the proposed trail, greenway and public easement will be reflected in the text in the color blue for ease of finding new analysis based off of the updated information given by the applicant. In addition, the suggested motions are included at the end of the staff report for Planning Commission to follow. Attachments 1) Staff Report, August 29, 2017 2) Critical Slopes Waiver Request Supplement, August 15, 2017 3) Proposed Seminole Square & Pepsi Trailway Exhibit 4) Concept Plan Exhibit Series – Seminole Square Shopping Center Base Exhibit, Parking Calculation, Impervious Calculation, dated ‘received January 13, 2017’ 5) Seminole Basin Routing Report by Townes Site Engineering 6) Critical Slopes Ordinance 7) Engineering Department Review 8) Seminole Square Expansion Site Plan, January 16, 2017 Attachment 1 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT REQUEST FOR A WAIVER: CRITICAL SLOPES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: September 12, 2017 Project Planner: Heather Newmyer, AICP Date of Staff Report: August 29, 2017 Applicant: David Mitchell, Great Eastern Management Applicant’s Representative: Scott Collins, Collins Engineering Current Property Owner: Towers Limited Partnership Application Information Property Street Address: 129, 151, 159, 167, 123, 175, & 185 Seminole Court Tax Map/Parcel #: Tax Map 41C, Parcel 3.1 Total Square Footage/Acreage Site: 819,364 SF (18.81 acres) Total Area of Critical Slopes on Parcel: 1.56 acres (8%) Area of Proposed Critical Slope Disturbance: 0.86 acres (4.6%) Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Plan) Designation: Commercial Current Zoning Classification: HW (Highway Corridor District) Tax Status: The City Treasurer’s office indicates that there are no delinquent taxes owed on the subject properties at the time of the writing of this staff report. Application Details Scott Collins, on behalf of Great Eastern Management, is requesting a waiver from Section 34-1120(b) of the City Code (Critical Slope Ordinance) to allow for the construction of two, segmented retaining walls, totaling 1180’ in length, along the northern portion of the Seminole Square Shopping Center property, containing existing slopes greater than or equal to 25%. The applicant states the reason for the critical slope waiver request is to accommodate redevelopment of the Seminole Square Shopping Center. The applicant states Seminole Square is proposing to modify and redevelop other portions of the property with landscaping improvements, future building sites to help create a more attractive shopping center along Hillsdale Drive; and, as a result of the improvements in conjunction with Hillsdale Drive, parking is being proposed in the North Wing to accommodate parking spaces that are lost due to proposed improvements/construction of Hillsdale Drive. The site plan proposes 88 new parking spaces and supporting retaining walls located to the North and directly behind existing buildings at Seminole Square should the critical slope waiver be approved (14 new spaces located behind the existing Plaza Azteca on Tax Map 41C Parcel 3.3 and 74 new spaces and retaining walls located behind the series of retail buildings on the north side of Seminole Square on Tax Map 41C Parcel 3.1). Existing critical slopes areas located on this Property include 1.56 acres/8% percent of the project site. The applicable definition of “critical slope” is as follows: Attachment 1 Any slope whose grade is 25% or greater, and (a) a portion of the slope has a horizontal run of greater than 20 feet, and its total area is 6,000 SF or greater, and (b) a portion of the slope is within 200 feet of a waterway. See City Code Sec. 34-1120(b)(2). Based on the information presented within the application materials, Staff verifies that the area for which this waiver is sought meets all of the above-referenced components of the definition of “critical slope”. The application materials also provide the following information relevant to your evaluation of this request: • Large stands of trees: The critical slopes are heavily vegetated where approximately 90% of the area contains vegetation. The proposal indicates that approximately 0.77 acres (33,500 SF) of the critical slope area’s vegetation would be disturbed and 0.63 acres (27,500 SF) of the critical slope area’s vegetation preserved. Note: The Landscape Plan (Attachment 8) proposes 12,488 SF or 0.29 acres of new plantings, including a series of evergreen shrubs to screen retaining walls. The proposed cover meets and exceeds the 10% cover requirement per Sec. 34-869 which equates to 9670 SF cover required for the project area. • Rock outcroppings: None. • Slopes greater than 60%: None. • Identification/ description of unusual topography or other physical conditions at the site: There is currently an existing stormwater management facility in the critical slopes area. There is a stormwater management easement in the critical slopes area up to the 416 contour elevation that was granted to the City in 1985, however the reason why the City has a stormwater easement on a facility that benefits private property owners and does not receive water from City owned property is unknown to staff. In addition, there is not currently an adequate means to access the easement area to perform maintenance and construction of the retaining walls will further decrease accessibility to the facility. • Waterway within 200 feet: A stream that feeds into Meadow Creek is within 200 feet of the critical slope area. • Location of other areas of the Property, outside Critical Slopes areas, that fit the definition of a “building site” and could accommodate this proposed development: The proposed 88 parking spaces that are proposed in conjunction with the proposed retaining walls are to serve Seminole Square Shopping Center, specifically the series of retail buildings to the North of the property. The applicant states portions of the existing parking will be impacted due to Hillsdale Drive Extension (HDE). HDE is responsible for the North Wing’s net loss of 56 parking spaces and the Kroger site’s net loss of 16 spaces. Overall, HDE will remove 72 parking spaces. The applicant states that, in addition to HDE’s impact, the applicant’s proposed landscaping and building improvements (See Concept Plan Exhibit Series, Attachment 4) will impact parking. The applicant has provided a Base Exhibit in the Concept Plan Exhibit Series (Attachment 4) reflecting the parking calculation for the existing breakdown of uses (taking the proposed Kroger building into account; final site plan approved August 2, 2016) versus the proposed parking (taking into account the future Kroger building, HDE, and the applicant’s series of Attachment 1 proposed landscape/future building improvements). Because this property contains a mix of uses, similar to Barracks Road Shopping Center, staff looks at parking calculations for the whole shopping center taking into account each use. This method was previously used for the now approved Kroger site plan located in the same shopping center (Please note: Kroger has recently indicated it will not be locating in this shopping center; however, the site plan has not been withdrawn and remains valid until August 2, 2021). Below is a breakdown for existing parking, proposed parking, and parking required per City Code Sec. 34-984: Total Existing Parking (with Kroger building) = 1,030 spaces Total Proposed Parking (with series of landscape improvements/future building) = 1,027 spaces Parking required per City Code Sec. 34-984: 848 spaces The applicant states the proposed parking is to accommodate parking spaces that are lost due to the proposed site improvements (Attachment 4) and construction of Hillsdale Drive and is aimed to bring the shopping center back to its total parking pre-Hillsdale. According to City parking requirements, the shopping center is “over-parked” and it could be argued there is a “building site” outside of the critical slope area. Please see the Project Review/Analysis section below for more discussion. Vicinity Map Seminole Square Shopping Center Attachment 1 Project Area Standard of Review A copy of Sec. 34-1120(b) (Critical Slopes Regulations) is attached for your reference. The provisions of Sec. 34-1120(b) must guide your analysis and recommendations. It is the Planning Commission’s (“PC”) responsibility, when a waiver application has been filed, to review the application and make a recommendation to City Council as to whether or not the waiver should be granted based off the following: • (i) The public benefits of allowing disturbance of a critical slope outweigh the public benefits of the undisturbed slope (public benefits include, but are not limited to, stormwater and erosion control that maintains the stability of the property and/or the quality of adjacent or environmentally sensitive areas; groundwater recharge; reduced stormwater velocity; minimization of impervious surfaces; and stabilization of otherwise unstable slopes); or • (ii) Due to unusual size, topography, shape, location, or other unusual physical conditions, or existing development of a property, one (1) or more of these critical slopes provisions would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use, reuse or redevelopment of such property or would result in significant degradation of the site or adjacent properties. If the recommendation is for City Council to grant the requested waiver, the PC may also make recommendations as to the following: • Whether any specific features or areas within the proposed area of disturbance should remain undisturbed (for example: large stands of trees; rock outcroppings; slopes greater than 60%, etc.)? • Whether there are any conditions that could be imposed by City Council that would mitigate any possible adverse impacts of the proposed disturbance? Project Review / Analysis The applicant indicates the area of critical slopes that would be disturbed by the development is located to the north of the existing shopping center, where the slopes are predominately man made. The applicant states these slopes were created over thirty years ago when the property was first developed. Attachment 1 The critical slopes area contains an existing stormwater management facility and stream that leads to Meadow Creek. The City holds a stormwater management easement for the stormwater management facility up to the 416 contour elevation, which was designed to accommodate a 100-year flood event. The area of critical slopes accounts for 8% of the total site area (18.8 acres), where less than an acre (0.86 acre) of critical slopes would be disturbed. Each applicant for a critical slopes waiver is required to articulate a justification for the waiver, and to address how the land disturbance, as proposed, will satisfy the purpose and intent of the Critical Slopes Regulations (as found within City Code Sec. 34-1120(b)(1), attached). If it wishes to grant a waiver, the City Council is required to make one of two specific findings: either (1) public benefits of allowing disturbance of the critical slope outweigh the benefits afforded by the existing undisturbed slope, see City Code 34-1120(b)(6)(d.i), OR (2) due to unusual physical conditions or existing development of a site, the critical slopes restrictions would unreasonably limit the use or development of the property, see City Code 34-1120(b)(6)(d.ii.). The applicant has provided information in the attached critical slopes waiver application for both Finding #1 and Finding #2. Applicant’s justification for Finding #1 *Staff items in bold The applicant states that with the development and pending opening of Kroger Grocery new stores as well as the construction of Hillsdale Drive through the property, the owners of Seminole Square are in the planning process of modifying and redeveloping other portions of the property for landscaping improvements, building renovations and new building construction (Note: one building pad site is featured in Attachment 4) with the goal of creating a shopping center that will interact better with the newly constructed Hillsdale Drive. The applicant states that with the installation of the retaining walls to support additional parking, the parking that would have been lost will be accommodated for and will allow for overall site improvements. The “proposed landscaping improvements within the shopping center will reduce the heat island affect from the sea of asphalt within the Seminole Square shopping center” and “development areas will be established, with open space and landscaping areas around the future building pads.” The applicant further states, “these building areas will be located along Hillsdale Drive, helping to screen the existing parking areas when the future buildings are constructed (See Attachment 4). The applicant also states the plan proposes to provide increased connectivity within the entire shopping center by proposing sidewalks and ADA routes that will connect to Hillsdale Drive, Seminole Court, adjacent properties and other locations within the shopping center. In addition to the shopping center improvements, the applicant is proposing to construct an eight (8) foot asphalt multi-purpose trail along the northern property line between the retaining walls and new parking area as shown in the exhibit (Attachment 3). The multi-purpose trail is proposed to be located within a variable width Greenway (13’ – 25’) that will include large shade trees, ornamental trees and shrubs to shade the trail. The applicant notes a 10 foot easement that covers the trail will be dedicated to the City working with the Parks and Recreation Department. The applicant states the trail will provide a mid-block connection for pedestrians from Route 29 through the Seminole Square Shopping Center, connect to the multi-purpose trail along Hillsdale, and provide a future connection to the Meadow Creek trail system. The applicant is proposing in addition to the 8’ trail and 13’-25’ greenway a variable width Attachment 1 access and construction easement to the City of Charlottesville in order for Parks and Recreation to construct a connection from Meadow Creek to the Shopping Center. While staff sees that the combination of Hillsdale Drive land acquisition, the future site improvement (landscaping/future building pads, where one future building pad is depicted on Attachment 4) and proposed parking behind the north wing buildings will lead to a post-construction total number of parking spaces that nearly equal what the total number of parking spaces was pre-development (existing: 1,030 spaces vs. proposed: 1,027 spaces), staff recognizes the site will be 179 spaces over what the City parking regulations require. The applicant provided exhibits entitled Seminole Square Shopping Center Base Exhibit, Parking Calculation, and Impervious Calculation, collectively “Concept Plan Exhibit Series,” (See Attachment 4) that propose a series of improvements to the site. The applicant states they will not move forward with the proposed improvements shown in the Concept Plan Exhibit Series (landscaping islands, future building pad site, and pedestrian connections) without the critical slope waiver. The applicant states their reason for this is the waiver will allow for the construction of additional parking spaces that bring the total number of parking spaces for the shopping center close to the total number of spaces pre-Hillsdale Drive Extension and pre-development of proposed improvements. It is the owners’ desire to maintain that level of parking. Staff notes that the new building site shown on Attachment 4 would require compliance with City code landscape cover requirements for the area disturbed. While portions of the proposed landscaped areas shown in Attachment 4 would be required for the new building site, staff notes there are improvements depicted outside of the new construction site shown that are not required by the developer. Staff believes these improvements would improve the site’s overall aesthetics as well as provide an environmental benefit (the proposed plan reduces the site’s impervious area from 0.55 acre to 0.34 acre: 10.6% non-impervious cover). *Staff does want to note the concern that the Concept Plan is not tied directly to the current site plan in review, which only shows the retaining walls/additional parking. There was no set date for when a site plan amendment showing the Concept Plan improvements would be submitted for review and constructed. There is a proposed condition should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this waiver request that at the very least notes any future site plan amendment submitted for this site would have to comply with the improvements shown in the Concept Plan. Please see Staff Recommendation section below. Proposed trail, greenway and variable easement: Staff agrees that the proposed trail, greenway and variable width easement to Charlottesville Parks and Recreation Department does provide a public benefit by creating increased connectivity with increased vegetation to enhance the remaining green space after the retaining walls are constructed. The applicant has met with the Charlottesville Parks and Recreation Department where Parks staff is amenable to these improvements, with only the following concerns: • Trail should not be too close to proposed parking so there is no vehicle parking intrusion (3’ buffer recommended) • Specify on site plan the trail material as being asphalt • Work with Parks Department to agree on fence type and height to ensure safety *These concerns have been addressed in proposed conditions in the Staff Recommendation section. Attachment 1 Staff believes the façade of the backs of the buildings that will face the proposed trail are an important piece of the proposal as they will either engage or disengage pedestrians. The buildings, specifically the corners closest to Hillsdale Drive, should be articulated in such a way to engage and invite pedestrians to travel along this trail. Although this is not necessarily an issue that is considered at the critical slope waiver request, staff mentions it as this site is within the Entrance Corridor and is subject to review of the Entrance Corridor Review Board (ERB) per Sec. 34-309(a)(3). Staff highlights additional factors addressed by the applicant below. The full justification can be found in Attachment 2. Stormwater and erosion-related impacts on adjacent properties: The applicant states the modification to the existing stormwater management facility with the addition of retaining walls will not adversely impact the facility. Engineering staff has reviewed the supplemental engineering analysis provided by the applicant and agrees with this statement. The applicant states that there is an easement in favor of the City for stormwater management. While there is an existing stormwater easement dedicated to the City for maintenance, the easement in itself is a burden to the City as it requires maintenance of a facility that primarily treats runoff from non-City owned property. City efforts should be dedicated to facilities that were constructed to City standard, are maintainable and serve the City and/or general public. This easement does none of these and it is staff’s recommendation that the easement be vacated as a condition of this critical slope waiver, if granted. The applicant states there is existing erosion along the bank and that the proposed retaining walls will eliminate this erosion potential. Engineering staff would like to point out that the term ‘bank’ in this case is likely a reference to the slopes leading to the stream. While there may be some spot areas where erosion is occurring along the slopes, any stream bank erosion that is occurring will continue to exist as the walls are located above the top of the stream bank. Stormwater and erosion-related impacts to environmentally sensitive areas such as stream and wetlands: The applicant states that no streams or wetlands are proposed to be impacted with the filling operations. The applicant has incorporated additional erosion and sediment control measures and has conceived a sequence that will limit disturbed area to the stream. These items will aid in protecting the stream below these critical slopes, however, staff recognizes there is always the possibility that, despite a designer and contractor’s best efforts, Mother Nature can overcome any manmade effort. Increased stormwater velocity due to loss of vegetation: The applicant states stormwater velocity due to the loss of vegetation and impervious area will be mitigated with the modification of the stormwater management outlet structure which will result in detaining the post-development condition for 10-year storm event peak outflow to the 10-year peak flow for the pre-development conditions. The structure will provide detention, prior to releasing the flow into the existing channel. Engineering staff confirms this will comply with code requirements. Applicant’s justification for Finding #2 The applicant states the addition of the parking area to the north allows for the center to accommodate these proposed site improvements while still providing the necessary parking for the center and the tenants and that without the extension of the property, the proposed improvements could not be Attachment 1 completed for the center. If the improvements were constructed on the property (future building and landscape improvements) and the retaining wall and 88 spaces were not constructed, the total parking for the site would equal 939 spaces, still achieving and exceeding what is required by City code (848 spaces). Staff believes the justification for Finding #2 is invalid. Staff Recommendation Engineering staff has confirmed the addition of the retaining wall will not adversely impact the existing stormwater management facility based off of the supplemental engineering analysis provided by the applicant. Engineering staff has confirmed the application has incorporated additional erosion and sediment measures and conceived a sequence that will limit the disturbed area to the stream. These items will aid in the protecting the stream below the critical slopes. Because of these confirmations, staff is able to consider whether there is a public benefit associated with this proposal. While staff recognizes the excess in the number of parking spaces as a result of this project may serve a future need as the development of this site improves and changes over time, staff reserves the concern that this site has an excess in parking per City Code. Staff believes the following factors present a stronger argument for a public benefit in Finding #1 than the original submission in January 2013; where Finding #1 is the public benefit of allowing disturbance of the critical slope that outweighs the benefits afforded by the existing undisturbed slope: • Vacation of the existing stormwater management easement would serve as a public benefit to the City by taking the maintenance burden of a private facility off of the public tax dollar. • The improvements shown on the Concept Plan Exhibit Series (Attachment 4) will provide a public benefit by reducing impervious area from 0.55 acre to 0.34 acre resulting in 10.6% non- impervious cover of the 3.20 acres shown for improvements. The proposed improvements also provide increased connectivity throughout the site and improved aesthetics with increased tree cover/large trees lining the improved building fronts. Staff believes these combined improvements provide a public benefit that outweighs a parking number that exceeds City code requirements as the applicant is unwilling to provide such improvements without increased parking. Staff’s only modifications to the Concept Plan Exhibit Series would be to eliminate the proposed pedestrian crossing along Hillsdale given its proximity to the signalized intersection and to ensure that 1) proposed pedestrian areas meet ADA standards (including curb ramps, minimum width and cross-slope) and 2) proposed bicycle racks are located close to building entrance, visible from the multi-use trail, and the number of racks meet the standards outlined in Sec. 34-881. Staff reserves concern that the improvements shown in the Concept Plan Exhibit Series are not tied to the site plan amendment currently under review in association with this critical slope waiver request and there is no indication of when such improvements would occur on-site in the future. Should Planning Commission recommend approval of the critical slope waiver, staff recommends the following conditions be part of the recommendation: 1. The existing stormwater easement that was created in 1985 be vacated, as there is no apparent reason that the City should be maintaining any part of this private facility. Vacation of the existing easement could also serve as a public benefit by taking the maintenance burden of a private facility off of the public tax dollar. *Alternatively, if the critical slope waiver is granted and the easement is not vacated, it is recommended that an access road be constructed as part of the wall construction so that Attachment 1 maintenance can actually be performed by the City. The existing easement would also have to be expanded to include the access road. 2. A detailed survey by a licensed professional should be provided following construction to capture any deviation from the approved plans. Upon completion of the as-built survey, the stormwater routing analysis should be verified using the as-built data. 3. The improvements depicted in the Concept Plan Exhibit Series dated ‘received January 13, 2017’ (Seminole Square Shopping Center Base Exhibit, Parking Calculation, Impervious Calculation) attached to this critical slope waiver request shall be incorporated in the site plan amendment submitted for future redevelopment of the site and further reflect staff’s recommended modifications prior to site plan approval: a. Eliminate the proposed pedestrian crossing along Hillsdale given its proximity to the signalized intersection b. Ensure proposed pedestrian areas meet ADA standards (including curb ramps, minimum width and cross-slope) c. Ensure proposed bicycle racks are located close to building entrance, visible from the multi-use trail, and the number of racks meet the standards outlined in Sec. 34-881. 4. Construction begins after the Hillsdale Road extension project is complete. 5. Proposed 8’ trail: is asphalt, includes a buffer no less than three (3) feet from parking lot and the proposed fence’s type and height is determined with Parks and Recreation Department prior to site plan approval. 6. The 10’ easement proposed to encompass the 8’ trail is strictly for maintenance of the trail itself and not the retaining wall. The easement documentation shall be worked out with City Parks, NDS and City Attorney’s staff prior to site plan approval. 7. The previously submitted routing analysis for the existing stormwater basin between Seminole Square and Pepsi shall be revised and resubmitted to Engineering staff should the retaining walls located on the Seminole Square site require adjustment due to development activities on either the Seminole Square property or the Pepsi property. Suggested Motions 1. “I move to recommend approval of the critical slope waiver for Tax Map 41C, Parcel 3.1, Seminole Square Shopping Center as requested, with no reservations or conditions, based on a finding that [reference at least one]: • The public benefits of allowing the disturbance outweigh the benefits afforded by the existing undisturbed critical slope, per City Code 34-1120(b)(6)(d.i) • Due to unusual physical conditions, or the existing development of the property, compliance with the City’s critical slopes regulations would prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use or development of the property. And this motion for approval is subject to the following: _____the following features or areas should remain undisturbed [specify] _____the following conditions are recommended as being necessary to mitigate the potential adverse impacts of approving the waiver in the location requested: [specify] Attachment 3 PROPOSED SEMINOLE SQUARE & PEPSI TRAILWAY EXHIBIT 200 GARRETT STREET, SUITE K, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902 OFFICE: 434-293-3729 GRAPHIC SCALE ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 60 ft. Attachment 4 : : : : : : : : : : : ” E LANE ING - FIR NO PARK GCO EXISTING E LANE ING - FIR NO PARK DRAINAGE DITCH GCO GCO(2) J:\SDSKPROJ\20150301\Drawings\SEMINOLE SQUARE BASE FILE 11-23-16.dwg, Base Exhibit EXISTING RETENTION STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY GCO GCO(2) GCO Townes APPROXIMATE LIMITS SITE ENGINEERING OF STREAM BUFFER ASK US HOW : : : : : : : : : : : ” J:\SDSKPROJ\20150301\Drawings\SEMINOLE SQUARE BASE FILE 11-23-16.dwg, Parking Calc Exhibit LANE ING - FIRE NO PARK GCO EXISTING E LANE ING - FIR NO PARK DRAINAGE DITCH GCO GCO(2) Townes EXISTING RETENTION SITE ENGINEERING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY GCO ASK US HOW GCO(2) J:\SDSKPROJ\20150301\Drawings\SEMINOLE SQUARE BASE FILE 11-23-16.dwg, Impervious Calc Exhibit GCO(2) GCO(2) ASK US HOW SITE ENGINEERING Townes Attachment 5 *The full report (over 1,000 pages), includes Models 1-5 referenced in the summary below and is available at Neighborhood Development January 13, 2017 Services. Please contact newmyerh@charlottesville.org City of Charlottesville Neighborhood Development Services if you would like access to full Marty Silman, P.E. copy. City Engineer RE: Seminole Square and Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company Plant Expansion Seminole Basin - Stormwater Report Narrative Dear Mr. Silman, The routing calculations submitted for the Seminole Basin is to evaluate the impact of the proposed Seminole Square and Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company Expansion projects on the Seminole Basin. This report is to accompany the routing calculations for the five (5) models submitted for the Seminole Basin, Revised 1-12-17, prepared by Townes Site Engineering. The five models are discussed in details in this report. Should you have any questions regarding this report or the associated basin routing calculations please do not hesitate to contact me, I am available at your convenience. Sincerely, Mona R. Gabriel, P.E. Associate, Project Manager SEMINOLE BASIN ROUTING REPORT Seminole Square and Pepsi-Cola Bottling Expansion Routing Narrative HydroCAD 10.00-12 was used to evaluate the effects of the proposed Seminole Square Expansion and Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company Plant Expansion projects on the Seminole Basin. Five models have been developed to demonstrate the following: - Model 1: determine the allowable peak flow rates for the existing/Pre-Development Conditions. - Model 2: evaluate the impact of the proposed Seminole Square Parking Lot Expansion on the Seminole Basin. - Model 3: evaluate the impact of the proposed Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company Expansion on the Seminole Basin. - Model 4: evaluate the impact of the two proposed expansion projects combined (Seminole Square and Pepsi-Cola Expansions) on the Seminole Basin. - Model 5: determine the modification to the outfall structure required to maintain the 10- year peak discharge for the post-development condition below the 10-year peak discharge for the pre-development condition. The 48” outfall pipe needs to be modified to be 47.50” to detain the 10-year peak discharge for the post-development condition to the 10- year peak flow for the pre-development conditions. A summary table is provided below to demonstrate the findings of the five (5) aforementioned models: Albemarle Place Stormwater Management Plan by WW Associates dated 03/30/10 and revised 5/20/11 was used to determine the contributing drainage area draining to the Seminole basin from the sites west of Route 29. A copy of sheet C-13 (Post-Development Drainage Area Map) and sheet C-29B (East Contributory Drainage Area) from the aforementioned plan set is attached to this correspondence for ease of reference. The following is a summary of the sub-areas and the associated storm sewer structures or facilities that each sub-area is draining to: - 8S drains to 7P: 8S is the drainage area for the Commonwealth Facility which drains to an existing 36” outfall pipe (7P) as shown on sheet C-13 (Post-Development Drainage Area Map) from the aforementioned plan set by WW Associates. SEMINOLE BASIN ROUTING REPORT Seminole Square and Pepsi-Cola Bottling Expansion - 3S: represents the areas west of Stonefield that drain to the 60” by-pass pipe. These areas are sub-areas No. 8-14 as shown on sheet C-13 (Post-Development Drainage Area Map) from the aforementioned plan set by WW Associates. - 7R: represents the 60” RCP Diversion Pipe for Offsite Drainage as shown on sheet C-13 (Post-Development Drainage Area Map) from the aforementioned plan set by WW Associates. - 5s: represents the Albemarle Place North Post areas that drain to the Stormwater Management Facility. These areas include sub-areas 17A, 19A, 20, 21, 22, 23 & 27 as shown on sheet C-13 (Post-Development Drainage Area Map) from the aforementioned plan set by WW Associates. - 6P: represents the permanent North Stormwater Management Facility as shown on sheet C-13 (Post-Development Drainage Area Map) from the aforementioned plan set by WW Associates. - 9R: represents the 72” by-pass pipe system under Route 29 that outfalls into the Seminole Basin as shown on sheet C-13 (Post-Development Drainage Area Map) from the aforementioned plan set by WW Associates. - 11R: represents the existing 42” pipe system under Route 29 that outfalls into the Seminole Basin as shown on sheet C-13 (Post-Development Drainage Area Map) from the aforementioned plan set by WW Associates. - 4S: represents sub-areas 15, 18 and 17 from the Sperry Site that outfall to the existing 42” pipe system under Route 29 as shown on sheet C-13 (Post-Development Drainage Area Map) from the aforementioned plan set by WW Associates. - 2S: is the contributing drainage area from the Seminole Square Shopping Center that drains to the Seminole Basin. It is the summation of sub-areas 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 as shown on sheet C-29B (East Contributory Drainage Area) from the aforementioned plan set by WW Associates. - 13p: represents Seminole Basin. Attachment 6 Sec. 34-1120. - Lot regulations, general. (a) Frontage requirement. Every lot shall have its principal frontage on a street or place (i) that has been accepted by the city for maintenance, or (ii) that a subdivider or developer has been contractually obligated to install as a condition of subdivision or site plan approval and for which an adequate financial guaranty has been furnished to the city. Except for flag lots, stem lots, and cul-de-sac lots, or other circumstances described within the city's subdivision ordinance, no lot shall be used, in whole or in part, for any residential purpose unless such lot abuts a street right-of-way for at least the minimum distance required by such subdivision ordinance for a residential lot. (b) Critical slopes. (1) Purpose and intent. The provisions of this subsection (hereinafter, "critical slopes provisions") are intended to protect topographical features that have a slope in excess of the grade established and other characteristics in the following ordinance for the following reasons and whose disturbance could cause one (1) or more of the following negative impacts: a. Erosion affecting the structural integrity of those features. b. Stormwater and erosion-related impacts on adjacent properties. c. Stormwater and erosion-related impacts to environmentally sensitive areas such as streams and wetlands. d. Increased stormwater velocity due to loss of vegetation. e. Decreased groundwater recharge due to changes in site hydrology. f. Loss of natural or topographic features that contribute substantially to the natural beauty and visual quality of the community such as loss of tree canopy, forested areas and wildlife habitat. These provisions are intended to direct building locations to terrain more suitable to development and to discourage development on critical slopes for the reasons listed above, and to supplement other regulations and policies regarding encroachment of development into stream buffers and floodplains and protection of public water supplies. (2) Definition of critical slope. A critical slope is any slope whose grade is 25% or greater and: a. A portion of the slope has a horizontal run of greater than twenty (20) feet and its total area is six thousand (6,000) square feet or greater; and b. A portion of the slope is within two hundred (200) feet of any waterway as identified on the most current city topographical maps maintained by the department of neighborhood development services. Parcels containing critical slopes are shown on the map entitled "Properties Impacted by Critical Slopes" maintained by the department of neighborhood development services. These critical slopes provisions shall apply to all critical slopes as defined herein, notwithstanding any subdivision, lot line adjustment, or other action affecting parcel boundaries made subsequent to the date of enactment of this section. (3) Building site required. Every newly created lot shall contain at least one (1) building site. For purposes of this section, the term building site refers to a contiguous area of land in slopes of less than 25%, as determined by reference to the most current city topographical maps maintained by the department of neighborhood development services or a source determined by the city engineer to be of superior accuracy, exclusive of such areas as may be located in the flood hazard overlay district or under water. (4) Building site area and dimensions. Each building site in a residential development shall have adequate area for all dwelling unit(s) outside of all required yard areas for the applicable zoning district and all parking areas. Within all other developments subject to the requirement of a site Page 1 plan, each building site shall have adequate area for all buildings and structures, parking and loading areas, storage yards and other improvements, and all earth disturbing activity related to the improvements. (5) Location of structures and improvements. The following shall apply to the location of any building or structure for which a permit is required under the Uniform Statewide Building Code and to any improvement shown on a site plan pursuant to Article VII of this chapter: a. No building, structure or improvement shall be located on any lot or parcel within any area other than a building site. b. No building, structure or improvement, nor any earth disturbing activity to establish such building, structure or improvement shall be located on a critical slope, except as may be permitted by a modification or waiver. (6) Modification or waiver. a. Any person who is the owner, owner's agent, or contract purchaser (with the owner's written consent) of property may request a modification or waiver of the requirements of these critical slopes provisions. Any such request shall be presented in writing and shall address how the proposed modification or waiver will satisfy the purpose and intent of these provisions. b. The director of neighborhood development services shall post on the city website notice of the date, time and place that a request for a modification or waiver of the requirements of these critical slopes provisions will be reviewed and cause written notice to be sent to the applicant or his agent and the owner or agent for the owner of each property located within five hundred (500) feet of the property subject to the waiver. Notice sent by first class mail to the last known address of such owner or agent as shown on the current real estate tax assessment books, postmarked not less than five (5) days before the meeting, shall be deemed adequate. A representative of the department of neighborhood development services shall make affidavit that such mailing has been made and file the affidavit with the papers related to the site plan application. c. All modification or waiver requests shall be submitted to the department of neighborhood development services, to be reviewed by the planning commission. In considering a requested modification or waiver the planning commission shall consider the recommendation of the director of neighborhood development services or their designee. The director, in formulating his recommendation, shall consult with the city engineer, the city's environmental manager, and other appropriate officials. The director shall provide the planning commission with an evaluation of the proposed modification or waiver that considers the potential for soil erosion, sedimentation and water pollution in accordance with current provisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook and the Virginia State Water Control Board best management practices, and, where applicable, the provisions of Chapter 10 of the City Code. The director may also consider other negative impacts of disturbance as defined in these critical slope provisions. d. The planning commission shall make a recommendation to city council in accordance with the criteria set forth in this section, and city council may thereafter grant a modification or waiver upon making a finding that: (i) The public benefits of allowing disturbance of a critical slope outweigh the public benefits of the undisturbed slope (public benefits include, but are not limited to, stormwater and erosion control that maintains the stability of the property and/or the quality of adjacent or environmentally sensitive areas; groundwater recharge; reduced stormwater velocity; minimization of impervious surfaces; and stabilization of otherwise unstable slopes); or (ii) Due to unusual size, topography, shape, location, or other unusual physical conditions, or existing development of a property, one (1) or more of these critical slopes provisions would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use, reuse or Page 2 redevelopment of such property or would result in significant degradation of the site or adjacent properties. No modification or waiver granted shall be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, detrimental to the orderly development of the area or adjacent properties, or contrary to sound engineering practices. e. In granting a modification or waiver, city council may allow the disturbance of a portion of the slope, but may determine that there are some features or areas that cannot be disturbed. These include, but are not limited to: (i) Large stands of trees; (ii) Rock outcroppings; (iii) Slopes greater than 60%. City council shall consider the potential negative impacts of the disturbance and regrading of critical slopes, and of resulting new slopes and/or retaining walls. City council may impose conditions as it deems necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare and to insure that development will be consistent with the purpose and intent of these critical slopes provisions. Conditions shall clearly specify the negative impacts that they will mitigate. Conditions may include, but are not limited to: (i) Compliance with the "Low Impact Development Standards" found in the City Standards and Design Manual. (ii) A limitation on retaining wall height, length, or use; (iii) Replacement of trees removed at up to three-to-one ratio; (iv) Habitat redevelopment; (v) An increase in storm water detention of up to 10% greater than that required by city development standards; (vi) Detailed site engineering plans to achieve increased slope stability, ground water recharge, and/or decrease in stormwater surface flow velocity; (vii) Limitation of the period of construction disturbance to a specific number of consecutive days; (viii) Requirement that reseeding occur in less days than otherwise required by City Code. (7) Exemptions. A lot, structure or improvement may be exempt from the requirements of these critical slopes provisions, as follows: a. Any structure which was lawfully in existence prior to the effective date of these critical slopes provisions, and which is nonconforming solely on the basis of the requirements of these provisions, may be expanded, enlarged, extended, modified and/or reconstructed as though such structure were a conforming structure. For the purposes of this section, the term "lawfully in existence" shall also apply to any structure for which a site plan was approved or a building permit was issued prior to the effective date of these provisions, provided such plan or permit has not expired. b. Any lot or parcel of record which was lawfully a lot of record on the effective date of this chapter shall be exempt from the requirements of these critical slopes provisions for the establishment of the first single-family dwelling unit on such lot or parcel; however, subparagraph (5)(b) above, shall apply to such lot or parcel if it contains adequate land area in slopes of less than 25% for the location of such structure. c. Driveways, public utility lines and appurtenances, stormwater management facilities and any other public facilities necessary to allow the use of the parcel shall not be required to be located within a building site and shall not be subject to the building site area and Page 3 dimension requirements set forth above within these critical slopes provisions, provided that the applicant demonstrates that no reasonable alternative location or alignment exists. The city engineer shall require that protective and restorative measures be installed and maintained as deemed necessary to insure that the development will be consistent with the purpose and intent of these critical slopes provisions. (9-15-03(3); 11-21-05; 1-17-06(7); 1-17-12; 7-16-12) Page 4 Attachment 7 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT ENGINEERING REVIEW OF APPLICATION FOR A WAIVER: CRITICAL SLOPES Project Review / Analysis (Seminole Square Expansion) The applicant has provided detailed information in the attached narrative for each item discussed below: Existing Conditions: - The applicant mentions that there is currently an existing stormwater management easement in this area up to the 416 contour elevation. This easement was granted to the City in 1985, however the reason why the City has a stormwater easement on a facility that benefits private property owners and does not receive water from City owned property is unknown to staff. In addition, there is not currently an adequate means to access the easement area to perform maintenance and construction of these walls will further decrease accessibility to the facility. Engineering Staff recommends that this stormwater management easement be vacated as part of this critical slope waiver, if approved. If the waiver is granted and the easement is not vacated, it is staff’s recommendation that a maintenance access road be constructed as part of the wall construction. Project Description - Engineering Staff has no comments regarding this statement. Finding #1: - The applicant existing erosion along the bank and how the walls will eliminate this erosion potential. Engineering Staff would like to point out that the term ‘bank’ in this case is likely a reference to the slopes leading to the stream. While there may be some spot areas where erosion is occurring along the slopes, any stream bank erosion that is occurring will continue to exist as the walls are located above the top of stream bank. - The applicant offers a 10’ foot easement dedicated to the City of Charlottesville. It needs to be made clear in those documents that the easement is strictly for maintenance of the trail itself and not the retaining wall. The City will not accept any maintenance of the wall. Erosion affecting the structural integrity of those features: - Engineering Staff has no comments regarding this statement. Stormwater and erosion-related impacts on adjacent properties: - The applicant states that there is an easement in favor of the City for stormwater management. While there is an existing stormwater easement dedicated to the City for maintenance, the easement in itself is a burden to the City as it requires maintenance of a facility that primarily treats runoff from non-City owned property. City efforts should be dedicated to 1 facilities that were constructed to City standard, are maintainable and serve the City and/or general public. This easement does none these and it is staff’s recommendation that the easement be vacated as a condition of this critical slope waiver, if granted. Stormwater and erosion-related impacts to environmentally sensitive areas such as stream and wetlands: - The applicant states that no streams or wetlands are proposed to be impacted with the filling operations. The applicant has incorporated additional erosion and sediment control measures and has conceived a sequence that will limit disturbed area to the stream. These items will aid in protecting the stream below these critical slopes, however, there is always the possibility that, despite a designer and contractor’s best efforts, Mother Nature can overcome any manmade attempt to control runoff. Increased stormwater velocity due to loss of vegetation: - Engineering Staff has no comments regarding this statement. Decreased groundwater recharge due to changes in the site hydrology: - Engineering Staff has no comments regarding this statement. Loss of natural or topographic features that contribute substantially to the natural beauty and visual quality of the community such as loss of tree canopy, forested areas and wildlife habitat: - Engineering Staff has no comments regarding this statement. Engineering Recommendation Engineering staff recommends approval of the critical slope waiver application with the following conditions: - The existing stormwater easement that was created in 1985 be vacated, as there is no apparent reason that the City should be maintaining any part of this private facility. If the critical slope waiver is granted and the easement is not vacated, it is recommended that an access road be constructed as part of the wall construction so that maintenance can actually be performed by the City. The existing easement would also have to be expanded to include the access road. Vacation of the existing easement could also serve as a public benefit by taking the maintenance burden of a private facility off of the public tax dollar. - A detailed survey by a licensed professional should be provided following construction to capture any deviation from the approved plans. Upon completion of the as-built survey, the stormwater routing analysis should be verified using the as-built data. - The maintenance easement for the trail must be clear that the retaining walls, handrails, guardrails, or other associated features will not be maintained by the City. - The previously submitted stormwater routing analysis for the existing stormwater basin between Seminole Square and Pepsi will need to be revised if the retaining walls require adjustment to accommodate the trail. 2 Attachment 8 PROJECT DATA: SEMINOLE SQUARE EXPANSION SITE PLAN AMENDMENT, EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 5/25/16 REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 12/1/16 REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 9/2/16 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA REVISION DESCRIPTION REVISIONS INITIAL SUBMITTAL E AC I PL PS PE 9 E2 CE E VICINITY MAP FI ILL OF SV UT SCALE: 1" = 2,000' ST TTE RO PO LO AR CH 200 GARRETT STREET SUITE K- CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 - 434.293.3719 10/14/16 3/15/16 7/22/16 1/16/17 SEMINOLE SQUARE EXPANSION SITE PLAN AMENDMENT SHEET INDEX ALB CITY MAR E TITLE SHEET OF C COVER SHEET 1 LE C HAR EXISTING CONDITIONS 2 SITE SITE & UTILITY PLAN 3 OUN LOT GRADING PLAN 4 NOTES, DETAILS & CALCULATIONS 5 TY TES DRAINAGE AREAS, PROFILES & DETAILS 6 EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL NARRATIVE & NOTES 7 VILL PHASE I EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN 8 PHASE II EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN 9 E PHASE III EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN 10 EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS 11 SEMINOLE CT 12 HILLSDALE DRIVE EXTENSION OVERLAID WITH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 12A HILLSDALE DRIVE EXTENSION OVERLAID WITH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 13 LANDSCAPING PLAN 14 TOTAL SHEETS: 15 COVER SHEET SHEET LAYOUT SCALE: 1" = 200' OWNER & DEVELOPER TOWERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ET. AL. GREAT EASTERN MANAGEMENT P.O. BOX 5526 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22905 BMP DATA FOR THIS PROJECT: BMP OWNERSHIP INFORMATION: TOWERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ET. AL. GREAT EASTERN MANAGEMENT PO BOX 5526 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22905 PROJECT TYPE/DESCRIPTION OF BMP INSTALLED: AN EXISTING, ONSITE SWM FACILITY IS PROPOSED TO PROVIDE QUANTITY TREATMENT. WATER QUALITY CREDITS ARE SHEET PROPOSED TO BE PURCHASED FOR QUALITY COMPLIANCE. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION & BEHIND EXISTING SEMINOLE SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER, 195 SEMINOLE CT., CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22901; LATITUDE HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE 38.065176°, LONGITUDE -78.484748°; HUC 12 #020802040401 JR14; HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP TYPE 88- FILL) WATERBODY THE BMP IS ULTIMATELY DISCHARGING INTO: MEADOW CREEK; PART OF THE SOUTH FORK RIVANNA RIVER RESERVOIR JOB NO. # OF ACRES TREATED BY BMPs: A 4.19 ac. SUBAREA WITH 3.50 ac. OF IMPERVIOUS AREA IS TREATED VIA THE EXISTING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BASIN (QUANTITY). ALSO, 1.39 lbs/yr OF NUTRIENT CREDITS IS REQUIRED (QUALITY) TO BE PROPOSED FOR COMPLIANCE. 112070 EXISTING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BASIN: THE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM FOR THE WATER QUANTITY SHALL BE DESCRIPTION OF REQUIRED CLEANING OUT THE BASIN ANNUALLY, OR AS NECESSARY, AND ENSURING THE FACILITY IS FREE OF TRASH AND DEBRIS. SCALE MAINTENANCE & OPERATION: MAINTENANCE TO ALSO INCLUDE INSPECTION, AND REPAIR AS NECESSARY, OF ALL PIPES, JOINTS, TRASHRACKS AND SIGNATURE PANEL OUTLET STRUCTURES. N/A OWNER's SIGNATURE AGREEING TO MAINTAIN FACILITY: DIRECTOR, NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SHEET NO. 1 43 PROPOSED STORM SEWER. 6 446 45 42 43 0 2 6 42 43 6 0 T E 42 EE SE 44 2 0 SH E, I S LIN X 45 TH CH 0 T EXISTING BANKS OF MA CHANNEL BOTTOM 41 6 440 APPROX. LOCATION OF EXISTING SANITARY 0 44 REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 5/25/16 REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 12/1/16 SEWER ESMT. REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 9/2/16 438 D.B. 348 PG. 304 POST OFFICE G LET REVISION DESCRIPTION DROP IN .90 G 1 W 5 TOP = 4 7.73 EXISTING REVISIONS INITIAL SUBMITTAL W 4 432 OUT = 4 FENCE LINE (TYP.) 42 6 EX6 W PROPERTY LIMITS 8 43 4 G 45 (TYP.) W 42 2 45 W 41 4 EXISTING ASPHALT 4 SURFACE PARKING 420 G W W 430 41 8 W 41 G 2 BASIN CATCH 5.52 W 5 41 426 TOP = 4 2 LOCATION OF 2 .5 0 IN = 450 0.32 W 45 5 EXISTING 8" D.I. W/L OUT = 4 EX5 ANHOLE APPROX. LOCATION GM 47.40 OF EXISTING E/P TOP = 4 441.6 1 W = W INVERT (TYP.) X 41 42 8 EXISTING CRITICAL 0 43 200 GARRETT STREET SUITE K- CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 - 434.293.3719 SLOPES TO BE 0 W IMPACTED (APPROX. 10/14/16 BASIN W 3/15/16 7/22/16 1/16/17 CATCH 3.43 41 44 5 EXISTING TOTAL AREA= 0.86ac.) 4 TOP = 4 7 0 TYPICAL G .8 BUILDING IN = 448 8.55 SEMINOLE SQUARE EXPANSION SITE PLAN AMENDMENT BASIN X CATCH 6.34 T = 4 4 5 OU W TOP = 4 1.19 LOCATION OF EXISTING W W 5 OUT = 4 STORM SEWER W LET (TYP.) DROP IN 4.52 4 TOP = 4 439.99 446 EX7 = INVERT G W W X EXISTING CRITICAL SLOPES TO REMAIN (TYP.) 414 PEPSI PLANT W X W G APPROX. LOCATION OF 42 EXISTING OVERHEAD X APPROX. LOCATION OF 442 2 W 440 41 UTILITY LINE ADJACENT TO EXISTING SANITARY 0 THE EX. ASPHALT DRIVE SEWER ESMT. W (TYP.) D.B. 348 PG. 304 LET DROP IN 6.78 LOCATION OF EXISTING X 4 TOP = 4 3 FIRE HYDRANT 418 41 2.4 W 4 G IN = 4 CVL_H_08275 = 440.75 0 LET INVE RT EXISTING BANKS OF EXISTING CHANNEL DROP IN 6.84 EXISTING CONDITIONS 4 CHANNEL BOTTOM X BOTTOM SEMINOLE SQUARE TOP = 4 2.78 = 4 4 SHOPPING CENTER OUT LOCATION OF EXISTING 41 GAS LINE 4 W (TYP.) X G W EXISTING SWM LET DROP IN 5.39 EASEMENT FOLLOWS W X FH 4 TOP = 4 2 THE 416' CONTOUR W 40 440 IN = 439 .8 LET 43 4 39.51 DROP IN 8.85 4 0 OUT = 3 TOP = 4 432.72 DI INA NG = 41 TC GE INVE R T 4 42 X A I DR XIST 0 W H G EX1 41 RISER 4.5' X 5' 2.70 0 0 E 0 46 EXISTING CRITICAL 42 18 BASIN 1 TOP = 4 408.70 CATCH 2.47 4 BASIN SLOPES TO BE CATCH 4.87 = 4 4 INVERT TOP = 4 437.87 0 42 IMPACTED (APPROX. 45 4 TOP = 4 440.47 INVE R T = TOTAL AREA= 0.86ac.) = LE T MANHO 7.31 X INVER W TYPICAL G 3 0 = 4 W TOP 41 44 44 T = 430.50 4 0 INVER 4 43 412 EX3 W 424 BENCHMARK LOCATION OF EXISTING SANITARY SEWER W BUILDING G LET EVELATION=403.3' 43 BASIN APPROX. LOCATION DROP IN 5.45 (RISER INVERT) 40 4 MANHOLES 0 CATCH 5.42 TOP = 4 7 3 W OF EXISTING E/P 430 4 TOP = 4 441.72 X LET 42 9 .3 DROP IN 0.77 0 = (TYP.) IN = INVERT 41 .83 LET 436 4 TOP = 4 2 EX2 IN = 4 2 1 DROP IN 9.90 W 18.71 0 .7 IN = 435 9 APPROX. W OUTG = 4 2 TOP = 4 1.83 42 .2 IN = 435 2.64 LOCATION OF OUT = 4 2 OUT = 4 3 TREE LINE (TYP.) 430 W X W 0 43 INV IN 403.3 LET 43 BASIN DROP IN 9.76 EXISTING STORM SEWER 424 LET X CATCH 5.61 W DROP IN 9.89 0 LET 3 W DROP IN 9.23 TOP = 4 5.46 SHALL BE ABANDONED & TP 4 4 TOP = 4 442.56 3 2 TOP = 4 418.39 X TOP = 4 EXISTING CURB CUT & CONCRETE INVER T = OUT = 4 REROUTED AROUND THE = X 43 44.03 INVE R T = 4LINED X ER T DITCH TO BE REMOVED. PROPOSED RETAINING WALL 2 INV 42 W RUNOFF TO BE DIRECTED INTO 0 LE PROPOSED STORM SEWER. MANHO 2.49 X 3 TOP = 4 424.23 BASIN APPROX. LOCATION OF RECENTLY CATCH 8.06 W = INVERT 2 TOP = 4 402.36 W EXISTING ASPHALT AMENDED/CONSTRUCTED BUILDING 45 42 PP LET 0 DROP IN 7.53 EX4 T = 6 SURFACE PARKING EXPANSION. INVE R 3 TOP = 4 431.28 LP LOCATION OF EXISTING T = INVER W PROJECT STORM SEWER LET DROP IN 8.97 460 43 SHEET (TYP.) EXISTING W 0 2 TOP = 4 4.40 T E ENTRANCE 4 2 60 EE SE 44 W OUT = "P 0 IP SH E, SEMINOLE SQUARE E JOB NO. IS LIN BASIN TP LET SHOPPING CENTER CATCH 7.56 112070 T DROP IN 8.28 W 45 RA APPROXIMATE LOCATION TH CH 0 N) LE 2 4 TOP = 4 442.48 TOP = 4 399.86 BASIN NS OF EXISTING 8" D.I. W/L SIO DA = CATCH 3.08 INVERT T T = INVER SCALE XT IL D MA FO 3 TOP = 4 426.28 EN LS W UNIVERSITY . E E H OA = 1"=30' R SEM INVERT DR TUR N R M CO INOL TIRE OF ER W URT E BASIN LOCATION OF EXISTING APPROX. LIMITS A CATCH 5.50 LET SHEET NO. DROP IN 4.80 (FU Z 3 ELECTRICAL LINE FLOOD PLAIN TOP = 4 N/A TOP = 4 3 2 UN E R T = 30.40 W (TYP.) INV OUT = 4 ER IV SIT YT SITE & UTILITY NOTES: PROPERTY LIMITS 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY EXISTING PAVEMENT/CURBING & ENSURE POSITIVE SLOPE REMAINS AT ALL TIMES. (TYP.) 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFIRM ALL UTILITY, DRAINAGE & ROAD CONNECTIONS VERTICALLY AND HORIZONTALLY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF ANY TIE-IN ISSUES OR DISCREPANCIES. 2' G 3. PROPOSED LIGHT FIXTURES SHALL NOT EXCEED 3000 LUMENS AND WILL BE WALL MOUNTED, UNLESS 8 RA OTHERWISE SHOWN. TIE PROPOSED CG-2 SS 4. 3 REPRESENTS 3 PROPOSED PARKING SPACES OVE 20 IN. INTO EXISTING RH 5. ALL SIGNING & PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE w/ MUTCD GUIDELINES & REGULATIONS, AND M ' PAVEMENT A NG THE VIRGINIA SUPPLEMENT TO THE MUTCD. PROPOSED PROPOSED NO-PARKING 10' STD. CG-2 6. THE BUILDING STREET NUMBER SHALL BE PLAINLY VISIBLE AT ALL TIMES, INCLUDING DURING CONSTRUCTION, STRIPED ASPHALT FOR TY (TYP.) FROM THE STREET FOR EMERGENCY RESPONDERS. ACCESSIBLE HC SPACE P. 7. PROPOSED OVERHEAD WIRING OR OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE HIGHER THAN 13'-6". . YP 8. ALL PAVEMENT SHALL BE CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING FIRE APPARATUS WEIGHING 85,000lbs. 8 . CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL YP T 10' 9. ALL PROPOSED CURB NOT ASSOCIATED WITH PERPENDICULAR PARKING SPACES SHALL BE PAINTED YELLOW & 18' AN ADA COMPLIANT CURB DR 20' M .) C 6' T TY SHALL HAVE 'NO PARKING'' SIGNS. THE COMBINATION OF YELLOW PAINTED CURB & NO PARKING SIGNS RAMP & THE END OF THE P. ESTABLISH A MINIMUM 20' WIDE FIRE LANE AROUND THE BUILDING's PERIMETER. IN F/ 1 EXISTING SIDEWALK 10. TRASH CONTAINERS SHALL BE LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE BUILDINGS & SHALL BE SCREENED VIA THE 11 20'x10' CONCRETE DUMPSTER LE BUILDING OR VIA A WOODEN ENCLOSURE, WHICH SHALL EXTEND A MINIMUM OF 1' ABOVE THE HEIGHT OF THE AIS . (M F/C- IVE IN EXISTING PAVED AREA & PROPOSED PADS w/ WOODEN PRIVACY CONTAINERS MAKING IT NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREETS. PARKING LOT TO BE STRIPED TO INCLUDE FENCE & GATES FOR ' 11. A MINIMUM OF 18" VERTICAL & 10' HORIZONTAL SEPARATION SHALL BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN WATER LINES & 54 1 HC VAN ACCESSIBLE SPACE. FINAL PROPOSED ASPHALT SCREENING. SEE SHEETS 5 & 6 SANITARY SEWER. A MINIMUM OF 12" VERTICAL AND 5' HORIZONTAL SHALL BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN PARALLEL REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 5/25/16 REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 12/1/16 STRIPING TO BE DEPENDENT UPON ADA STRIPING (TYP.) FOR DETAILS. REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 9/2/16 SANITARY AND STORM SEWER. COORDINATOR APPROVAL & 12. AT ALL UTILITY CROSSINGS A MINIMUM VERTICAL SEPARATION OF 12" SHALL BE MAINTAINED. ACCEPTABLE PARKING LOT GRADES. 13. EXISTING BUILDING ENTRANCES FACING SEMINOLE COURT WILL REMAIN DIRECTING PEDESTRIANS INTO THE EX. HC ACCESSIBLE ROUTE BETWEEN PARKING SPACE & PARKING LOT, AWAY FROM THE FUTURE HILLSDALE DRIVE EXTENSION. PROPOSED BUILDING ENTRANCES EXISTING FACING THE PROPOSED PARKING AREAS WILL DIRECT PEDESTRIANS TO THE PARKING SPACES. THERE ARE WALKWAY BUILDING ENTRANCE PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS ABUTTING THE EXISTING BUILDING AS WELL TO FACILITATE MOVEMENT. THESE WALKWAYS ALLOW ACCESS TO THE PROPOSED PARKING SPACES AND THE FUTURE HILLSDALE DRIVE EXTENSION. REVISION DESCRIPTION 14. THE BUILDING BEING SUBDIVIDED WILL PRIMARILY BENEFIT FROM THE PROPOSED PARKING LOT EXPANSION. REVISIONS THIS BUILDING IS PRIMARILY ACCESSED BY CUSTOMERS ALONG THE FRONT SIDE, THE SOUTHERN FACE OF THE INITIAL SUBMITTAL 3 6'± WIDE PERVIOUS STRIP BETWEEN B/C & WALL. PROPOSED 2' WIDE BUILDING. THE PLANS DO NOT PROPOSE TO ALTER THE EXISTING HANDICAP PARKING SPACES SERVING THIS GRASS OVERHANG ADJ. TO PVMT. BUILDING. HOWEVER WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FOUR ADDITIONAL HC SPACES ARE REQUIRED EXISTING ROW OF TIE PROPOSED CG-2 INTO (TYP.) SPREAD OUT OVER THREE PARKING AREAS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTRIPE THE EXISTING PARKING SPACES THREE (3) HC EXISTING PAVEMENT TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED 4 HC SPACES, OF WHICH ONE SHALL BE VAN ACCESSIBLE. BECAUSE THE ACCESSIBLE 8 PROPOSED RETAINING WALLS w/ VARYING ROUTE AND THE PRIMARY ENTRANCES ARE LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTHERN FACE OF THE BUILDING, THESE ARE PARKING SPACES 5' WIDE MIN., ADA COMPLAINT, 2' HEIGHTS, STONE BACKFILL, PERFORATED GR ACCEPTABLE LOCATIONS FOR THE NEW HC PARKING SPACES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT. THE CITY ASPHALT STRIPED CROSSWALK AS PIPING & HANDRAILS SET INTO WALL TOPS. ADA COORDINATOR WILL PERMIT THIS EXCEPTION SINCE THE 2010 ADA STANDARDS FOR ACCESSIBLE DESIGN, SO SEE WALL DESIGN FOR CONSTRUCTION SECTION 208.3, STATES 'PARKING SPACES SHALL BE PERMITTED TO BE LOCATED IN DIFFERENT PARKING VE SPECIFICATIONS. (TYP.) FACILITIES IF SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT OR GREATER ACCESSIBILITY IS PROVIDED IN TERMS OF DISTANCE EXISTING RH AN FROM AN ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE OR ENTRANCES, PARKING FEE, AND USER CONVENIENCE.' WALKWAY G 15. THE PARKING LOT ASSOCIATED WITH PLAZA AZTECA, THE NORTHERN MOST OUTPARCEL ABUTTING ROUTE 29, 10 CURRENTLY PROVIDES HANDICAP PARKING SPACES. THE PROPOSED PLANS SUPPLEMENT THIS BUILDING's 'T YP PARKING AND PROVIDES A VAN ACCESSIBLE HC SPACE IN THIS LOCATION. EXISTING . . YP WALKWAY 4' WIDE PLANTING STRIP 'T LOCATION OF BETWEEN WALLS 16 EX. 8" D.I. W/L PROPOSED E EA . ISL 10 IV IN 'T ASPHALT (TYP.) M YP DR 20' . . 12 YP 'T G PROPOSED .) IN 18 EXISTING ROW OF STD. CG-2 IN RIP SIX (6) HC PARKING APPROX. LOCATION OF 8 (TYP.) (M -ST SPACES EXISTING E/P (TYP.) /C TIE PROPOSED CG-2 INTO 'F CONCRETE BUMPER EXISTING PAVEMENT 54 BLOCK (TYP.) 200 GARRETT STREET SUITE K- CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 - 434.293.3719 EXISTING WALKWAY/ HC CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL VDOT STD. 10/14/16 3/15/16 7/22/16 1/16/17 ACCESSIBLE GR-2 GUARDRAIL, AS WARRANTED BY CITY 7 EXISTING GAS ROUTE INSPECTOR & CURRENT REGULATIONS. (TYP.) LINE (TYP.) SEMINOLE SQUARE EXPANSION SITE PLAN AMENDMENT THE PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN PATHS RUNNING ALONGSIDE THE BUILDING BE BEING SUBDIVIDED SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF CONCRETE, AND SHALLCONTRACTOR OF SHALL USE RAISED A MINIMUM OF 6" RELATIVE TO THE DRIVE AISLES WITH THE USE CAUTION & NOT DISRUPT CURBING. THE BUILDINGS' EXTERIOR WALLS SHALL BE WATERPROOFED IN 20' OF THE RAISED SIDEWALK,OVERHEAD UTILITIES UNTIL THESE AREAS PRIOR TO THE INSTALLATION GRANTED PERMISSION FROM MIN. AND THE SIDEWALK SHALL HAVE A 2% CROSS SLOPE DRAINING AWAY THE UTILITY COMPANY (TYP.) FROM THE BUILDINGS.THE CONCRETE SIDEWALK SHALL BE MODIFIED ON BOTH SIDES THROUGHOUT TO TAPER DOWN WHERE EXISTING & NEW PROPOSED GRADE-SEPARATED ENTRANCES ARE LOCATED TO PREVENT TRIPPING HAZARDS. NOTE, PER PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY TO BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS A 1" DEPRESSED LIP IS REQUIRED AT ANY CONNECT TO APPROVED TIE PROPOSED CG-2 INTO ENTRANCE. ALSO, ALL PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SHALL RESULT IN HILLSDALE DRIVE SIDEWALK HILLSDALE DRIVE POSITIVE SLOPES DRAINING RUNOFF AWAY FROM THE BUILDING. (TYP.) PAVEMENT CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THE RAISED SIDEWALK TOP ELEV. IS INSTALLED BELOW THE FFE IN THIS AREA. THIS WILL ENSURE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM THE EXISTING AFTER THE HILLSDALE DRIVE EXTENSION BUILDING TOWARDS THE SLOPED SIDEWALK IN THE PROPOSED GRASSED ISLAND. A ASPHALT CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED IN THIS AREA, PROPOSED 5' WIDE CONC. PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY SHALL BE PROVIDED BETWEEN THE (TYP.) THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL THE EXISTING RAISED CONCRETE SIDEWALK & THE DOORWAYS. THE EXTERIOR BUILDING SHALL BE THE EXISTING FIRE PROPOSED PARKING LOT CONNECTIONS. THE CONCRETE PAD WATERPROOFED WHEN FINAL ASBUILT GRADES REQUIRE IT (TYP.). HYDRANT ASSEMBLY HILLSDALE DRIVE CROSSWALK & SIDEWALK CG-12 ON THE SOUTH SIDE SHALL BE RECONSTRUCTED. SHALL BE MODIFIED DUE TO THE HILLSDALE DRIVE's MINIMAL DESIGN EXISTING HC STAIRS AND DOORS CONNECTING THE WITH THIS SET OF PARKING SPACES MODIFIED BUILDINGS MAY BE REQUIRED SLOPE (0.5%) IN THIS AREA, THE CG-12 PLANS. THE HYDRANT's INSTALLATION WILL REQUIRE A MINIMAL TO REMAIN TO BE INSTALLED TO ALLOW FOR THE SERVICE LINE SHALL BE ACCESS OF THE FUTURE HILLSDALE ASBUILT RAMP MODIFICATION (5' MIN. RAMP PER EXTENDED BEYOND THE THE HILLSDALE DR. CURRENT DESIGN). SEE SHEET DRIVE EXTENSION (TYP.) PROPOSED CURB & A EXISTING HC 12A FOR CG-12 TYPE M2 DETAIL & SHEET 5 FOR PROPOSED NO-LEFT TURN SIGN. NOTE, PROPOSED PARKING WILL BE NEW FIRE HYDRANT CG-12, TYPE B DETAIL. PARKING SPACES PRIMARILY UTILIZED BY EMPLOYEES, WHERE THE TRAFFIC PATTERNS ASSEMBLY SHALL BE EXISTING EXISTING TO REMAIN MEDIAN WILL BE FAMILIAR. SERVICE VEHICLES FOR THE NORTHERN WING INSTALLED, INCLUSIVE WALKWAY WILL ORIGINATE FROM THE NORTH AND WILL TRAVEL SOUTHBOUND OF A NEW GATE VALVE. ALONG THE BUILDING's REAR ACCESS WHERE IT CAN TURN RIGHT, LEFT OR CONTINUE STRAIGHT AT THE HILLSDALE DRIVE EXTENSION. LOCATION OF SITE & UTILITY PLAN EXISTING SERVICE VEHICLES FOR THE SOUTHERN WING WILL ORIGINATE AT EX. FH EXISTING SEMINOLE COURT TO THE SOUTH AND WILL TRAVEL NORTHWARD, CVL_H_08275 THREE (3) 10'x10' CONCRETE CONCRETE PAD DUMPSTER PADS (SCREENED WALKWAY WHERE THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO TURN RIGHT ONTO HILLSDALE DRIVE's EXTENSION. A PROPOSED RAISED CONCRETE MEDIAN IS FROM VIEW WITH WOODEN SHOWN TO DIRECT THE TRAFFIC ACCORDINGLY. FENCES) WITH CONCRETE APPROACH APRONS & GUTTER PANS. SEE SHEETS 5 & 6 FOR EXISTING PARKING LOT TO BE RESTRIPED TO INCLUDE 2 DETAILS. ADDITIONAL HC SPACES IN THIS AREA. FINAL STRIPING TO BE 10' TYP. DEPENDENT UPON ADA COORDINATOR APPROVAL & TIE PROPOSED CG-2 & 10' TYP. ACCEPTABLE PARKING LOT GRADES. SIDEWALK INTO HILLSDALE DRIVE. CONTRACTOR TO FIELD FIT/MODIFY THE CURB CONTRACTOR SHALL USE RAMP TO MEET ADA CAUTION & NOT DISRUPT LOCATION OF HILLSDALE FUTURE HILLSDALE REQUIREMENTS. OVERHEAD UTILITIES UNTIL DRIVE EXTENSION . GRANTED PERMISSION FROM PROPOSED DRIVE BRIDGE HILLSDALE MIN LE CONNECTION TO SCALE: 1"=20' DRIVE R/W 24' E AIS THE UTILITY COMPANY (TYP.) IV EXISTING DRIVE AISLE DR 4' WIDE PLANTING STRIP BETWEEN APPROVED DROP INLET UNDER PROPOSED WALLS HILLSDALE DRIVE CONSTRUCTION CG-12, TYPE M2 PLANS TO REMAIN 9 EXISTING HC EXISTING STR. EX7 BEING MODIFIED PROPOSED PARKING SPACES IN THIS VICINITY, WHERE THE CITY APPROVED EXISTING GAS DI INA NG TC GE WITH THE APPROVED HILLSDALE CG-12, TYPE B TO REMAIN HILLSDALE DRIVE IS ELEVATED ABOVE THE LATERAL (TYP.) A I DR XIST DRIVE PLANS SHALL REMAIN EXISTING ACCESS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL H INSTALL GRASS ISLANDS & WATERPROOF THE E BUILDING ACCORDINGLY. CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THE GRASS ISLANDS ARE SLOPED TO DRAIN AWAY FROM THE BUILDING TOWARDS THE SLOPED CONC. SIDEWALK. IN THIS VICINITY, WHERE AT GRADE PEDESTRIAN PATHS CAN BE INSTALLED 3 HILLSDALE DRIVE PROPOSED CONNECTING THE BUILDING DOORS WITH THE EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS (BY OTHERS) CONNECTION TO RAISED SIDEWALK (RELATIVE TO THE DRIVE Ø8" W/L SHALL INCLUDE CONNECTION HILLSDALE DRIVE AISLE), THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THE PROPOSED ASPHALT TO EXISTING ACCESS (TYP.) CONNECTING 5' CONC. WALKWAY IS SLOPED STRIPING (TYP.) APPROVED DI WITH HILLSDALE DRIVE TO DRAIN AWAY FROM THE BUILDING. THE APPROX. LOCATION OF PLANS TO BE MODIFIED TO HAVE A CONCRETE SIDEWALK ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING E/P (TYP.) PROPOSED CONNECTION TO PARKING SHALL BE MODIFIED ON BOTH SIDES HILLSDALE DRIVE. CONTRACTOR MH-1 TOP w/ A CONCRETE MEDIAN 42' F/C-STRIPING (MIN.) THROUGHOUT TO TAPER DOWN TO PREVENT SHALL FIT-FIT/ MODIFY CURB AND DOWNGRADIENT STORM SEWER TRIPPING HAZARDS & TO ENSURE POSITIVE APPROX. LOCATION OF RAMP AT THE INTERSECTION TO DETENTION FACILITY DRAINAGE AWAY FROM THE BUILDING AT ALL EX. W/L LAT. (TYP.) ENSURE ADA COMPLIANCE. 11 EXISTING FIRE TIMES. NOTE, PER BUILDING CODE EXISTING STORM SEWER SHALL BE REQUIREMENTS A 1" DEPRESSED LIP IS ABANDONED & REROUTED AROUND HYDRANT ASSEMBLY REQUIRED AT ANY ENTRANCE AND THE THE PROPOSED RETAINING WALL TO BE RELOCATED TO BUILDING SHALL BE WATERPROOFED HILLSDALE DRIVE BACK OF PROPOSED ACCORDINGLY (TYP.). PROPOSED GRADE-SEPARATED PEDESTRIAN R/W (TYP.) CURB. HILLSDALE PATHWAY TO CONNECT TO APPROVED DRIVE R/W HILLSDALE DRIVE SIDEWALK, SEMINOLE PROPOSED COURT SIDEWALK AND EXISTING BUILDING BUILDING EXISTING HC ENTRANCES. SEE NOTE ON THIS SHEET FOR ' TIE PROPOSED CG-2 SUBDIVISION PARKING SPACES SIDEWALK INSTALLATION WHERE IT ABUTS 24 N. INTO EXISTING CG-2 HILLSDALE DRIVE MI PROJECT TO REMAIN BUILDING ENTRANCES. R/W (TYP.) SHEET EXISTING HC CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL A 5' WIDE RAISED CONC. SIDEWALK PARKING SPACES CONNECTING THE EXISTING SEMINOLE COURT SIDEWALK/ CURB RAMP TO TO REMAIN THE EXISTING CONCRETE PAD & STEPS AT THE REAR OF THE BUILDING. THE IV RE EXISTING CURB BETWEEN THE STEPS/ BUILDING & THE CURB RAMP SHALL JOB NO. DR TU BE REMOVED & REINSTALLED PER THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT. A 24' WIDE E EXISTING PARKING LOT TO BE RESTRIPED TO MIN. TRAVELWAY WITH 25' CURB RETURN RADII SHALL BE MAINTAINED. 112070 E FU INCLUDE 1 ADDITIONAL HC SPACE IN THIS AL F AREA. FINAL STRIPING TO BE DEPENDENT END OF EXISTING SD O SEMINOLE COURT SCALE UPON ADA COORDINATOR APPROVAL & LL ON PROPOSED CONNECTION TO END OF EXISTING SEMINOLE COURT CONCRETE CONCRETE SIDEWALK HILLSDALE DRIVE. CONTRACTOR ACCEPTABLE PARKING LOT GRADES. SIDEWALK & EXISTING CURB RAMP AS SHOWN HI ATI SHALL FIT-FIT/ MODIFY CURB & EXISTING CURB RAMP PROPOSED C RAMP AT THE INTERSECTION TO STOP SIGN PROPOSED 5' WIDE MIN. ADA COMPLIANT ASPHALT LO ENSURE ADA COMPLIANCE. LOCATION STRIPED CROSSWALK BETWEEN EXISTING CURB SHEET NO. 75' RAMPS TO CONNECT PROPOSED PARKING TO PROPOSED BUILDING SUBDIVISION EXISTING STOP SIGN TO BE RELOCATED FRONT OF BUILDING, INCLUSIVE OF END UNIT. 3 GRADING & DRAINAGE NOTES: 1. 42" HANDRAILS SHALL BE INSTALLED ON TOP OF THE PROPOSED RETAINING WALLS. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE AWARE OF EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITIES AND SHALL LIMIT DISTURBANCES TO SERVICE TO THE FULLEST EXTENT POSSIBLE. FILL SHALL OCCUR AROUND THE POSTS DURING GRADING OPERATIONS & THE SERVICE PROVIDER AND COLLINS ENGINEERING SHALL BE CONTACTED IF FOR ANY REASON DISTURBANCE TO THE LINES IS REQUIRED DURING THE PROPERTY LIMITS GRADING OPERATIONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING & DESIGNING WITH THE UTILITY POLE TIE PROPOSED CG-2 (TYP.) OWNER FOR ANY RELOCATIONS. INTO EXISTING 3. THE TOP AND BOTTOM OF THE PROPOSED RETAINING WALLS SHALL BE SLOPED WITH THE PROPOSED & EXISTING CONTOURS & PAVEMENT SHALL CONFORM TO THE LAY OF THE LAND. THE TOP OF THE WALLS ARE DESIGNED TO BE FLUSH WITH THE PROPOSED GROUND. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL THE TOP OF THE WALLS EXTEND MORE THAN 6" ABOVE THE PROPOSED GRADE. ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN REPRESENT EXPOSED FINISHED GRADES AND DO NOT ACCOUNT FOR FOUNDATIONS. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL ABANDON & PLUG THE TWO EXISTING STORM SEWERS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN. CONTRACTOR SHALL REROUTE THE EXISTING STORM SEWER AROUND THE RETAINING WALLS VIA THE PROPOSED STORM SEWER. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONS, DIAMETERS & DEPTHS OF EXISTING STRUCTURES PRIOR TO PURCHASING OR INSTALLATION OF PROPOSED STORM SEWER. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY COLLINS ENGINEERING OF ANY DISCREPANCIES. PROPOSED RELOCATION 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE COLLINS ENGINEERING SURVEY WORKSHEETS OF ALL STORM SEWER AND RETAINING WALLS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION / CONSTRUCTION FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 5/25/16 REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 12/1/16 OF POWER POLE REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 9/2/16 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONVERT, OR REPLACE THE DI AS NECESSARY, THE EXISTING INLET TOPS ALONG THE ACCESS ROAD BEING EXPANDED TO MODIFIED VDOT MH-1's, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF EX7 AND ITS UPLAND DI APPROVED UNDER THE HILLSDALE DRIVE PLANS. THE RUNOFF PREVIOUSLY ENTERING THESE INLETS WILL NOW ENTER THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES VIA THE NEW CURB AND OVERLAND SHEET FLOW. THIS DESIGN CONCEPT MAINTAINS THE OVERALL EXISTING UPSLOPE DRAINAGE PATTERNS. 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES ARE NOT DAMAGED DURING THE PROPOSED EXPANSION & ALL RELOCATIONS MAINTAIN SERVICE TO THE TENANTS. REVISION DESCRIPTION 8. THE DIVISION OF THE BUILDING IS SHOWN GRAPHICALLY TO ASSURE THE CITY THE CURRENT AND FUTURE BUILDING REVISIONS FOOTPRINTS CAN ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED PARKING LOT EXPANSION & THE FUTURE HILLSDALE DRIVE EXTENSION. THE INITIAL SUBMITTAL DEPICTION OF THIS BUILDING DIVISION DOES NOT IMPLY ITS CONSTRUCTION TIMING, NOR DOES IT IMPLY THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY FOR ITS DEMOLITION & REPAIR. FINAL CONSTRUCTION LOGISTICS AND EXPENSES WILL BE DETERMINED BETWEEN THE OWNER AND THE CITY OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THESE PLANS. 9. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING WITH SURVEY EQUIPMENT THAT THE HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE ROUTES PROPOSED RETAINING WALLS w/ VARYING MEET MINIMUM ADA REQUIREMENTS. AT A MINIMUM, CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY A 5' WIDE UNOBSTRUCTED WALKWAY WITH TIE PROPOSED CG-2 HEIGHTS, STONE BACKFILL, PERFORATED MAXIMUM 2% CROSS SLOPES & 5% THROUGH SLOPES ARE MAINTAINED . CONTRACTOR SHALL EVALUATE THESE ACCESSIBLE INTO EXISTING PIPING & HANDRAILS SET INTO THE WALL ROUTES BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ENGINEER OF EXISTING WALKWAYS' PAVEMENT TOPS. SEE WALL DESIGN FOR ELEVATIONS USED FOR ACCESSIBLE ROUTES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION SO ADJUSTMENTS CAN BE MADE, IF REQUIRED. CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS. (TYP.) BUILDING CODE NOTES CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL 1. PROPOSED NEW EXTERIOR WALLS SHALL MEET FIRE RATINGS FOR EXTERIOR WALLS, OPENING RESTRICTIONS (DOORS, WINDOWS, VDOT STD. GR-2 GUARDRAIL, AS VENT OPENINGS, etc.) AND CONSTRUCTION TYPE OF CURRENT BUILDING. WARRANTED BY CITY INSPECTOR. 2. GUARDRAILS SHALL MEET CODE HEIGHTS OF 42" MIN. WITH 4" OBJECTS NOT BEING ABLE TO PASS. (TYP.) 3. PROPOSED STAIRS SHALL ADHERE TO BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR RISER AND TREAD DIMENSIONS. ( 7" MAX & 11" MIN.) EX6 STAIRS SHALL ALSO MEET MINIMUM HANDRAIL REQ'S. ( HANDRAILS AT BOTH SIDES ) PROPOSED RELOCATION OF POWER POLE 200 GARRETT STREET SUITE K- CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 - 434.293.3719 10/14/16 3/15/16 7/22/16 1/16/17 APPROX. LOCATION OF EXISTING E/P (TYP.) SEMINOLE SQUARE EXPANSION SITE PLAN AMENDMENT EX5 POWER POLE NOTES: 1. FINAL PLACEMENT OF POWER POLES AND LINES TO BE DETERMINED BY VIRGINIA DOMINION POWER. 2. ALL POWER POLE LOCATIONS SHALL BE PRE-APPROVED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION BY COLLINS ENGINEERING EX7 AND THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER DESIGNING THE RETAINING WALLS TO ENSURE WALL INTEGRITY AND OVERALL DESIGN ARE NOT COMPROMISED. GRADING PLAN LOCATION OF HILLSDALE FUTURE HILLSDALE DRIVE BRIDGE DRIVE EXTENSION APPROVED DI UNDER THE HILLSDALE SCALE: 1"=20' DRIVE PLANS TO REMAIN HILLSDALE DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS (BY OTHERS) SHALL INCLUDE CONNECTION TO EXISTING ACCESS CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL VDOT STD. GR-2 GUARDRAIL, AS LOCATION OF HILLSDALE WARRANTED BY CITY INSPECTOR. STR. EX7 APPROVED TO BE DRIVE BRIDGE PROPOSED (TYP.) MODIFIED WITH THE HILLSDALE RELOCATION OF DRIVE PLANS. DI TO REMAIN. POWER POLE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHANGE THE DI INA NG TC GE APPROVED HILLSDALE DRIVE DI A I DR XIST HILLSDALE DRIVE H TOP TO A MH-1 TOP & SHALL EX1 IMPROVEMENTS (BY OTHERS) E ENSURE THE RIM IS FLUSH WITH SHALL INCLUDE CONNECTION THE ASBUILT TOP ASPHALT COAT. TO EXISTING ACCESS HILLSDALE DRIVE R/W EX3 APPROX. LOCATION OF EXISTING E/P (TYP.) HILLSDALE EX2 DRIVE R/W EXISTING STORM SEWER SHALL BE ABANDONED & IV RE REROUTED AROUND THE DR TU PROPOSED RETAINING WALL PROJECT E E FU SHEET AL F SD O LL ON HI ATI JOB NO. C 112070 LO SCALE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERITY ASBUILT CONDITIONS OF HILLSDALE DRIVE, SHOULD AS SHOWN EX4 IT BE FULLY CONSTRUCTED AT THE TIME OF THIS SIDEWALK's CONSTRUCTION, TO L INE,5 SHEET NO. TCH ET ENSURE IT DOES NOT MAKE THE APPROVED MA E SHE 4 CG-12s & CROSSWALKS NON-COMPLIANT. SE 48" HIGH WOODEN BOARD-ON-BOARD SWINGING GATES WITH PAD LOCK LATCH FOR 54" HIGH WOODEN BOARD-ON-BOARD ENCLOSURE. DUMPSTER, 10'x10' EXTERIOR DIMENSIONS, SHALL BE SCREENED FROM ROUTE 29. 10'-0" OVERSIZED 6"x6" WOODEN POST CORNER w/ CAP, 54" WOODEN EXTERIOR HIGH MIN. (TYP.) ENCLOSURE, 54" REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 5/25/16 REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 12/1/16 ADA ACCESSIBLE RAMP & ROUTE DETAIL- REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 9/2/16 HIGH (TYP.) 10'-0" PROPOSED NORTHERN PARKING AREA, SCALE 1"=20' REVISION DESCRIPTION ADA ACCESSIBLE RAMP & ROUTE DETAIL- REVISIONS INITIAL SUBMITTAL EXISTING PLAZA AZTECA PARKING AREA, SCALE 1"=20' ADA ACCESSIBLE RAMP & ROUTE DETAIL- 456.26' EP PROPOSED SOUTHERN PARKING AREA, SCALE 1"=20' 43 CONCRETE 453.24 EP 456.14' EP 424 10'-0" 0 433.96' EX. SMH REINFORCED PAD 453.67' SMH TO BE RAISED FLUSH w/ SDWK 43 456.2 EP 2 45 1% CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL A 456.20' EP % 6 PROPOSED ADA COMPLIANT 436.0' BLDG. 2.0 1.3 , NE CONCRETE RAMP WITH YELLOW % 456.56' EP 436.5' SDWK 432.12' EP C HLI ET 4 T TRUNCATED DOMES AT THE END OF 1.3 MA SHE E THE EXISTING SIDEWALK TO TAPER % SE 453.0 EP THE 6" TRANSITION FOR THE VAN EXISTING METAL STAIRS 453.0 SDWK 456.62' EP ACCESSIBLE SPACE PROPOSED. PP 456.50' EP CONTRACTOR SHALL RELOCATE AND WOODEN GATE w/ INSTALL A NEW ENTRANCE CURB RETURN, 4 EXISTING CONC. AS SHOWN, WITH A 5' WIDE CONC. 45 LATCH, 48" HIGH (TYP.) SIDEWALK WAS FIELD LP SIDEWALK CONNECTING THE EXISTING 432.0' ± EP VERIFIED & HAS CG-12 RAMP TO THE EXISTING STAIRS. SLOPES LESS THAN 5% 2 EXISTING CURB WATER 45 CONTRACTOR SHALL STRIPE A 5' LINE WIDE CROSSWALK CONNECTING ELECTRICAL , 452.0' BLDG EXISTING CONC. THE TWO EXISTING CG-12 RAMPS. ARIES LINE SIDEWALK SERVING HC CROSSWALK MARKINGS SHALL EV 200 GARRETT STREET SUITE K- CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 - 434.293.3719 CONCRETE APPROACH PAD 452.5' SDWK O P SPACES TO THE SOUTH BE CONSISTENT WITH MUTCD SL 3-4% 10/14/16 SLOPED TO DRAIN TO CURB AT THE ENTRANCE TO 3/15/16 7/22/16 1/16/17 STANDARDS. 432.3' ± EP FLOW LINE, DIMENSIONS VARY CONTRACTOR SHALL STRIPE A 6' WIDE PLAZA AZTECA. 433.5' ± EP AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. CROSSWALK CONNECTING THE PROPOSED HC EXISTING HC PLAZA AZTECA SEMINOLE SQUARE EXPANSION SITE PLAN AMENDMENT ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE TO THE REAR SIDE PARKING SPACES (NOTE, EXISTING PARKING LOT EXISTING CG-12, ASPHALT ROADWAY AND TR OF THE BUILDING. CROSSWALK MARKINGS SHALL IS PROPOSED TO BE CONC. SIDEWALK. NO MODIFICATIONS/ BE CONSISTENT WITH MUTCD STANDARDS. EXPANDED & SPACES ARE NOT INSTALLATIONS ARE REQUIRED A PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED.) DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE DETAIL NSF N.T.S. OR MER NOTES, DETAILS & CALCULATIONS ” PROJECT SHEET JOB NO. 112070 SCALE AS SHOWN SHEET NO. 5 NEW STR. 14 IS A MODIFIED STR. (NON-STANDARD) DUE TO MINIMUM DEPTH REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED GRADE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL PERMANENT CONTRACTOR SHALL MODIFY EXISTING GRADE CONCRETE SUPPORTS FOR THE EXISTING EXISTING STR. EX5's RIM TO BE CONTRACTOR SHALL MODIFY STR. EX6 TO PROFILE NOTES: UTILITIES AT THE LIMITS OF EXCAVATION FOR PROPOSED FLUSH WITH THE PROPOSED HAVE A VDOT MH-1 TOP FLUSH WITH THE 1. ALL FILL TO BE PLACED AT 95% COMPACTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL MODIFY STR. EX4 BY THE INSTALLATION OF STR. EX4-2 (AND OTHER GRADE PAVEMENT. MODIFICATIONS TO PROPOSED PAVEMENT. CONTRACTOR 2. MINIMUM 3' OF COVER MUST BE MAINTAINED OVER W/L. PLUGGING, ABANDONING & REMOVING AS STORM SEWER STRUCTURE CROSSINGS, TYP.). ALSO INCLUDE DRILLING A NEW SHALL MAINTAIN THE EXISTING PIPE 3. MINIMUM OF 1' OF VERTICAL SEPARATION FROM STORM SEWER & W/L AND 1.5' OF NECESSARY THE EXISTING PIPE OUTFALL TO SUPPORTS SHALL ENSURE THE SLOPE & OPENING TO ACCEPT PROPOSED OUTFALL TO DIRECT RUNOFF SEPARATION BETWEEN W/L & SANITARY SEWER MUST BE PROVIDED. EX2. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THE EXISTING PIPES ARE STR. 11. CONTRACTOR SHALL DOWNSTREAM TO THE EXISTING BAIN. 4. VDOT STD. IS-1 IS REQUIRED ON ALL PROPOSED STRUCTURES. EXISTING INCOMING PIPE, WHICH WILL MAINTAINED. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL MAINTAIN THE EXISTING 5. ALL PARKING LOT EMBANKMENT MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST PREDOMINATELY OF CONTINUE TO OUTFALL INTO THE EXISTING INCOMING & OUTGOING PIPES, CONTRACTOR SHALL RELOCATE, AS SOIL AND BE PLACED IN SUCCESSIVE UNIFORM LAYERS NOT MORE THAN 8 STRUCTURAL BACKFILL AFTER STORM SEWER SWM FACILITY VIA STR. 16. CONTRACTOR TO DIRECTING RUNOFF TO THE REQUIRED, THE EXISTING GAS LINE (SHOWN REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 5/25/16 REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 12/1/16 CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE. INCHES IN THICKNESS BEFORE COMPACTION OVER THE ENTIRE ROADBED AREA REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 9/2/16 INSTALL A NEW OUTFALL PIPE TO STR. 16. DETENTION SYSTEM. APPROXIMATELY). RELOCATION OF GAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH VDOT 2007 ROAD AND BRIDGE SPECIFICATION 303.04 REQUIRES PRIOR COORDINATION WITH 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING ELEVATIONS OF ROADWAY, PUBLIC UTILITIES, GAS DIVISION CURB & GUTTER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTING THE EXTENSION OF THE ROADWAYS. APPROX. LOCATION NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES SO THAT THE ELEVATIONS OF EXISTING OF EXISTING S/L THE TIE-IN CONNECTIONS CAN BE ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY. GRADE (INV.=428.24) 7. THE STORM SEWER PROPOSED IS VDOT STD. REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE, PROPOSED CONTRACTOR SHALL RELOCATE, AS CONTRACTOR SHALL RELOCATE, CONTRACTOR SHALL RELOCATE, HOWEVER THE CONTRACTOR MAY SELECT A DIFFERENT VDOT APPROVED GRADE REQUIRED, THE EXISTING GAS LINE AS REQUIRED, THE EXISTING GAS REVISION DESCRIPTION AS REQUIRED, THE EXISTING GAS MATERIAL IN LIEU OF THE RCP PROVIDED ITS INSTALLATION IS IN ACCORDANCE (SHOWN APPROXIMATELY). RELOCATION LINE (SHOWN APPROXIMATELY). LINE (SHOWN APPROXIMATELY). WITH CURRENT VDOT STANDARDS, INCLUSIVE OF STD. & SPEC. PB-1. REVISIONS INITIAL SUBMITTAL OF GAS REQUIRES PRIOR COORDINATION RELOCATION OF GAS REQUIRES RELOCATION OF GAS REQUIRES 8. ANCHOR BLOCKS SHALL BE INSTALL ON ALL STORM SEWER PIPES STEEPER WITH PUBLIC UTILITIES, GAS DIVISION PRIOR COORDINATION WITH PRIOR COORDINATION WITH FILL AT 95% THAN 12%. PUBLIC UTILITIES, GAS DIVISION PUBLIC UTILITIES, GAS DIVISION COMPACTION 9. CONTRACTOR SHALL ADHERE TO ALL CURRENT CITY STANDARDS & STATE & (TYP.) BUILDING CODES DURING CONSTRUCTION OF RETAINING WALL, STORM EXISTING SEWER & GRADING OPERATIONS. GRADE 10. ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES LOCATED IN AND AROUND THE PROPOSED DRIVE AISLES AND PARKING AREAS SHALL BE FIELD MODIFIED SO THAT THEY ARE CONTRACTOR SHALL MODIFY STR. EX1 FLUSH WITH THE PROPOSED, AND EXISTING TO REMAIN, CURB, PAVEMENT, TO HAVE A VDOT MH-1 TOP FLUSH WITH LAWN AND RETAINING WALLS. THE PROPOSED PAVEMENT. 11. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONVERT, OR REPLACE AS NECESSARY, THE EXISTING CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN THE INLETS ALONG THE ACCESS ROAD BEING EXPANDED TO MODIFIED VDOT EXISTING INCOMING & OUTGOING PIPES. MH-1's, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF STR. EX7 AND ITS UPLAND APPROVED HILLSDALE DRIVE INLET. 12. VDOT SAFETY SLABS SHALL BE INSTALLED FOR ANY MANHOLE OVER 12' IN DEPTH. CONTRACTOR SHALL MODIFY STR. EX2 TOP TO BE A VDOT MH-1 WITH A TOP FLUSH WITH THE PROPOSED PAVEMENT. EXISTING EXISTING INCOMING PIPE FROM EX3 TO REMAIN. GRADE CONTRACTOR SHALL DISCONNECT & SEAL THE EXISTING INCOMING PIPE FROM EX4 & THE EXISTING OUTGOING PIPE TO THE BASIN (WATERTIGHT). CONTRACTOR SHALL THEN VDOT STD. INSTALL A NEW OUTGOING PIPE TO STR. 16, WHICH WILL EW-1 PC CONTINUE TO OUTFALL INTO THE EXISTING SWM FACILITY. CONTRACTOR SHALL THEN FILL LOWER EXISTING SUMP WITH GRAVEL & APPLY A CONCRETE TOP SURFACE TO 418.83' STR. 12 - EX5 STR. 14 - EX6 200 GARRETT STREET SUITE K- CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 - 434.293.3719 ELIMINATE POTENTIAL PONDING. NOTE, CONTRACTOR MAY (FRONT SHOPPING CENTER STROM SEWER REROUTING) DETERMINE DURING CONSTRUCTION THAT THE DI NEEDS TO 10/14/16 3/15/16 7/22/16 1/16/17 BE REMOVED & INSTALLED WITH A NEW STRUCTURE. EX4 - STR. 16 STR. 12 - EX5 STR. 14 - EX6 DRAINAGE AREA PLAN SCALE 1"=50' SEMINOLE SQUARE EXPANSION SITE PLAN AMENDMENT 44 0 42 0 43 6 446 45 42 43 0 2 6 42 460 43 6 0 42 44 2 0 466 14 EX1 - OUT STR. 14 45 0 41 1.46 ac. 6 440 Cw=0.75 0 44 DRAINAGE AREAS, PROFILES & DETAILS Tc=5 min. 438 468 432 42 6 8 4 43 45 42 2 45 41 4 4 420 430 41 8 41 2 12 41 426 2 0 STR. 12 45 0.94 ac. Cw=0.75 Tc=5 min. 41 42 8 0 43 0 41 44 4 0 X APPROVED DI WITH HILLSDALE DRIVE EXTENSION PLANS TO REMAIN 446 EXISTING STR. EX7 BEING MODIFIED WITH THE APPROVED HILLSDALE X DRIVE PLANS SHALL REMAIN 414 RUNOFF TO APPROVED HILLSDALE DRIVE INLETS, THAT 42 ULTIMATELY OUTFALLS INTO THE 442 2 X 440 41 EXISTING BASIN 0 418 41 0 X 41 4 10'x10' CONCRETE SLAB TO SUPPORT STR. 16's DRAINAGE AREA FH DUMPSTER. SLAB SHALL BE 7" THICK, 40 440 IS A WORST CASE 4 SLOPED TO DRAIN TO CURB FLOW SCENARIO. IT TAKES INTO NA G GE AI IN LINE. 3000 psi @ 28 days (min) CLASS ACCOUNT THE DR XIST A3 CONCRETE WITH 6"x6" W2.1xW2.1 CONVERSATION OF THE E 0 (DUMPSTER) 42 18 WWF AND BROOM FINISH APPROVED HILLSDALE 4 4 DRIVE DI TOP TO A MH-1 42 CONTRACTOR SHALL EXTEND THE TOP, AS PROPOSED. 41 CONCRETE SLAB BEYOND THE STR. 16 4 4 DUMPSTER TO SUPPORT THE WEIGHT 1.19 ac. 43 OF THE TRUCK, AS SHOWN ON THE Cw=0.90 Tc=5 min. PLANS. 3000 psi @ 28 days (min) CLASS A3 CONCRETE WITH 6"x6" W2.1xW2.1 436 WWF AND BROOM FINISH INV IN 403.3 PROJECT 43 424 0 SHEET 43 16 2 21-A, 7" THICK PP JOB NO. LP 112070 SCALE 1"=5' (V) 1"=50' (H) SHEET NO. 6 LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE PROPOSED TREELINE PROPOSED CRITICAL SLOPE IMPACTS CE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE PER VESCH 3.02 SSF SUPER SILT FENCE PER VESCH 3.05 X X X X X X X X X X X X IP IP STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION PER VESCH 3.07 RWD RIGHT-OF-WAY DIVERSION PER VESCH 3.11 OP OUTLET PROTECTION PER VESCH 3.18 REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 5/25/16 REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 12/1/16 REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 9/2/16 SR SURFACE ROUGHENING PER VESCH 3.29 TS TS TEMPORARY SEEDING PER VESCH 3.31 PS PS PERMANENT SEEDING PER VESCH 3.32 MU MU MULCHING PER VESCH 3.35 REVISION DESCRIPTION REVISIONS INITIAL SUBMITTAL TP TREE PROTECTION & PRESERVATION PER VESCH 3.38 DC DC DUST CONTROL PER VESCH 3.39 ST ST TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAP PER VESCH 3.13 ST TEMPORARY DIVERSION PER VESCH 3.09 CIP IP CULVERT INLET PROTECTION PER VESCH 3.08 200 GARRETT STREET SUITE K- CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 - 434.293.3719 10/14/16 3/15/16 7/22/16 1/16/17 SEMINOLE SQUARE EXPANSION SITE PLAN AMENDMENT EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL NARRATIVE & NOTES DETAIL FOR SUPER SILT FENCE WITH CHAIN LINK BACKING & TWO PARALLEL ROWS N.T.S FLOW OF RUNOFF SHALL OCCUR XX X X X X X X PERPENDICULAR TO THE SILT FENCE WHEN FILL OPERATIONS ARE LEVEL AT THE END OF EACH DAY, LIMITING CHANNELED FLOW TO THE SILT FENCE. XX X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL A 10' LONG SECTION OF OVERLAPPING X SILT FENCE (3rd ROW) BEHIND THE X X X X X X STAGGERED 45° CATCHMENTS SEE ABOVE FOR SUPER SILT FENCE X X ENSURE DOUBLE PROTECTION AT SPECIFICATIONS, SSF. SUPER SILT FENCE ALL TIMES AT THE OPENINGS. TO BE INSTALLED WITH PARALLEL TWO X ROWS AT BASE OF FILL OPERATIONS. X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL 45° CATCHMENTS EVERY 100', X STAGGERED BETWEEN THE TWO PARALLEL ROWS OF SILT FENCE. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL TWO ROWS THE CATCHMENTS SHALL EXTEND OF PARALLEL SILT FENCE, AS SHOWN ON OUTWARD A MINIMUM OF 2' AT A 45° THE PLANS. ACUTE ANGLE RELATIVE TO THE SILT FENCE, AS SHOWN. PROJECT SHEET JOB NO. 112070 SCALE N/A SHEET NO. 7 CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL AN INLET PROTECTION TO SLOW CLEAN WATER RUNOFF BEFORE ENTERING UNDISTURBED SOIL THE SILT FENCE AND TREE PROTECTION INSTALLED WITH PHASE I DOWNSLOPE OF THE CURB DIVERSION AND THE PROPOSED WALL SHALL REMAIN & BE MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT ALL PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION. THE SILT FENCE WILL FURTHER PROTECT THE STEEP SLOPES. EE SEE REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 5/25/16 REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 12/1/16 EXISTING CURB TO REMAIN. CURB ACTS A CLEAN REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 9/2/16 WATER DIVERSION DURING PHASE II's WALL T SH E, CONSTRUCTION AND FILLING OPERATIONS. IS IN DIVERTED CLEAN RUNOFF WILL PROTECT STEEP TH CHL SLOPES AND THE WALL's STONE BACKFILL & UNDERDRAIN SYSTEMS. T MA REVISION DESCRIPTION REVISIONS INITIAL SUBMITTAL CRITICAL SLOPES TO REMAIN (TYP.) CRITICAL SLOPES TO BE IMPACTED (TYP.) CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL SUPER SILT FENCE, AS SHOWN. SEE SHEET 7 FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS OF THE SILT FENCE REQUIREMENTS & PLACEMENT. 200 GARRETT STREET SUITE K- CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 - 434.293.3719 10/14/16 3/15/16 7/22/16 1/16/17 SEMINOLE SQUARE EXPANSION SITE PLAN AMENDMENT CONTRACTOR STAGING SHALL OCCUR BEHIND THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THIS BUILDING. CONTRACTORS SHALL ENSURE THE EXISTING CURB IS NOT DAMAGED. ADDITIONALLY, PHASE I EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN INDIVIDUAL/PRIVATELY OWNED VEHICLES USED TO TRANSPORT WORKERS AND NOT EQUIPMENT SHALL UTILIZE THE EXISTING PARKING SPACES IN THE SHOPPING CENTER FOR PARKING. EXISTING CURB TO REMAIN. CURB ACTS A CLEAN WATER DIVERSION DURING PHASE II's WALL CONSTRUCTION AND FILLING OPERATIONS. DIVERTED CLEAN RUNOFF WILL PROTECT STEEP SLOPES AND THE WALL's STONE BACKFILL & UNDERDRAIN SYSTEMS. THE SILT FENCE AND TREE PROTECTION CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL SUPER INSTALLED WITH PHASE I DOWNSLOPE SILT FENCE, AS SHOWN. SEE SHEET 7 OF THE CURB DIVERSION AND THE FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS OF THE SILT PROPOSED WALL SHALL REMAIN & BE FENCE REQUIREMENTS & PLACEMENT. MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT ALL PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION. THE SILT FENCE WILL FURTHER PROTECT THE STEEP SLOPES. CRITICAL SLOPES TO DI INA NG CRITICAL SLOPES TO BE REMAIN (TYP.) TC GE A I DR XIST IMPACTED (TYP.) H E CRITICAL SLOPES TO BE IMPACTED (TYP.) IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE INITIAL ESC MEASURES ARE INSTALLED, AND CITY CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL AN INSPECTOR HAS GRANTED APPROVAL, INLET PROTECTION TO SLOW CLEAN CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL SEDIMENT WATER RUNOFF BEFORE ENTERING TRAP #2 & ENSURE THE WASH/RACK/ UNDISTURBED SOIL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE DRAINS TO IT. AT THE ONSET, DURING ESC PHASE I, THE WASHRACK/ CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SHALL DRAIN TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY DIVERSION & SEDIMENT SHALL REMAIN ONSITE. SEQUENCING NOTE: THE CLEARING, GRADING, FILLING AND WALL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION FOR THIS PROJECT SHALL SHEET OCCUR AT TWO DIFFERENT TIMES. THIS CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE COMPLETED AT ONE AREA/WALL BEFORE PROGRESSING TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECOND WALL/AREA. JOB NO. EE SEE 112070 T SH E, IS IN SCALE SEDIMENT TRAP AREA & FILL TH CHL OPERATIONS LIMITED TO 0.36 ac. BELOW CURB DIVERSION 1"=30' T MA SHEET NO. 8 DURING THE FILL OPERATIONS THE CONTRACTOR SHALL LIMIT THE FILL TO AN ELEVATION BELOW THE ADJACENT THE SILT FENCE AND TREE PROTECTION INSTALLED CURB LINE, AS SHOWN. WITH PHASE I DOWNSLOPE OF THE CURB DIVERSION PROPOSED RETAINING AND THE PROPOSED WALL SHALL REMAIN & BE WALL CONSTRUCTION & MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT ALL PHASES OF FILLING OPERATIONS TO CONSTRUCTION. THE SILT FENCE WILL FURTHER OCCUR DURING PHASE II PROTECT THE STEEP SLOPES. EE SEE REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 5/25/16 REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 12/1/16 EXISTING CURB TO REMAIN. CURB ACTS A CLEAN REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 9/2/16 WATER DIVERSION DURING PHASE II's WALL T SH E, CONSTRUCTION AND FILLING OPERATIONS. IS IN DIVERTED CLEAN RUNOFF WILL PROTECT STEEP TH CHL SLOPES AND THE WALL's STONE BACKFILL & UNDERDRAIN SYSTEMS. T MA SEDIMENT TRAP AREA & FILL REVISION DESCRIPTION OPERATIONS LIMITED TO 0.36 ac. REVISIONS INITIAL SUBMITTAL BELOW CURB DIVERSION SEDIMENT TRAP #1 CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL SUPER SILT FENCE, AS SHOWN. SEE SHEET 7 FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS OF THE SILT PROPOSED PHASE II DIVERSION FENCE REQUIREMENTS & PLACEMENT. DIRECTING RUNOFF INTO SEDIMENT TRAP TO PROTECT STEEP SLOPES 200 GARRETT STREET SUITE K- CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 - 434.293.3719 10/14/16 3/15/16 7/22/16 1/16/17 ELEVATED RETAINING WALL RELATIVE TO FILL GRADING WILL ACT AS A SEMINOLE SQUARE EXPANSION SITE PLAN AMENDMENT SEDIMENT TRAPPING DEVICE TO FURTHER PROTECT THE DISTURBED EARTH FROM THE STEEP SLOPES. CONTRACTOR STAGING SHALL OCCUR BEHIND THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THIS BUILDING. CONTRACTORS SHALL ENSURE THE EXISTING CURB IS NOT DAMAGED. ADDITIONALLY, PHASE II EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN INDIVIDUAL/PRIVATELY OWNED VEHICLES USED TO TRANSPORT WORKERS AND NOT EQUIPMENT SHALL UTILIZE THE EXISTING PARKING SPACES IN THE SHOPPING CENTER FOR PARKING. EXISTING CURB TO REMAIN. CURB ACTS A CLEAN WATER PROPOSED PHASE II DIVERSION DURING PHASE II's WALL CONSTRUCTION DIVERSION DIRECTING AND FILLING OPERATIONS. DIVERTED CLEAN RUNOFF RUNOFF INTO SEDIMENT WILL PROTECT STEEP SLOPES AND THE WALL's STONE TRAP TO PROTECT BACKFILL & UNDERDRAIN SYSTEMS. STEEP SLOPES THE SILT FENCE AND TREE PROTECTION CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL SUPER INSTALLED WITH PHASE I DOWNSLOPE SILT FENCE, AS SHOWN. SEE SHEET 7 OF THE CURB DIVERSION AND THE FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS OF THE SILT PROPOSED WALL SHALL REMAIN & BE FENCE REQUIREMENTS & PLACEMENT. MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT ALL PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION. THE SILT FENCE WILL FURTHER PROTECT THE STEEP SLOPES. PROPOSED RETAINING WALL CONSTRUCTION & FILLING OPERATIONS TO OCCUR DURING PHASE II DI INA NG TC GE A I DR XIST H E EXISTING CONCRETE CHANNEL OUTFALL TO BE REMOVED, OR ABANDON IF APPROVED BY THE WALL ENGINEER, IN PHASE II AFTER THE SEDIMENT TRAP & FILL SILT FENCE INSTALLATION OF THE PHASE II DIVERSION. PHASE OPERATIONS AREA LIMITED TO I's INLET PROTECTION AND THE EXISTING CURB SEDIMENT SUBAREA= 0.15 ac. BELOW CURB DIVERSION 0.03 ac. SHALL REMAIN DURING FILLING OPERATIONS. TRAP #2 DURING THE FILL OPERATIONS THE CONTRACTOR SHALL LIMIT THE FILL TO AN ELEVATION BELOW THE ADJACENT CURB LINE, AS SHOWN. ELEVATED RETAINING WALL RELATIVE TO FILL GRADING WILL ACT AS A SEDIMENT TRAPPING DEVICE TO FURTHER PROTECT THE DISTURBED EARTH FROM THE STEEP SLOPES. DURING THE FILL OPERATIONS THE CONTRACTOR SHALL LIMIT THE FILL TO CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THE AN ELEVATION BELOW THE ADJACENT WASH/RACK/ CONSTRUCTION CURB LINE, AS SHOWN. ENTRANCE DRAINS TO ST #2 PROPOSED RETAINING SEQUENCING NOTE: WALL CONSTRUCTION & (TO OCCUR WITH PHASE II's ESC PLAN) THE CLEARING, GRADING, FILLING AND WALL E FILLING OPERATIONS TO H AS PROJECT CONSTRUCTION FOR THIS PROJECT SHALL P OCCUR DURING PHASE II H IT N) SHEET OCCUR AT TWO DIFFERENT TIMES. THIS W LA CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE COMPLETED AT ONE C UR C P OC E S AREA/WALL BEFORE PROGRESSING TO THE O 's CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECOND WALL/AREA. (T II JOB NO. EE SEE 112070 T SH E, IS IN SCALE SEDIMENT TRAP AREA & FILL TH CHL OPERATIONS LIMITED TO 0.36 ac. BELOW CURB DIVERSION SILT FENCE 1"=30' T SUBAREA= MA 0.07 ac. SHEET NO. 9 PHASE II's DIVERSION TO BE MODIFIED & TO REMAIN EE SEE FUNCTIONAL DURING PARKING REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 5/25/16 REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 12/1/16 REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 9/2/16 LOT CONSTRUCTION FOR AS T SH E, LONG AS IS POSSIBLE. IS IN TH CHL T MA SEDIMENT TRAP AREA & FILL REVISION DESCRIPTION OPERATIONS LIMITED TO 0.36 ac. REVISIONS INITIAL SUBMITTAL BELOW CURB DIVERSION SEDIMENT TRAP #1 & ITS DIVERSION TO REMAIN FUNCTIONAL AS LONG AS POSSIBLE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL SUPER SILT FENCE, AS SHOWN. SEE SHEET 7 FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS OF THE SILT FENCE REQUIREMENTS & PLACEMENT. EXISTING CURB DIVERSION TO REMAIN IN PLACE FOR AS LONG AS POSSIBLE DURING PARKING LOT CONSTRUCTION 200 GARRETT STREET SUITE K- CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 - 434.293.3719 10/14/16 3/15/16 7/22/16 1/16/17 SEMINOLE SQUARE EXPANSION SITE PLAN AMENDMENT CONSTRUCTION OF PROPOSED STORM STRUCTURES 11 & 12 TO OCCUR AFTER SEDIMENT TRAP #1 IS REMOVED/FILLED. REMOVAL OF SEDIMENT TRAP #1 SHALL ONLY OCCUR AFTER CITY INSPECTOR's APPROVAL. APPROVED HILLSDALE DR. DI TO REMAIN PHASE III EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN IN THE EVENT HILLSDALE DRIVE IS FULLY CONSTRUCTED IN THIS AREA WHILE THE SITE IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION IN ITS EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PHASE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONNECT THE CURB INTO HILLSDALE DRIVE & INSTALL THE PROPOSED RAISED MEDIAN. OTHERWISE, THE RAISED STR. EX7 IS APPROVED TO BE MEDIAN & THE FINAL CURB CONNECTIONS SHALL ONLY OCCUR MODIFIED UNDER THE AFTER HILLSDALE DRIVE IS FULLY COMPLETED IN THIS AREA. HILLSDALE DRIVE EXTENSION PLANS. THIS DI IS TO REMAIN. PHASE II's DIVERSION TO BE MODIFIED & TO REMAIN APPROVED HILLSDALE DRIVE FUNCTIONAL DURING PARKING DI TO BE CONVERTED TO LOT CONSTRUCTION FOR AS HAVE A MH-1 TOP w/ THIS LONG AS IS POSSIBLE. PLAN, AFTER HILLSDALE DR. CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL SUPER SILT FENCE, AS SHOWN. SEE SHEET 7 FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS OF THE SILT FENCE REQUIREMENTS & PLACEMENT. DI INA NG TC GE SEDIMENT TRAP #2 & ITS A I DR XIST H DIVERSION TO REMAIN FUNCTIONAL AS LONG AS E POSSIBLE SEDIMENT TRAP & FILL SILT FENCE OPERATIONS AREA LIMITED TO SUBAREA= 0.15 ac. BELOW CURB DIVERSION 0.03 ac. EXISTING CURB DIVERSION TO REMAIN IN PLACE FOR AS LONG AS POSSIBLE DURING PARKING LOT CONSTRUCTION ONCE SEDIMENT TRAP #2's WATERSHED IS PAVED OR IS STABILIZED THE CONTRACTOR CAN REMOVE THE TRAP UPON THE CITY INSPECTOR's APPROVAL. AT THE TIME OF THE TRAP's REMOVAL THE CONTRACTOR CAN INSTALL THE UNDERGROUND DETENTION SYSTEM. CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THE WASH/RACK/ CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE DRAINS TO ST #2 (TO OCCUR WITH PHASE II's ESC PLAN) E H AS PROJECT P PHASE II's DIVERSION TO BE H IT N) SHEET MODIFIED & TO REMAIN W LA FUNCTIONAL DURING PARKING C UR C P OC E S LOT CONSTRUCTION FOR AS O 's LONG AS IS POSSIBLE. (T II JOB NO. EE SEE 112070 T SH E, IS IN SCALE SEDIMENT TRAP AREA & FILL TH CHL OPERATIONS LIMITED TO 0.36 ac. BELOW CURB DIVERSION SILT FENCE 1"=30' T SUBAREA= MA 0.07 ac. SHEET NO. 10 LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE PROPOSED TREELINE PROPOSED CRITICAL SLOPE IMPACTS CE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE PER VESCH 3.02 SSF SUPER SILT FENCE PER VESCH 3.05 X X X X X X X X X X X X IP IP STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION PER VESCH 3.07 RWD RIGHT-OF-WAY DIVERSION PER VESCH 3.11 OP OUTLET PROTECTION PER VESCH 3.18 REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 5/25/16 REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 12/1/16 REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 9/2/16 SR SURFACE ROUGHENING PER VESCH 3.29 TS TS TEMPORARY SEEDING PER VESCH 3.31 PS PS PERMANENT SEEDING PER VESCH 3.32 MU MU MULCHING PER VESCH 3.35 REVISION DESCRIPTION REVISIONS INITIAL SUBMITTAL TP TREE PROTECTION & PRESERVATION PER VESCH 3.38 DC DC DUST CONTROL PER VESCH 3.39 ST ST TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAP PER VESCH 3.13 ST TEMPORARY DIVERSION PER VESCH 3.09 200 GARRETT STREET SUITE K- CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 - 434.293.3719 10/14/16 3/15/16 7/22/16 1/16/17 SEMINOLE SQUARE EXPANSION SITE PLAN AMENDMENT EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL NARRATIVE & NOTES DETAIL FOR SUPER SILT FENCE WITH CHAIN LINK BACKING & TWO PARALLEL ROWS N.T.S FLOW OF RUNOFF SHALL OCCUR XX X X X X X X PERPENDICULAR TO THE SILT FENCE WHEN FILL OPERATIONS ARE LEVEL AT THE END OF EACH DAY, LIMITING CHANNELED FLOW TO THE SILT FENCE. XX X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL A 10' LONG SECTION OF OVERLAPPING X SILT FENCE (3rd ROW) BEHIND THE X X X X X X STAGGERED 45° CATCHMENTS SEE ABOVE FOR SUPER SILT FENCE X X ENSURE DOUBLE PROTECTION AT SPECIFICATIONS, SSF. SUPER SILT FENCE ALL TIMES AT THE OPENINGS. TO BE INSTALLED WITH PARALLEL TWO X ROWS AT BASE OF FILL OPERATIONS. X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL 45° CATCHMENTS EVERY 100', X STAGGERED BETWEEN THE TWO PARALLEL ROWS OF SILT FENCE. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL TWO ROWS THE CATCHMENTS SHALL EXTEND OF PARALLEL SILT FENCE, AS SHOWN ON OUTWARD A MINIMUM OF 2' AT A 45° THE PLANS. ACUTE ANGLE RELATIVE TO THE SILT FENCE, AS SHOWN. PROJECT SHEET JOB NO. 112070 SCALE N/A SHEET NO. 7 452 416 PROPOSED SEMINOLE SQUARE EXISTING SEMINOLE EXPANSION SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER EXISTING SEMINOLE 450 450 SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER 414 REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 5/25/16 REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 12/1/16 REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 9/2/16 EXISTING ZAN POST OFFICE ROA 440 438 42 446 432 428 424 0 D 418 412 REVISION DESCRIPTION 412 HILLSDALE DRIVE 440 44 430 REVISIONS 6 INITIAL SUBMITTAL 420 EXTENSION 418 450 444 2 44 414 HILLSDALE DRIVE EXTENDED RIGHT OF WAY 42 436 6 440 0 (TYP.) 43 44 0 EXI CO EXISTING SEMINOLE X FH STI UR X 440 SQUARE SHOPPING EXISTING SEMINOLE 41 410 X NG T 8 CENTER X SQUARE SHOPPING X 41 4 CENTER SEM X 440 EXISTING PEPSI SEE THIS SHEET 200 GARRETT STREET SUITE K- CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 - 434.293.3719 MATCHLINE, INO 10/14/16 PLANT 3/15/16 7/22/16 1/16/17 422 410 HILLSDALE DRIVE X EXTENDED RIGHT LE SEMINOLE SQUARE EXPANSION SITE PLAN AMENDMENT EXISTING SWM OF WAY FACILITY TO REMAIN X 420 424 418 434 PROPOSED 414 6 X 43 HILLSDALE DRIVE EXTENSION OVERLAID WITH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED RETAINING SEMINOLE WALL ASSOCIATED w/ 6 43 SEMINOLE SQUARE 404 SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER SHALL 414 X REMAIN OUTSIDE THE LIMITS EXPANSION OF THE 416' CONTOUR (TYP.) X 414 45 410 0 X HILLSDALE DRIVE 434 EXTENSION 444 454 450 X 444 446 440 430 440 440 X HILLSDALE DRIVE EXTENSION NOTES: PEPSI PRIVATE SEE THIS SHEET 1. SOURCE OF HILLSDALE DRIVE EXTENSION IS McCORMICK TAYLOR. FILES MATCHLINE, PROVIDED ARE CURRENT TO DATE & WERE PROVIDED TO COLLINS GREENBRIER DRIVE AISLE ENGINEERING ON JULY 11, 2016. EXISTING 4 HILLSDALE DRIVE 42 2. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED IN THE TEMPORARY DRIVE EXTENDED RIGHT OF WAY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT SHOULD BE INSTALLED AFTER THE HILLSDALE DRIVE EXTENSION IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETED. 44 0 0 42 PEPSI PLANT EXPANSION 41 6 EXISTING 43 2 PEPSI PLANT 43 6 412 410 406 0 43 430 PROJECT SHEET JOB NO. 112070 42 SCALE 0 426 EXISTING 1"=50' 410 HILLSDALE DRIVE SHEET NO. 402 12 420 EXISTING SEMINOLE SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER 450 AFTER THE HILLSDALE DRIVE EXTENSION CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED IN THIS AREA, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL THE PROPOSED PROPOSED SEMINOLE PARKING LOT CONNECTIONS. THE HILLSDALE DRIVE CROSSWALK & SIDEWALK CG-12 ON THE SOUTH SIDE SHALL BE RECONSTRUCTED. DUE TO THE HILLSDALE SQUARE EXPANSION DRIVE's MINIMAL DESIGN SLOPE (0.5%) IN THIS AREA, THIS STORM SEWER INLET REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 5/25/16 REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 12/1/16 APPROVED UNDER THE REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 9/2/16 THE CG-12 INSTALLATION WILL REQUIRE A MINIMAL HILLSDALE DRIVE EXTENSION ASBUILT RAMP MODIFICATION (5' MIN. RAMP PER THE 414 HILLSDALE DR. CURRENT DESIGN). SEE THIS SHEET PLANS SHALL REMAIN AND IS FOR CG-12, TYPE M2 DETAIL. SEE SHEET 5 FOR CG-12, NOT IMPACTED BY THE TYPE B DETAIL. PROPOSED PLAN. EXISTING POST REVISION DESCRIPTION REVISIONS INITIAL SUBMITTAL OFFICE 440 438 42 446 432 428 424 0 418 412 STR. EX7 IS TO BE MODIFIED UNDER 412 THE APPROVED HILLSDALE DRIVE 440 PLANS. THIS STORM SEWER INLET 44 430 SHALL REMAIN AND IS NOT 6 420 IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PLAN. 418 2 44 200 GARRETT STREET SUITE K- CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 - 434.293.3719 414 10/14/16 3/15/16 7/22/16 1/16/17 SEMINOLE SQUARE EXPANSION SITE PLAN AMENDMENT 42 436 6 440 0 43 44 0 THE EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY SHALL BE MODIFIED WITH THIS SET OF PLANS. THE HYDRANT's SERVICE LINE X X HILLSDALE DRIVE EXTENSION OVERLAID WITH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE EXTENDED BEYOND THE FH PROPOSED CURB & A NEW FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY SHALL BE INSTALLED, INCLUSIVE 440 X OF A NEW GATE VALVE. X 41 410 X 8 X X 41 X 4 PROPOSED SEMINOLE X SQUARE EXPANSION THIS DI IS APPROVED WITH THE HILLSDALE DRIVE EXTENSION (HDE) PLANS. AFTER THE CONSTRUCTION IS X COMPLETE TO THE HDE IN THIS VICINITY, THE CONTRACTOR 422 SHALL CONVERT THE TOP TO A MH-1 TOP. THE MANHOLE 410 EXISTING SEMINOLE TOP SHALL BE FLUSH WITH THE ASBUILT TOP ASPHALT X COAT, AND THE WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE TOP SQUARE SHOPPING CONVERSION IS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SET OF PLANS. CENTER X X 420 424 418 434 X 414 6 43 X PROPOSED CROSSWALK SHALL HAVE INTERSECTION DETAIL : MAXIMUM 2% CROSS & THROUGH SLOPES. SCALE 1"=30' 404 APPROVED HILLSDALE DRIVE DESIGN EXISTING PEPSI X 414 PROVIDES A 0.5% THROUGH SLOPE AND 42 6 432 44BE THE ROAD's 2% CROSS SLOPE SHALL APPROVED INLET PLANT 428 424 0 EXTENDED THROUGH THE PROPOSED UNDER HILLSDALE 418 412 X CROSSWALK, PROVIDING AN ADEQUATE DRIVE EXTENSION 412 CROSS WALK & VEHICULAR LANDING. PLANS TO REMAIN 440 430 420 STR. EX7 IS APPROVED TO BE X MODIFIED UNDER THE LIMITS OF SURVEYED 418 HILLSDALE DRIVE EXTENSION 416' CONTOUR PLANS. THIS DI SHALL REMAIN. ELEVATION X 414 410 X PROPOSED CG-12, TYPE B. 430 420 432 430 SEE SHEET 5 FOR DETAIL. 404 X IN APPROVED INLET TO BE 2 44 V MODIFIED WITH THIS PLAN. IN 414 412 X 40 CONTRACTOR SHALL 42 3.3 REPLACE STRUCTURE's TOP 4 WITH A VDOT MH-1 TOP, 410 42 FLUSH WITH THE ASBUILT SEE DETAIL ON THIS SHEET PP 6 X FOR CG-12, TYPE M2 DETAIL 0 43 44 TOP ASPHALT COAT. 42 4 0 LP 420 X PROPOSED NEW FH PROJECT ASSEMBLY WITH GATE 430 430 SHEET VALVE TO REPLACE EXISTING X X FH. NEW FH TO BE LOCATED FH BEHIND CURB, AS SHOWN. X X X JOB NO. 440 X X 112070 41 410 X TRANSFORM 8 X ER X SCALE X 41 1"=30' 43 4 0 TP X SHEET NO. X X 12A PRE-DEVELOPMENT POST -DEVELOPMENT SCALE:1"=60' SCALE: 1"=60' REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 5/25/16 REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 12/1/16 PROPOSED LIMITS OF ReDEVELOPMENT / PROPOSED LIMITS OF ReDEVELOPMENT / REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 9/2/16 DISTURBANCE. THIS AREA DEFINES THE DISTURBANCE. THIS AREA DEFINES THE WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS PER VA DEQ VRRM WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS PER VA DEQ VRRM REQUIREMENTS FOR ReDEVELOPMENTS. REQUIREMENTS FOR ReDEVELOPMENTS. REVISION DESCRIPTION REVISIONS INITIAL SUBMITTAL STORM SEWER SYSTEM STORM SEWER SYSTEM STORM SEWER SYSTEM STORM SEWER SYSTEM CAPTURING RUNOFF IN CAPTURING RUNOFF CAPTURING RUNOFF IN CAPTURING RUNOFF FRONT OF THE BUILDINGS BEHIND THE BUILDINGS FRONT OF THE BUILDINGS BEHIND THE BUILDINGS POST-DEVELOPMENT D.A #1: PRE-DEVELOPMENT D.A A: CN=94.0; Tc=0.10 hrs; DA=4.19 ac. CN=93.7; Tc=0.10 hrs; DA=3.73 ac. PRE-DEVELOPMENT CONDITION: EXISTING DRIVE AISLE DRAINAGE IS CAPTURED VIA STORM SEWER & CURB. 200 GARRETT STREET SUITE K- CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 - 434.293.3719 10/14/16 3/15/16 7/22/16 1/16/17 SEMINOLE SQUARE EXPANSION SITE PLAN AMENDMENT DI INA NG DI INA NG TC GE H E TC G A I A I DR XIST DR XIST H E E EXISTING PIPE & OUTFALL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN CONNECTING TWO STORM STORM SEWER SYSTEM CAPTURING SEWER SYSTEMS SHALL STORM SEWER SYSTEM CAPTURING RUNOFF IN FRONT OF THE BUILDINGS BE RECONFIGURED RUNOFF IN FRONT OF THE BUILDINGS BYPASSES THE UNDERGROUND DETENTION SYSTEM N) LE N) LE SIO DA SIO DA SEM SEM XT IL D XT IL D CO INOL CO INOL EN LS EN LS . E E H OA . E E H OA UR T E URT E DR TUR N R DR TUR N R A A (FU Z (FU Z STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DETAIL NOTE: EXISTING SWM BASIN THE POINT OF ANALYSIS FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT IS THE EXISTING RISER STRUCTURE. DA 'A' SCALE: 1"=30' REPRESENTS THE SUBAREA ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PLAN's IMPROVEMENTS. DA 'A' IS LOCATEDPROPERTY LIMITS STORMWATER QUANTITY NOTES: WITHIN THE 'EAST CONTRIBUTORY DRAINAGE AREA' SHOWN ON WW ASSOCIATES SHEET 34 OF 35 (TYP.) 1. DA A's post-development flows are directed into the existing basin, where they receive attenuation. EXISTING 56"x56" RISER RIM ELEVATION= 415.79'. RISER STRUCTURE HAS A 39"x39" (SEE ATTACHED SWM REPORT FOR MAPPING OF THE POINT OF ANALYSIS). DA 'A' ALSO REPRESENTS ORIFICE OPENING WITH AN INVERT ELEVATION=403.3'. RISER STRUCTURE RELEASES 2. Detention & compliance with 9VAC25-870-66 is met through the existing detention basin. Townes THE ADDITIONAL/MODIFIED RUNOFF ENTERING THE EXISTING BASIN. THIS RUNOFF ENTERS THE RUNOFF INTO A Ø60" OUTFALL PIPE. THE 2- AND 10-YEAR POST-DEVELOPMENT Engineering has provided routing calculations reducing the post-development flows to levelsBASIN less VIA AN ADEQUATE RIPRAP CHANNEL. MODIFICATIONS TO THE BASIN ARE PROPOSED TO OUTFLOWS ARE NOT EROSIVE ON THE EXISTING MANMADE PIPE, AS IS EVIDENT IN ATTENUATE THE RUNOFF AND ENSURE POST-DEVELOPMENT FLOWS ARE LESS THAN THE CURRENT STATE OF THE PIPE. THIS, AND THE EXISTING RIPRAP AT THE OUTLET than or equal to pre-development flows. These post-development flows are released into a PRE-DEVELOPMENT FLOWS. PLEASE SEE THE STORMWATER QUANTITY NOTES ON THIS SHEET & THE OF THE Ø60" PIPE ARE ADEQUATE. THE RUNOFF IS RELEASED INTO MEADOW CREEK, nonerosive adequate channel (existing concrete pipe with a riprap outfall) to Meadow Creek,ATTACHED which SEMINOLE BASIN ROUTING CALCULATIONS FOR EVIDENCE OF CHANNEL AND FLOOD WHERE DA A's SUBAREA IS 1% OF MEADOW CREEK's WATERSHED. PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. LIMITS OF EXISTING SWM BASIN is where post-development DA A is 1% of Meadow Creek's overall watershed and the adequate & EASEMENT DEFINED BY THE channel analysis can end. Please see the attached calculations from Townes Engineering for final 416' CONTOUR ELEVATION PROPOSED stormwater quantity compliance. (Section B.1.a, B.4.a, C.2.a and C.3.a) DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF THE 416' CONTOUR CONTRACTOR SHALL MODIFY THE OUTFALL PIPE's ELEVATION OPENING TO HAVE A DIAMETER OF 47.5". THIS MODIFICATION WILL PROVIDE SUPPLEMENTAL EXISTING OUTFALL TO BE ATTENUATION THAT OFFSETS THE INCREASES IN RELOCATED OUTSIDE THE FLOWS RESULTING FROM THE PROPOSED LIMITS OF THE RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PLAN. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT NARRATIVE: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF THE 416' CONTOUR ELEVATION PROPOSED STORM SEWER RELOCATION PROJECT SHEET APPROVED HILLSDALE DRIVE EXTENSION JOB NO. (TYP.) 112070 SCALE AS SHOWN SHEET NO. 13 PROPOSED 60' LONG, 10' WIDE MIN. STREET BUFFER EXISTING VEGETATION TO REMAIN WITHIN & S-3 SCREENING w/ 18" MIN. HEIGHTS AT PLANTING : CRITICAL SLOPES SHALL PROVIDE PLANTINGS REQUIRED: 1 LARGE TREE, 1 MEDIUM CANOPY ADDITIONAL STREET BUFFER BETWEEN TREE, 1 UNDERSTORY TREE, 3 EVERGREEN TREES & 3 SHRUBS ROUTE 29 & THE PROPOSED PARKING PLANTINGS PROVIDED: 1 AS, 1 AR, 1 CR, 3 MG & 3 MM PROPOSED HEAVILY LANDSCAPED AREAS ADJACENT TO THE RETAINING WALLS PROVIDES ADDITIONAL SCREENING FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. EXISTING VEGETATION TO REMAIN WITHIN CRITICAL SLOPES SHALL PROVIDE ADJACENT PROPERTY SCREENING. PER CITY CODE, SEC. 34-871 (b), EXISTING VEGETATION IS AN ACCEPTABLE FORM OF SCREENING. ALSO, PER CITY CODE SEC. 34-873 (c)(3) THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL BUFFER REQUIRED REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 5/25/16 REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 12/1/16 REVISED PLANS PER COMMENTS DATED 9/2/16 FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY SINCE THIS PARKING LOT ABUTS ANOTHER PARKING LOT ON AN ADJACENT PROPERTY THAT HAS AN EXISTING LANDSCAPED BUFFER. PROPERTY LINE REVISION DESCRIPTION REVISIONS INITIAL SUBMITTAL PROPERTY LIMITS (TYP.) PROPOSED RETAINING WALL. SEE GRADING PLAN FOR DETAILS (TYP.) LOCATION OF EX. 8" D.I. W/L 200 GARRETT STREET SUITE K- CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 - 434.293.3719 10/14/16 3/15/16 7/22/16 1/16/17 EXISTING CRITICAL SEMINOLE SQUARE EXPANSION SITE PLAN AMENDMENT EXISTING SLOPES TO REMAIN SANITARY S/L ARE VEGETATED & ARE BELOW THE PROPOSED ELEVATION OF THE BRIDGE APPROX. LOCATION OF EXISTING E/P (TYP.) PROPOSED 60' LONG, 10' WIDE MIN. STREET BUFFER UPLAND OF SWM FACILITY & S-3 SCREENING w/ 18" MIN. HEIGHTS AT PLANTING : PROPOSED 40' LONG, MIN. 10' WIDE STREET BUFFER UPLAND OF SWM PLANTINGS REQUIRED: 1 LARGE TREE, 1 MEDIUM CANOPY TREE, 1 FACILITY & S-3 SCREENING w/ 18" MIN. HEIGHTS AT PLANTING : UNDERSTORY TREE, 3 EVERGREEN TREES & 3 SHRUBS PLANTINGS REQUIRED: 1 LARGE TREE, 1 MEDIUM CANOPY TREE, 1 PLANTINGS PROVIDED: 1 AS, 1 AR, 1 CR, 3 MG & 3 MM UNDERSTORY TREE, 2 EVERGREEN TREES & 2 SHRUBS NOTE, THESE PLANTINGS ARE IN ADDITION TO THE HILLSDALE DRIVE PLANTINGS PROVIDED: 1 AS, 1 AR, 1 CR, 2 MG & 2 MM EXTENSION PROPOSED PLANTINGS. NOTE, THESE PLANTINGS ARE IN ADDITION TO THE HILLSDALE DRIVE EXTENSION PROPOSED PLANTINGS. NOTES: 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE ADEQUATE LANDSCAPING LANDSCAPING PLAN IS INSTALLED SCREENING THE PROPOSED RETAINING WALLS, AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS, AND MEETS CITY APPROVAL DURING INSPECTIONS. 2. LANDSCAPING PROPOSED AT BASE OF RETAINING WALLS FOR SCREENING SHALL BE PLANTED ABOVE THE 416' CONTOUR, AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. LOCATION OF 3. LANDSCAPING CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFIRM WITH THE EX. FH CVL_H_08275 GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND THE RETAINING WALL ENGINEER THE ALLOWABLE LANDSCAPING TO BE PLANTED IN THE VICINITY OF THE RETAINING WALLS. PROPOSED GRASS ISLAND (TYP.) EXISTING Ø8" W/L APPROX. LOCATION OF EXISTING E/P (TYP.) EXISTING STORM SEWER SHALL BE ABANDONED & REROUTED AROUND THE PROJECT PROPOSED RETAINING WALL SHEET PROPOSED 70' LONG, 10' WIDE MIN. STREET BUFFER JOB NO. BETWEEN THE POWER POLE/ LAMP POST & THE P/L. S-3 SCREENING w/ 18" MIN. HEIGHTS AT PLANTING REQ'D: 112070 PLANTINGS REQUIRED: 1 LARGE TREE, 1 MEDIUM CANOPY TREE, 1 UNDERSTORY TREE, 4 EVERGREEN TREES & 4 SHRUBS SCALE PLANTINGS PROVIDED: 1 AS, 1 AR, 1 CR, 4 MG & 4 MM 1"=30' SHEET NO. 14 This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: October 2, 2017 Action Required: Consideration of a Critical Slope Waiver Presenter: Heather Newmyer, City Planner, Neighborhood Development Services Staff Contacts: Heather Newmyer, City Planner, Neighborhood Development Services Title: Pepsi Plant Expansion Critical Slope Waiver Background: On August 15, 2017, Scott Collins, on behalf of Pepsi Bottling Company, is requesting a waiver from Section 34-1120(b) of the City Code (Critical Slope Ordinance) to allow for the construction of a 365’ long retaining wall, containing existing slopes greater than or equal to 25%. The applicant states the reason for the critical slope waiver request is to allow for expansion of the existing warehouse/office and loading area to accommodate the plant’s future growth. Existing critical slopes areas located on this Property include 1.76 acres/11.5% percent of the project site. The applicable definition of “critical slope” is as follows: Any slope whose grade is 25% or greater, and (a) a portion of the slope has a horizontal run of greater than 20 feet, and its total area is 6,000 SF or greater, and (b) a portion of the slope is within 200 feet of a waterway. See City Code Sec. 34-1120(b)(2). Note: This application has been through several submittals starting in January 26, 2013. For a more detailed history of the application process, please see the Memo provided on the first page of Attachment 2 – Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 28, 2017. Since the January 26, 2013 submission, the applicant has provided in an on-going process:  The engineering analysis required by the City to show how the proposed retaining walls would impact the existing stormwater management facility. The City Engineering Department has determined the proposed modification (addition of retaining walls) to the existing stormwater management facility would not adversely impact the facility.  A Trailway Exhibit (Titled “Proposed Seminole Square and Pepsi Trailway Exhibit” included in Attachment 2) showing (i) the addition of an eight (8) foot multi-purpose travel way (constructed to the City of Charlottesville design standards) and variable width greenway (13’ – 25’ in width) between the proposed parking areas and the retaining wall system, (ii) An access and construction easement to the City of Charlottesville in order for Parks and Recreation to construct a connection from Meadow Creek to the Shopping Center. (This addition to the application was most recent in efforts to eliminate Planning Commission’s concern that this proposal would encroach on an existing green amenity that is in close proximity to the restored Meadow Creek where there might be a missed opportunity for connectivity.) Discussion: Per Sec. 34-1120(b)(6)(3), City Council (in granting a modification or waiver) may allow the disturbance of a portion of the slope, but may determine that there are some features or areas that cannot be disturbed. These include, but are not limited to: large stand of trees, rock outcroppings and slopes greater than 60%. The Subject Property’s critical slope The application materials provide the following information relevant to your evaluation of this request:  Large stands of trees: The critical slopes are heavily vegetated where approximately 90% of the area contains vegetation. The proposal indicates that approximately 0.23 acres (10,000 SF) of the critical slope area’s vegetation would be disturbed and 1.35 acres (58,800 SF) of the critical slope area’s vegetation preserved. Note: The Landscape Plan proposes 8,762 SF or 0.20 acres of new plantings, including a series of evergreen shrubs to screen retaining walls. The proposed cover meets and slightly exceeds the 10% cover requirement per Sec. 34-869 which equates to 8,581 SF cover required for the project area.  Rock outcroppings: None.  Slopes greater than 60%: None. City Council shall consider the potential negative impacts of the disturbance and regrading of critical slopes, and of resulting new slopes and/or retaining walls. City council may impose conditions as it deems necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare and to insure that development will be consistent with the purpose and intent of these critical slopes provisions. Conditions shall clearly specify the negative impacts that they will mitigate. *Please see the staff report (Attachment 2) for a more detailed analysis on the above mentioned features and also includes the Critical Slope Ordinance for reference. The Planning Commission considered the most recent version of this application dated August 15, 2017 at their regular meeting on September 12, 2017. Planning Commission reviews the critical slope waiver based off of Finding 1, noted in Code Sec. 34-1120(b)(6)(d.i) as, “the public benefits of allowing disturbance of a critical slope outweigh the public benefits of the undisturbed slope (public benefits include, but are not limited to, stormwater and erosion control that maintains the stability of the property and/or the quality of adjacent or environmentally sensitive areas; groundwater recharge; reduced stormwater velocity; minimization of impervious surfaces; and stabilization of otherwise unstable slopes)” or Finding 2 noted in Code Sec. 34-1120(b)(6)(d.ii) as, “due to unusual size, topography, shape, location, or other unusual physical conditions, or existing development of a property, one (1) or more of these critical slopes provisions would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use, reuse or redevelopment o f such property or would result in significant degradation of the site or adjacent properties.” Staff noted the following in their staff analysis regarding the critical slope waiver request:  While the proposed trail, greenway and variable easement provides a public benefit by creating increased connectivity to Route 29 and a future connection from Meadow Creek to the shopping center, staff had concern that the improvements were proposed on a different property than the property owned by Pepsi (the improvements are proposed to locate on Seminole Square Shopping Center’s property; Tax Map 41C, Parcel 3.1)  Other than stating in the application “the owner is proposing to assist” with the 8’ trail, the applicant didn’t provide detail of how this is proposed to occur At the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant clarified the retaining walls were moved as part of the applicant’s proposal in order to accommodate (allow space) for the trail, greenway and variable easement. In light of the listed concerns above, staff recommended that should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval, they do so based on Finding 1 with the following four (4) conditions: (1) The existing stormwater easement that was created in 1985 be vacated, as there is no apparent reason that the City should be maintaining any part of this private facility. Vacation of the existing easement could also serve as a public benefit by taking the maintenance burden of a private facility off of the public tax dollar. (2) A detailed survey by a licensed professional should be provided following construction to capture any deviation from the approved plans. Upon completion of the as-built survey, the stormwater routing analysis should be verified using the as-built data. (3) Construction begins after the Hillsdale Road extension project is complete. (4) The previously submitted routing analysis for the existing stormwater basin between Seminole Square and Pepsi shall be revised and resubmitted to Engineering staff should the retaining walls located on the Seminole Square site require adjustment due to development activities on either the Seminole Square property or the Pepsi property. The Planning Commission discussed the following in regards to this application at their September 12, 2017 meeting:  If the improvements proposed (e.g. trail and greenway) equate to a public benefit at the expense of encroaching on stormwater facility  If the stormwater facility, having slopes that are “man-made,” is a feature that, if preserved, would outweigh the property owner’s proposal to disturb the critical slopes in order to adapt to Hillsdale Drive and make the desired improvements to the shopping center Citizen Engagement: There was no public input regarding this application. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: The proposed pedestrian improvements and proposed multiuse trail/greenway/variable easement align with the City Council Vision of A Connected Community and Strategic Plan, Goal 3.3, “provide a variety of transportation and mobility options.” Allowing for the plant expansion aligns with the City Council Strategic Plan, Goal 4.3, “Grow and retain viable businesses.” Budgetary Impact: N/A Recommendation: The Planning Commission considered this matter at their September 12, 2017 meeting. The Commission took the following action: Mr. Santoski moved to recommend approval of the critical slope waiver with conditions for Tax Map 41C, Parcel 3 (Pepsi Bottling Plant), based on a finding that due to unusual physical conditions, or the existing development of the property, compliance with the City’s critical slopes regulations would prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use or development of the property per City Code 34-1120(b)(6)(d.ii). Planning Commission recommended the following conditions as being necessary to mitigate the potential adverse impacts of approving the waiver in the location requested: 1. The existing stormwater easement that was created in 1985 be vacated, as there is no apparent reason that the City should be maintaining any part of this private facility. Vacation of the existing easement could also serve as a public benefit by taking the maintenance burden of a private facility off of the public tax dollar. 2. A detailed survey by a licensed professional should be provided following constructionto capture any deviation from the approved plans. Upon completion of the as-built survey, the stormwater routing analysis should be verified using the as-built data. 3. Construction begins after the Hillsdale Road extension project is complete. 4. The previously submitted routing analysis for the existing stormwater basin between Seminole Square and Pepsi shall be revised and resubmitted to Engineering staff should the retaining walls located on the Seminole Square site require adjustment due to development activities on either the Seminole Square property or the Pepsi property. Mr. Clayborne seconded the motion. The Commission voted 4-2 (Green-Lahendro) to recommend approval of the critical slope waiver. Alternatives: City Council has several alternatives: (1) by motion, take action to approve the attached resolution (granting a waiver of critical slope provisions as recommended by the Planning Commission); (2) by motion, request changes to the attached Resolution, and then approve a waiver of critical slope provisions (3) by motion, defer action on the waiver of critical slope provisions (4) by motion, deny the requested waiver of critical slope provisions. Attachment: (1) Proposed Resolution approving a Critical Slope Waiver (2) Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 28, 2017 with Application Materials attached RESOLUTION APPROVING A REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CRITICAL SLOPES PROVISIONS PURSUANT TO CITY CODE SECTION 34-1120(B)(6) FOR THE PEPSI BOTTLING PLANT AT 1150 PEPSI PLACE WHEREAS, Pepsi Bottling Company, owner of property designated on City Tax Map 41C, Parcel 3, consisting of approximately 15.3 acres of land, and known as the Pepsi Bottling Plant (the “Property”), seeks a waiver of the critical slopes requirements of City Code Sec. 34- 1120(b)(6) in connection with the construction of a 365’ long retaining wall on the Property (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered this request at their regular meeting on September 12, 2017, and recommended approval of the request, with conditions, to waive the critical slopes requirements, pursuant to City Code Sec. 34-1120(b)(6); and WHEREAS, upon consideration of the information and materials provided by the applicant, and the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the City Council finds and determines pursuant to City Code Sec. 34-1120(b)(6)(d)(ii) that due to unusual size, topography, shape, location, or other unusual physical conditions, or existing development of the Project, one (1) or more of these critical slopes provisions would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use, reuse or redevelopment of such property; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council for the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the request by Pepsi Bottling Company for a waiver of the critical slopes requirements for the above- described Project on the Property, is hereby granted, conditioned upon the following: 1. The Applicant shall petition City Council to vacate the existing 1985 stormwater easement, in order to transfer the burden of maintenance of the stormwater facility from the City to the owner of the Property. 2. A detailed survey by a licensed professional should be provided following construction of the retaining wall to capture any deviation from the approved plans. Upon completion of the as-built survey, the stormwater routing analysis should be verified using the as-built data. 3. Construction shall not begin until after the Hillsdale Road extension project is complete. 4. The previously submitted routing analysis for the existing stormwater basin between Seminole Square and Pepsi shall be revised and resubmitted to Engineering staff should the retaining wall located on the Pepsi site require adjustment due to the development activities on either the adjoining Seminole Square property or the Pepsi property. City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services Memorandum To: City of Charlottesville Planning Commission From: Heather Newmyer, AICP Date of Memo: August 28, 2017 RE: Pepsi Plant Expansion Critical Slope Waiver Request Updated August 2017 Background On January 26, 2013, Scott Collins, on behalf of Pepsi Bottling Company, requested a waiver from Section 34-1120(b) of the City Code to allow for the construction of a 365’ long retaining wall along the southern portion of the Pepsi Bottling Company property. The Planning Commission deferred the application due to there being a lack of information which included the need for an engineering analysis showing the proposed retaining wall would not decrease the capacity of the existing stormwater management facility (basin). On March 30, 2016, Scott Collins, on behalf of Pepsi Bottling Company, resubmitted the critical slope waiver request described above with the addition of an engineering analysis (Attachment 4) in efforts to show how the proposed retaining walls would affect the existing basin using current conditions. A site plan amendment proposing to expand the existing plant’s office/warehouse space and loading area was submitted at the same time as the critical slope waiver request and is currently under review by staff, having gone through several rounds of staff comments. Engineering staff has worked with the applicant through the review of the site plan amendment and critical slope waiver request to acquire the engineering analysis needed for staff to make a recommendation. On March 14, 2017, the March 2016 critical slope waiver application went before the Planning Commission. The engineering analysis provided by the applicant indicated the proposed modification (addition of retaining walls) to the existing stormwater management facility would not adversely impact the facility; this was a major concern in the review of the January 2013 request. Planning Commission discussed the applicant’s justifications as not being enough to outweigh leaving the critical slopes undisturbed. The applicant originally listed Hillsdale Drive extension as the public benefit noting approximately 1 acre of property was necessary for the new road. Staff noted that the City compensated the landowner for this land, so this can’t be used as a “public benefit” justification for a critical slope waiver. Staff did note that a vacation of the existing stormwater management easement would serve as a public benefit to the City by taking the maintenance burden of a private facility off of the public tax dollar; however, because Planning Commission did not believe this to be enough to outweigh leaving the critical slopes undisturbed, Planning Commission recommended denial with a vote 4-2 (Santoski- Keesecker). Following the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the applicant withdrew their current application prior to it moving on to City Council. On August 15, 2017, Scott Collins, on behalf of Great Eastern Management, submitted an updated critical slope waiver request in efforts to respond to Planning Commissions concerns voiced in March 2017. The updated critical slope waiver request includes the same information presented in the March 2017 application, except: (i) a modified Critical Slope Waiver Request Supplement and (ii) the addition of an eight (8) foot multi-purpose travel way (constructed to the City of Charlottesville design standards) and variable width greenway (13’ – 25’ in width) between the proposed parking areas and the retaining wall system (See Attachment 3 – Proposed Seminole Square & Pepsi Trailway Exhibit). The staff report providing analysis on this request is significantly the same as the staff report provided at the March 2017 Planning Commission meeting. Additional analysis provided regarding the modified critical slope waiver request supplement and the proposed trail, greenway and public easement is reflected in the text in the color blue for ease of finding new analysis based off of the updated information given by the applicant. In addition, the suggested motions are included at the end of the staff report for Planning Commission to follow. Attachments 1) Staff Report, August 29, 2017 2) Critical Slopes Waiver Request Supplement, August 15, 2017 3) Proposed Seminole Square & Pepsi Trailway Exhibit 4) Seminole Basin Routing Report by Townes Site Engineering 5) Critical Slopes Ordinance 6) Engineering Department Review 7) Pepsi Plant Expansion Site Plan, January 16, 2017 Attachment 1 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT REQUEST FOR A WAIVER: CRITICAL SLOPES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: September 12, 2017 Project Planner: Heather Newmyer, AICP Date of Staff Report: August 29, 2017 Applicant: Pepsi Bottling Company Applicant’s Representative: Scott Collins, Collins Engineering Current Property Owner: Pepsi Bottling Company Application Information Property Street Address: 1150 Pepsi Place Tax Map/Parcel #: Tax Map 41C, Parcel 3 Total Square Footage/Acreage Site: 666,468 SF (15.3 acres) Total Area of Critical Slopes on Parcel: 1.76 acres (11.5%) Area of Proposed Critical Slope Disturbance: 0.26 acres (1.7%) Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Plan) Designation: Industrial Current Zoning Classification: HW (Highway Corridor District) Tax Status: The City Treasurer’s office indicates that there are no delinquent taxes owed on the subject properties at the time of the writing of this staff report. Application Details Scott Collins, on behalf of Pepsi Bottling Company, is requesting a waiver from Section 34-1120(b) of the City Code (Critical Slope Ordinance) to allow for the construction of a 365’ long retaining wall, containing existing slopes greater than or equal to 25%. The applicant states the reason for the critical slope waiver request is to allow for expansion of the existing warehouse/office and loading area to accommodate the plant’s future growth. Existing critical slopes areas located on this Property include 1.76 acres/11.5% percent of the project site. The applicable definition of “critical slope” is as follows: Any slope whose grade is 25% or greater, and (a) a portion of the slope has a horizontal run of greater than 20 feet, and its total area is 6,000 SF or greater, and (b) a portion of the slope is within 200 feet of a waterway. See City Code Sec. 34-1120(b)(2). Based on the information presented within the application materials, Staff verifies that the area for which this waiver is sought meets all of the above-referenced components of the definition of “critical slope”. 1 Attachment 1 The application materials also provide the following information relevant to your evaluation of this request: • Large stands of trees: The critical slopes are heavily vegetated where approximately 90% of the area contains vegetation. The proposal indicates that approximately 0.23 acres (10,000 SF) of the critical slope area’s vegetation would be disturbed and 1.35 acres (58,800 SF) of the critical slope area’s vegetation preserved. Note: The Landscape Plan (Attachment 7) proposes 8,762 SF or 0.20 acres of new plantings, including a series of evergreen shrubs to screen retaining walls. The proposed cover meets and slightly exceeds the 10% cover requirement per Sec. 34-869 which equates to 8,581 SF cover required for the project area. • Rock outcroppings: None. • Slopes greater than 60%: None. • Identification/ description of unusual topography or other physical conditions at the site: There is currently an existing stormwater management facility in the critical slopes area. There is a stormwater management easement in the critical slopes area up to the 416 contour elevation that was granted to the City in 1985, however the reason why the City has a stormwater easement on a facility that benefits private property owners and does not receive water from City owned property is unknown to staff. In addition, there is not currently an adequate means to access the easement area to perform maintenance and construction of the retaining walls will further decrease accessibility to the facility. • Waterway within 200 feet: A stream that feeds into Meadow Creek is within 200 feet of the critical slope area. • Location of other areas of the Property, outside Critical Slopes areas, that fit the definition of a “building site” and could accommodate this proposed development: The applicant states due to growing production demands on the Charlottesville Pepsi Plant, the proposed expansion along the southern portion of the property is necessary. However, staff is of the opinion that this statement does not address whether or not there is a location outside of the critical slopes area for a “building site” since there is an existing operation on- site, and the applicant also notes starting in 2006, various expansions have occurred to the original building and operation without having to disturb the slopes. 2 Attachment 1 Vicinity Map Pepsi Bottling Company Standard of Review A copy of Sec. 34-1120(b) (Critical Slopes Regulations) is attached for your reference. The provisions of Sec. 34-1120(b) must guide your analysis and recommendations. It is the Planning Commission’s (“PC”) responsibility, when a waiver application has been filed, to review the application and make a recommendation to City Council as to whether or not the waiver should be granted based off the following: • (i) The public benefits of allowing disturbance of a critical slope outweigh the public benefits of the undisturbed slope (public benefits include, but are not limited to, stormwater and erosion control that maintains the stability of the property and/or the quality of adjacent or environmentally sensitive areas; groundwater recharge; reduced stormwater velocity; minimization of impervious surfaces; and stabilization of otherwise unstable slopes); or • (ii) Due to unusual size, topography, shape, location, or other unusual physical conditions, or existing development of a property, one (1) or more of these critical slopes provisions would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use, reuse or redevelopment of such property or would result in significant degradation of the site or adjacent properties. If the recommendation is for City Council to grant the requested waiver, the PC may also make recommendations as to the following: 3 Attachment 1 • Whether any specific features or areas within the proposed area of disturbance should remain undisturbed (for example: large stands of trees; rock outcroppings; slopes greater than 60%, etc.)? • Whether there are any conditions that could be imposed by City Council that would mitigate any possible adverse impacts of the proposed disturbance? Project Review / Analysis The applicant indicates the area of critical slopes that would be disturbed by the development is located to the south of the existing plant, and the applicant states that slopes are predominately man made. The applicant states these slopes were created over thirty years ago when the property was first developed. The critical slopes area contains an existing stormwater management facility and a stream that leads to Meadow Creek. The City holds a stormwater management easement for the stormwater management facility up to the 416 contour elevation, which was designed to accommodate a 100-year flood event. The area of critical slopes accounts for 11.5% of the total site area (15.3 acres), where it is proposed that less than an acre (0.26 acre) of critical slopes would be disturbed. Each applicant for a critical slopes waiver is required to articulate a justification for the waiver, and to address how the land disturbance, as proposed, will satisfy the purpose and intent of the Critical Slopes Regulations (as found within City Code Sec. 34-1120(b)(1), attached). If it wishes to grant a waiver, the City Council is required to make one of two specific findings: either (1) public benefits of allowing disturbance of the critical slope outweigh the benefits afforded by the existing undisturbed slope, see City Code 34-1120(b)(6)(d.i), OR (2) due to unusual physical conditions or existing development of a site, the critical slopes restrictions would unreasonably limit the use or development of the property, see City Code 34-1120(b)(6)(d.ii.). The applicant has provided information in the attached critical slopes waiver application for Finding #1. Applicant’s justification for Finding #1 *Staff items in bold The applicant references a 2006 master plan for the Pepsi Plant in Charlottesville where several expansions have already occurred as result of the master plan’s findings (e.g. expansion of loading docks, building expansion to the north). The applicant states a piece of the master plan includes expansion of the warehouse as proposed in the current site plan amendment and, based off of production demands in 2017, Pepsi Bottling Company sees this as a necessity to move forward with business. The applicant states without the ability to accommodate the area for warehouse expansion and loading truck circulation, the plant might have to relocate. The applicant notes the Pepsi Bottling Company provides the following public benefits: it is a large employer to the Charlottesville Community and the expansion will create additional employment opportunities in Charlottesville, it sponsors community events, and it has made contributions to public building projects throughout the area. The applicant states the owner is also proposing to assist with the construction of the eight (8) foot asphalt multi-purpose trail proposed along the northern property line of the North Wing Seminole Square Shopping Center, Tax Map 41C Parcel 3.1(See Attachment 3). The multi-purpose trail is proposed to be located within a variable width Greenway (13’ – 25’) that will include large shade trees, ornamental trees and shrubs to shade the trail. The applicant notes a 10 foot easement that covers the 4 Attachment 1 trail will be dedicated to the City working with the Parks and Recreation Department. The applicant states the multi-purpose trail provides additional pedestrian connections and a trail network, connecting Hillsdale Drive to Meadow Creek trail and Route 29. Staff is concerned with attributing the public benefit of the proposed 8’ trail to Pepsi Bottling Company for the following reasons: • The trail and proposed easement is not on the property owned by Pepsi (the easement being granted to the City will be through a different parcel of land Tax Map 41C Parcel 3.1 (Seminole Square Shopping Center)). The applicant has not offered information demonstrating a relationship between the impacts of the proposed development on Pepsi’s land and the off- site trail project. Since the off-site trail project is already planned to occur, it is also unclear how that trail project might mitigate impacts of development on the Pepsi site in addition to mitigating impacts on the Seminole Square development. • Other than stating “the owner is proposing to assist” with the construction of the 8’ trail, the applicant has provided no concrete detail of how this is proposed to occur. The public benefits referenced in 34-1120(b)(6)(d)(i) are environmental in nature, and staff hesitates to recommend an application that does not offer any on-site mitigation of the environmental impacts of slope disturbance, even while recognizing that retaining an existing business is of economic importance to the community. Staff highlights additional factors addressed by the applicant below. The full justification can be found in Attachment 2. Stormwater and erosion-related impacts on adjacent properties: The applicant states the modification to the existing stormwater management facility with the addition of retaining walls will not adversely impact the functionality of the facility. Engineering staff has reviewed the supplemental engineering analysis provided by the applicant and agrees with this statement. The applicant states that there is an easement in favor of the City for stormwater management. While there is an existing stormwater easement dedicated to the City for maintenance, the easement in itself is a burden to the City as it requires maintenance of a facility that primarily treats runoff from non-City owned property. City efforts should be dedicated to facilities that were constructed to City standard, are maintainable and serve the City and/or general public. This easement does none of these and it is staff’s recommendation that the easement be vacated as a condition of this critical slope waiver, if granted. The applicant states there is existing erosion along the bank and that the proposed retaining walls will eliminate this erosion potential. Engineering staff would like to clarify that the term ‘bank’ in this case is referencing stabilization of the slopes leading to the stream. While there may be some spot areas where erosion is occurring along the slopes, any stream bank erosion that is occurring will continue to exist because the proposed retaining walls are located above the top of the stream bank. Stormwater and erosion-related impacts to environmentally sensitive areas such as stream and wetlands: The applicant states that no streams or wetlands are proposed to be impacted with the filling operations. The applicant has incorporated additional erosion and sediment control measures and has conceived a sequence that will limit disturbed area to the stream. These items will aid in protecting the stream below these critical slopes, however, staff recognizes there is always the possibility that, despite a designer and contractor’s best efforts, Mother Nature can overcome any manmade effort. 5 Attachment 1 Increased stormwater velocity due to loss of vegetation: The applicant states stormwater velocity due to the loss of vegetation and impervious area will be mitigated with the modification of the stormwater management outlet structure which will result in detaining the post-development condition for 10-year storm event peak outflow to the 10-year peak flow for the pre-development conditions. The structure will provide detention, prior to releasing the flow into the existing channel. Engineering staff confirms this will comply with code requirements. Staff Recommendation Engineering staff has confirmed the addition of the retaining wall will not adversely impact the existing stormwater management facility based off of the supplemental engineering analysis provided by the applicant. Engineering staff has confirmed the application has incorporated additional erosion and sediment measures and conceived a sequence that will limit the disturbed area to the stream. These items will aid in the protecting the stream below the critical slopes. Because of these confirmations, staff is able to consider whether there is a public benefit associated with this proposal. The public benefits referenced in 34-1120(b)(6)(d.)(i) are environmental in nature, and staff hesitates to recommend approval of an application that does not offer any on-site mitigation of the environmental impacts of slope disturbance, even while recognizing that retaining an existing business is of economic importance to the community. Staff believes that, though retaining an existing business is of economic importance to the community, provision of jobs is of benefit, the public benefits referenced in Sec. 34-1120(b)(6)(d)(i) are environmental in nature and staff is hesitant to recommend approval of an application that does not offer any on-site mitigation of the environmental impacts of slope disturbance. It is also difficult to say if the trail proposed on a separate property is truly a justification. If the applicant is required per a condition of the critical slope waiver to vacate of the existing stormwater management easement currently held by the City, staff believes this would serve as a public benefit to the City by taking the maintenance burden of a private facility off of the public tax dollar and presents a stronger argument for a public benefit in Finding #1 than the original submission in January 2013. However, staff is concerned with the use of the proposed trail as an additional justification by the applicant for Finding #1 in light of it being off of the Subject Property and would like to know what prevents an environmental benefit being provided on-site specifically tailored to the impacts of Pepsi’s proposed development. Should Planning Commission recommend approval of the critical slope waiver, staff recommends the following conditions be part of the recommendation: 1. The existing stormwater easement that was created in 1985 be vacated, as there is no apparent reason that the City should be maintaining any part of this private facility. Vacation of the existing easement could also serve as a public benefit by taking the maintenance burden of a private facility off of the public tax dollar. *Alternatively, if the critical slope waiver is granted and the easement is not vacated, it is recommended that an access road be constructed as part of the wall construction so that maintenance can actually be performed by the City. The existing easement would also have to be expanded to include the access road. 2. A detailed survey by a licensed professional should be provided following construction to capture any deviation from the approved plans. Upon completion of the as-built survey, the stormwater routing analysis should be verified using the as-built data. 3. Construction begins after the Hillsdale Road extension project is complete. 6 Attachment 1 4. The previously submitted routing analysis for the existing stormwater basin between Seminole Square and Pepsi shall be revised and resubmitted to Engineering staff should the retaining walls located on the Pepsi site require adjustment due to the development activities on either the Seminole Square property or the Pepsi property. Suggested Motions 1. “I move to recommend approval of the critical slope waiver for Tax Map 41C, Parcel 3, Pepsi Bottling Plant as requested, with no reservations or conditions, based on a finding that [reference at least one]: • The public benefits of allowing the disturbance outweigh the benefits afforded by the existing undisturbed critical slope, per City Code 34-1120(b)(6)(d.i) • Due to unusual physical conditions, or the existing development of the property, compliance with the City’s critical slopes regulations would prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use or development of the property. And this motion for approval is subject to the following: _____the following features or areas should remain undisturbed [specify] _____the following conditions are recommended as being necessary to mitigate the potential adverse impacts of approving the waiver in the location requested: [specify] 2. “I move to recommend denial of the steep slope waiver for Tax Map 41C, Parcel 3, Pepsi Bottling Plant.” 7 Attachment 3 PROPOSED SEMINOLE SQUARE & PEPSI TRAILWAY EXHIBIT 200 GARRETT STREET, SUITE K, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902 OFFICE: 434-293-3729 GRAPHIC SCALE ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 60 ft. Attachment 4 *The full report (over 1,000 pages), includes Models 1-5 referenced in the summary below and is available at Neighborhood Development January 13, 2017 Services. Please contact newmyerh@charlottesville.org City of Charlottesville Neighborhood Development Services if you would like access to full Marty Silman, P.E. copy. City Engineer RE: Seminole Square and Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company Plant Expansion Seminole Basin - Stormwater Report Narrative Dear Mr. Silman, The routing calculations submitted for the Seminole Basin is to evaluate the impact of the proposed Seminole Square and Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company Expansion projects on the Seminole Basin. This report is to accompany the routing calculations for the five (5) models submitted for the Seminole Basin, Revised 1-12-17, prepared by Townes Site Engineering. The five models are discussed in details in this report. Should you have any questions regarding this report or the associated basin routing calculations please do not hesitate to contact me, I am available at your convenience. Sincerely, Mona R. Gabriel, P.E. Associate, Project Manager SEMINOLE BASIN ROUTING REPORT Seminole Square and Pepsi-Cola Bottling Expansion Routing Narrative HydroCAD 10.00-12 was used to evaluate the effects of the proposed Seminole Square Expansion and Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company Plant Expansion projects on the Seminole Basin. Five models have been developed to demonstrate the following: - Model 1: determine the allowable peak flow rates for the existing/Pre-Development Conditions. - Model 2: evaluate the impact of the proposed Seminole Square Parking Lot Expansion on the Seminole Basin. - Model 3: evaluate the impact of the proposed Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company Expansion on the Seminole Basin. - Model 4: evaluate the impact of the two proposed expansion projects combined (Seminole Square and Pepsi-Cola Expansions) on the Seminole Basin. - Model 5: determine the modification to the outfall structure required to maintain the 10- year peak discharge for the post-development condition below the 10-year peak discharge for the pre-development condition. The 48” outfall pipe needs to be modified to be 47.50” to detain the 10-year peak discharge for the post-development condition to the 10- year peak flow for the pre-development conditions. A summary table is provided below to demonstrate the findings of the five (5) aforementioned models: Albemarle Place Stormwater Management Plan by WW Associates dated 03/30/10 and revised 5/20/11 was used to determine the contributing drainage area draining to the Seminole basin from the sites west of Route 29. A copy of sheet C-13 (Post-Development Drainage Area Map) and sheet C-29B (East Contributory Drainage Area) from the aforementioned plan set is attached to this correspondence for ease of reference. The following is a summary of the sub-areas and the associated storm sewer structures or facilities that each sub-area is draining to: - 8S drains to 7P: 8S is the drainage area for the Commonwealth Facility which drains to an existing 36” outfall pipe (7P) as shown on sheet C-13 (Post-Development Drainage Area Map) from the aforementioned plan set by WW Associates. SEMINOLE BASIN ROUTING REPORT Seminole Square and Pepsi-Cola Bottling Expansion - 3S: represents the areas west of Stonefield that drain to the 60” by-pass pipe. These areas are sub-areas No. 8-14 as shown on sheet C-13 (Post-Development Drainage Area Map) from the aforementioned plan set by WW Associates. - 7R: represents the 60” RCP Diversion Pipe for Offsite Drainage as shown on sheet C-13 (Post-Development Drainage Area Map) from the aforementioned plan set by WW Associates. - 5s: represents the Albemarle Place North Post areas that drain to the Stormwater Management Facility. These areas include sub-areas 17A, 19A, 20, 21, 22, 23 & 27 as shown on sheet C-13 (Post-Development Drainage Area Map) from the aforementioned plan set by WW Associates. - 6P: represents the permanent North Stormwater Management Facility as shown on sheet C-13 (Post-Development Drainage Area Map) from the aforementioned plan set by WW Associates. - 9R: represents the 72” by-pass pipe system under Route 29 that outfalls into the Seminole Basin as shown on sheet C-13 (Post-Development Drainage Area Map) from the aforementioned plan set by WW Associates. - 11R: represents the existing 42” pipe system under Route 29 that outfalls into the Seminole Basin as shown on sheet C-13 (Post-Development Drainage Area Map) from the aforementioned plan set by WW Associates. - 4S: represents sub-areas 15, 18 and 17 from the Sperry Site that outfall to the existing 42” pipe system under Route 29 as shown on sheet C-13 (Post-Development Drainage Area Map) from the aforementioned plan set by WW Associates. - 2S: is the contributing drainage area from the Seminole Square Shopping Center that drains to the Seminole Basin. It is the summation of sub-areas 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 as shown on sheet C-29B (East Contributory Drainage Area) from the aforementioned plan set by WW Associates. - 13p: represents Seminole Basin. Attachment 5 Sec. 34-1120. - Lot regulations, general. (a) Frontage requirement. Every lot shall have its principal frontage on a street or place (i) that has been accepted by the city for maintenance, or (ii) that a subdivider or developer has been contractually obligated to install as a condition of subdivision or site plan approval and for which an adequate financial guaranty has been furnished to the city. Except for flag lots, stem lots, and cul-de-sac lots, or other circumstances described within the city's subdivision ordinance, no lot shall be used, in whole or in part, for any residential purpose unless such lot abuts a street right-of-way for at least the minimum distance required by such subdivision ordinance for a residential lot. (b) Critical slopes. (1) Purpose and intent. The provisions of this subsection (hereinafter, "critical slopes provisions") are intended to protect topographical features that have a slope in excess of the grade established and other characteristics in the following ordinance for the following reasons and whose disturbance could cause one (1) or more of the following negative impacts: a. Erosion affecting the structural integrity of those features. b. Stormwater and erosion-related impacts on adjacent properties. c. Stormwater and erosion-related impacts to environmentally sensitive areas such as streams and wetlands. d. Increased stormwater velocity due to loss of vegetation. e. Decreased groundwater recharge due to changes in site hydrology. f. Loss of natural or topographic features that contribute substantially to the natural beauty and visual quality of the community such as loss of tree canopy, forested areas and wildlife habitat. These provisions are intended to direct building locations to terrain more suitable to development and to discourage development on critical slopes for the reasons listed above, and to supplement other regulations and policies regarding encroachment of development into stream buffers and floodplains and protection of public water supplies. (2) Definition of critical slope. A critical slope is any slope whose grade is 25% or greater and: a. A portion of the slope has a horizontal run of greater than twenty (20) feet and its total area is six thousand (6,000) square feet or greater; and b. A portion of the slope is within two hundred (200) feet of any waterway as identified on the most current city topographical maps maintained by the department of neighborhood development services. Parcels containing critical slopes are shown on the map entitled "Properties Impacted by Critical Slopes" maintained by the department of neighborhood development services. These critical slopes provisions shall apply to all critical slopes as defined herein, notwithstanding any subdivision, lot line adjustment, or other action affecting parcel boundaries made subsequent to the date of enactment of this section. (3) Building site required. Every newly created lot shall contain at least one (1) building site. For purposes of this section, the term building site refers to a contiguous area of land in slopes of less than 25%, as determined by reference to the most current city topographical maps maintained by the department of neighborhood development services or a source determined by the city engineer to be of superior accuracy, exclusive of such areas as may be located in the flood hazard overlay district or under water. (4) Building site area and dimensions. Each building site in a residential development shall have adequate area for all dwelling unit(s) outside of all required yard areas for the applicable zoning district and all parking areas. Within all other developments subject to the requirement of a site Page 1 plan, each building site shall have adequate area for all buildings and structures, parking and loading areas, storage yards and other improvements, and all earth disturbing activity related to the improvements. (5) Location of structures and improvements. The following shall apply to the location of any building or structure for which a permit is required under the Uniform Statewide Building Code and to any improvement shown on a site plan pursuant to Article VII of this chapter: a. No building, structure or improvement shall be located on any lot or parcel within any area other than a building site. b. No building, structure or improvement, nor any earth disturbing activity to establish such building, structure or improvement shall be located on a critical slope, except as may be permitted by a modification or waiver. (6) Modification or waiver. a. Any person who is the owner, owner's agent, or contract purchaser (with the owner's written consent) of property may request a modification or waiver of the requirements of these critical slopes provisions. Any such request shall be presented in writing and shall address how the proposed modification or waiver will satisfy the purpose and intent of these provisions. b. The director of neighborhood development services shall post on the city website notice of the date, time and place that a request for a modification or waiver of the requirements of these critical slopes provisions will be reviewed and cause written notice to be sent to the applicant or his agent and the owner or agent for the owner of each property located within five hundred (500) feet of the property subject to the waiver. Notice sent by first class mail to the last known address of such owner or agent as shown on the current real estate tax assessment books, postmarked not less than five (5) days before the meeting, shall be deemed adequate. A representative of the department of neighborhood development services shall make affidavit that such mailing has been made and file the affidavit with the papers related to the site plan application. c. All modification or waiver requests shall be submitted to the department of neighborhood development services, to be reviewed by the planning commission. In considering a requested modification or waiver the planning commission shall consider the recommendation of the director of neighborhood development services or their designee. The director, in formulating his recommendation, shall consult with the city engineer, the city's environmental manager, and other appropriate officials. The director shall provide the planning commission with an evaluation of the proposed modification or waiver that considers the potential for soil erosion, sedimentation and water pollution in accordance with current provisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook and the Virginia State Water Control Board best management practices, and, where applicable, the provisions of Chapter 10 of the City Code. The director may also consider other negative impacts of disturbance as defined in these critical slope provisions. d. The planning commission shall make a recommendation to city council in accordance with the criteria set forth in this section, and city council may thereafter grant a modification or waiver upon making a finding that: (i) The public benefits of allowing disturbance of a critical slope outweigh the public benefits of the undisturbed slope (public benefits include, but are not limited to, stormwater and erosion control that maintains the stability of the property and/or the quality of adjacent or environmentally sensitive areas; groundwater recharge; reduced stormwater velocity; minimization of impervious surfaces; and stabilization of otherwise unstable slopes); or (ii) Due to unusual size, topography, shape, location, or other unusual physical conditions, or existing development of a property, one (1) or more of these critical slopes provisions would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use, reuse or Page 2 redevelopment of such property or would result in significant degradation of the site or adjacent properties. No modification or waiver granted shall be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, detrimental to the orderly development of the area or adjacent properties, or contrary to sound engineering practices. e. In granting a modification or waiver, city council may allow the disturbance of a portion of the slope, but may determine that there are some features or areas that cannot be disturbed. These include, but are not limited to: (i) Large stands of trees; (ii) Rock outcroppings; (iii) Slopes greater than 60%. City council shall consider the potential negative impacts of the disturbance and regrading of critical slopes, and of resulting new slopes and/or retaining walls. City council may impose conditions as it deems necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare and to insure that development will be consistent with the purpose and intent of these critical slopes provisions. Conditions shall clearly specify the negative impacts that they will mitigate. Conditions may include, but are not limited to: (i) Compliance with the "Low Impact Development Standards" found in the City Standards and Design Manual. (ii) A limitation on retaining wall height, length, or use; (iii) Replacement of trees removed at up to three-to-one ratio; (iv) Habitat redevelopment; (v) An increase in storm water detention of up to 10% greater than that required by city development standards; (vi) Detailed site engineering plans to achieve increased slope stability, ground water recharge, and/or decrease in stormwater surface flow velocity; (vii) Limitation of the period of construction disturbance to a specific number of consecutive days; (viii) Requirement that reseeding occur in less days than otherwise required by City Code. (7) Exemptions. A lot, structure or improvement may be exempt from the requirements of these critical slopes provisions, as follows: a. Any structure which was lawfully in existence prior to the effective date of these critical slopes provisions, and which is nonconforming solely on the basis of the requirements of these provisions, may be expanded, enlarged, extended, modified and/or reconstructed as though such structure were a conforming structure. For the purposes of this section, the term "lawfully in existence" shall also apply to any structure for which a site plan was approved or a building permit was issued prior to the effective date of these provisions, provided such plan or permit has not expired. b. Any lot or parcel of record which was lawfully a lot of record on the effective date of this chapter shall be exempt from the requirements of these critical slopes provisions for the establishment of the first single-family dwelling unit on such lot or parcel; however, subparagraph (5)(b) above, shall apply to such lot or parcel if it contains adequate land area in slopes of less than 25% for the location of such structure. c. Driveways, public utility lines and appurtenances, stormwater management facilities and any other public facilities necessary to allow the use of the parcel shall not be required to be located within a building site and shall not be subject to the building site area and Page 3 dimension requirements set forth above within these critical slopes provisions, provided that the applicant demonstrates that no reasonable alternative location or alignment exists. The city engineer shall require that protective and restorative measures be installed and maintained as deemed necessary to insure that the development will be consistent with the purpose and intent of these critical slopes provisions. (9-15-03(3); 11-21-05; 1-17-06(7); 1-17-12; 7-16-12) Page 4 Attachment 6 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT ENGINEERING REVIEW OF APPLICATION FOR A WAIVER: CRITICAL SLOPES Project Review / Analysis (Pepsi Bottling Company Expansion) The applicant has provided detailed information in the attached narrative for each item discussed below: Existing Conditions: - The applicant mentions that there is currently an existing stormwater management easement in this area up to the 416 contour elevation. This easement was granted to the City in 1985, however the reason why the City has a stormwater easement on a facility that benefits private property owners and does not receive water from City owned property is unknown to staff. In addition, there is not currently an adequate means to access the easement area to perform maintenance and construction of these walls will further decrease accessibility to the facility. Engineering Staff recommends that this stormwater management easement be vacated as part of this critical slope waiver, if approved. If the waiver is granted and the easement is not vacated, it is staff’s recommendation that a maintenance access road be constructed as part of the wall construction. Project Description - Engineering Staff has no comments regarding this statement. Finding #1: - The applicant existing erosion along the bank and how the walls will eliminate this erosion potential. Engineering Staff would like to point out that the term ‘bank’ in this case is likely a reference to the slopes leading to the stream. While there may be some spot areas where erosion is occurring along the slopes, any stream bank erosion that is occurring will continue to exist as the walls are located above the top of stream bank. - The applicant offers a 10’ foot easement dedicated to the City of Charlottesville. It needs to be made clear in those documents that the easement is strictly for maintenance of the trail itself and not the retaining wall. The City will not accept any maintenance of the wall. Erosion affecting the structural integrity of those features: - Engineering Staff has no comments regarding this statement. Stormwater and erosion-related impacts on adjacent properties: - The applicant states that there is an easement in favor of the City for stormwater management. While there is an existing stormwater easement dedicated to the City for maintenance, the easement in itself is a burden to the City as it requires maintenance of a facility that primarily treats runoff from non-City owned property. City efforts should be dedicated to 1 facilities that were constructed to City standard, are maintainable and serve the City and/or general public. This easement does none these and it is staff’s recommendation that the easement be vacated as a condition of this critical slope waiver, if granted. Stormwater and erosion-related impacts to environmentally sensitive areas such as stream and wetlands: - The applicant states that no streams or wetlands are proposed to be impacted with the filling operations. The applicant has incorporated additional erosion and sediment control measures and has conceived a sequence that will limit disturbed area to the stream. These items will aid in protecting the stream below these critical slopes, however, there is always the possibility that, despite a designer and contractor’s best efforts, Mother Nature can overcome any manmade attempt to control runoff. Increased stormwater velocity due to loss of vegetation: - Engineering Staff has no comments regarding this statement. Decreased groundwater recharge due to changes in the site hydrology: - Engineering Staff has no comments regarding this statement. Loss of natural or topographic features that contribute substantially to the natural beauty and visual quality of the community such as loss of tree canopy, forested areas and wildlife habitat: - Engineering Staff has no comments regarding this statement. Engineering Recommendation Engineering staff recommends approval of the critical slope waiver application with the following conditions: - The existing stormwater easement that was created in 1985 be vacated, as there is no apparent reason that the City should be maintaining this private facility. If the critical slope waiver is granted and the easement is not vacated, it is recommended that an access road be constructed as part of the wall construction so that maintenance can actually be performed by the City. The existing easement would also have to be expanded to include the access road. Vacation of the existing easement could also serve as a public benefit by taking the maintenance burden of a private facility off of the public tax dollar. - A detailed survey by a licensed professional should be provided following construction to capture any deviation from the approved plans. Upon completion of the as-built survey, the stormwater routing analysis should be verified using the as-built data. - The maintenance easement for the trail must be clear that the retaining walls, handrails, guardrails, or other associated features will not be maintained by the City. - The previously submitted stormwater routing analysis for the existing stormwater basin between Seminole Square and Pepsi will need to be revised if the retaining walls require adjustment to accommodate the trail. 2 Attachment 7 PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 5/23/16 REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 12/1/16 REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 9/2/16 COMPANY PLANT EXPANSION PROJECT DATA: EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT & SITE PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL SUBMITTAL REVISION DESCRIPTION REVISIONS CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CE LA IP PS VICINITY MAP PE 9 SCALE: 1" = 2,000' E2 CE E FI ILL SHEET INDEX OF SV UT ST TTE CURRENT INGRESS/EGRESS FOR RO TITLE SHEET PO LO EMPLOYEES, PARKING, AND VISITORS COVER SHEET 1 AR 3/22/16 7/22/16 10/7/16 1/16/17 PEPSI EXPANSION SITE PLAN AMENDMENT EXISTING CONDITIONS 2 CH SITE PLAN 3 DRAINAGE PLAN & COMPUTATIONS 4 434.293.3719 PROFILES & VEHICULAR MOVEMENT 5 NOTES & DETAILS 6 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 7 HILLSDALE DRIVE EXTENSION OVERLAID WITH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS 8 HILLSDALE DRIVE EXTENSION OVERLAID WITH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS 9 SITE EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL NARRATIVE & NOTES EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN PHASES I & IA 10 11 ALB CITY EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN PHASE II 12 EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS 13 (TM 41C P 3) EMA LANDSCAPING PLAN 14 OF C LIGHTING PLAN 15 RLE HAR 15 200 GARRETT STREET SUITE K- CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 - TOTAL SHEETS: COU LOT NTY TES VILL E SEMINOLE CT COVER SHEET CURRENT INGRESS/EGRESS FOR LOADING AREA AND WAREHOUSE SHEET LAYOUT SCALE: 1" = 200' OWNER & DEVELOPER PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY 1150 PEPSI PLACE CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22901 BMP DATA FOR THIS PROJECT: BMP OWNERSHIP INFORMATION: PEPSI COLA BOTTLING COMPANY 1150 PEPSI PLACE CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22901 PROJECT SHEET TYPE/DESCRIPTION OF BMP INSTALLED: AN EXISTING, ONSITE SWM FACILITY IS PROPOSED TO PROVIDE QUANTITY TREATMENT. WATER QUALITY CREDITS ARE PROPOSED TO BE PURCHASED FOR QUALITY COMPLIANCE. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION BEHIND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT & EXISTING SEMINOLE SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER, 195 (HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE) SEMINOLE CT., CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22901; LATITUDE 38.065176°, LONGITUDE -78.484748°; HUC 12 #020802040401 JR14; HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP TYPE 88- FILL) JOB NO. WATERBODY THE BMP IS ULTIMATELY DISCHARGING INTO: MEADOW CREEK; PART OF THE SOUTH FORK RIVANNA RIVER RESERVOIR 112069 # OF ACRES TREATED BY BMPs: 1.30 ac. IS DETAINED VIA THE EXISTING, ONSITE SWM FACILITY SCALE DESCRIPTION OF REQUIRED THE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM FOR THE WATER QUANTITY SHALL BE CLEANING OUT THE BASIN SIGNATURE PANEL MAINTENANCE: ANNUALLY, OR AS NECESSARY, AND ENSURING THE FACILITY IS FREE OF TRASH AND DEBRIS. MAINTENANCE TO ALSO INCLUDE INSPECTION, AND REPAIR AS NECESSARY, OF ALL PIPES, JOINTS, N/A OWNER's SIGNATURE AGREEING TRASHRACKS AND OUTLET STRUCTURES. DIRECTOR, NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SHEET NO. TO MAINTAIN FACILITY: 1 W W 446 REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 5/23/16 REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 12/1/16 W REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 9/2/16 W X W 440 EXISTING 8" SANITARY SEWER 0 44 W INITIAL SUBMITTAL REVISION DESCRIPTION 438 EXISTING S/L ESMT. REVISIONS POST OFFICE D.B. 348, PG. 304 W EXISTING 432 W FENCE LINE (TYP.) 42 6 8 43 42 4 W 41 4 420 430 W 41 8 41 G 2 TOP: 446.64 41 426 INV IN: 440.84 2 W W INV OUT: 440.64 OLE GMANH 47.40 3/22/16 7/22/16 10/7/16 1/16/17 TOP 4 441.61 = PEPSI EXPANSION SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PROPOSED CRITICAL = LOCATION OF W INVERT X SLOPES TO BE EXISTING E/P 41 W 42 IMPACTED (TYP.) 434.293.3719 8 (TYP.) 0 43 0 W 41 44 4 0 W G TOP: 444.35 X W INV IN: 439.45 W INV OUT: 439.25 W LET DROP IN 4.52 W 4 TOP = 4 439.99 446 RT = INVE G W 200 GARRETT STREET SUITE K- CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 - W X W LOCATION OF EXISTING STORM SEWER 414 PEPSI PLANT W (TYP.) X W W EXISTING WATERLINE G OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE TO BE ABANDONED 42 ADJACENT TO THE EX. X APPROX. LOCATION OF 442 2 W 440 41 ASPHALT DRIVE EXISTING SANITARY 0 EXISTING CONDITIONS SEWER ESMT. W D.B. 348 PG. 304 EXISTING SANITARY AI ITS LOCATION OF EXISTING X SEWER TO REMAIN PL IM FIRE HYDRANT W N UNDISTURBED (TYP.) 418 41 D EL EXISTING BANKS OF G W CVL_H_08275 0 OO T CHANNEL BOTTOM EXISTING CHANNEL FL IMA BOTTOM OF ROX X EXISTING CURB TO BE REMOVED P LOCATION OF EXISTING W AP 41 GAS LINE 4 W (TYP.) X EXISTING CRITICAL SLOPES TO REMAIN G W (TYP.) W EXISTING SWM 2 43 EASEMENT FOLLOWS W X FH THE 416' CONTOUR 40 W 440 LET 43 DROP IN 8.85 4 0 0 3 TOP = 4 432.72 43 W DI INA NG = 41 TC GE R T INVE TOP: 438.40 4 42 X EXISTING FENCE A I W DR XIST 0 TO BE REMOVED 9 W H G INV IN: 433.05 RISER 41 42 4.5' X 5' 2.70 0 E 0 42 18 BASIN INV OUT: 432.75 0 1 CATCH 2.47 TOP = 4 408.70 42 4 = 4 4 T TOP = 4 437.87 INV ER 42 T = INVER 0 LE MANHO 7.31 41 X W G 4 3 TOP = W 41 = 430.50 INVERT 4 4 43 412 W 424 LOCATION OF CI M ER ION EXISTING W BUILDING LOCATION OF LET BENCHMARK SANITARY SEWER FA AGE AT ENT G EXISTING E/P DROP IN 5.45 EVELATION=403.3' 40 4 MANHOLES 81 3 42 7 TOP = 4 7 Y T W N MW T (TYP.) LIT EN 430 (RISER INVERT) MA OR RE TIE 8.83 X LET IN = 4 29 .3 DROP IN 0.77 0 41 ST TING .83 LET 44 436 4 1 IN = 42 8.71 DROP IN 9.90 W TOP = 4 2 8 0 .7 4 1 4 2 5 OUTG= TOP = W 3 IS 42 IN = 4 21.83 EX 4 3 5 .29 OUT = 4 IN = 32.64 OUT = 4 430 W X W 0 8 43 "P INV IN 403.3 V LET C 43 DROP IN 9.76 EXISTING STORM SEWER SHALL 424 W LET DROP IN 9.89 X 420 0 3 W TOP = 4 5.46 8 BE ABANDONED & REROUTED TP 2 TOP = 4 418.39 41 X = 43 AROUND THE PROPOSED VC 412 OUT = X 43 INVER T X RETAINING WALL ASSOCIATED P 2 6 W 40 4" w/ THE SEMINOLE SQUARE SITE LE X PROJECT PLAN AMENDMENT MANHO 2.49 X 400 BASIN SHEET 3 APPROXIMATE TOP = 4 424.23 CATCH 8.06 W R T = 2 TOP = 4 402.36 W LOCATION OF INVE X PP LET DROP IN 7.53 EXISTING W/L INVER T = X 3 EXISTING ASPHALT TOP = 4 431.28 LP JOB NO. = SURFACE PARKING INVERT W LET X LOCATION OF EXISTING LET DROP IN 8.97 DROP IN 7.30 112069 STORM SEWER EXISTING 2 TOP = 4 423.85 W 2 TOP = 4 4.40 FF ITS (TYP.) ENTRANCE T = 4 2 60 INVER SCALE ER OUT = BU LIM W "P IP 1"=30' AM TE E RE A UNIVERSITY BASIN TP APPROXIMATE LOCATION ST XIM CATCH 7.56 T W SHEET NO. LET RA OF EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT 2 TOP = 4 399.86 DROP IN 7.18 OF PRO 6 TIRE 42 CVL_H_08270 BASIN 2 NS = 2 CATCH 3.08 INVERT TOP = 4 423.22 AP = F 3 INVERT TOP = 4 426.28 W O = R INVE R T ME R PROPOSED EXTEND PROPOSED FENCE BOLLARDS PROPERTY LINE TO EXISTING FENCE WHILE (2 MIN.) (TYP.) REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 5/23/16 REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 12/1/16 STAYING WITHIN THE LIMITS REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 9/2/16 OF THE PROPERTY HILLSDALE DRIVE REMOVE EXISTING FIRE EXTENSION HYDRANT & REPLACE IT w/ A PROPOSED COMPLETE FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY w/ A HILLSDALE DRIVE 8"x6" REDUCER & A 6" G.V. RIGHT-OF-WAY EXISTING 30' NON-EXCLUSIVE CRITICAL ACCESS EASEMENT SLOPES 8" 45° W/L (D.B. 498, PG. 633) (TYP.) BEND PROPOSED BOLLARDS SITE PLAN NOTES: (2 MIN.) 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL TIE-IN ROAD CONNECTIONS FOR ROADS TO ANY ROAD EXISTING OR 8" 45° W/L UNDER CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR NOTIFYING THE ENGINEER OF ANY BEND DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE EXISTING ROADS AND/OR CURB AND GUTTER AND THE PROPOSED ROADS, CURB & GUTTER. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT ENGINEER TO INSPECT CURB AND ROADWAY TIE-INS TO INITIAL SUBMITTAL REVISION DESCRIPTION PROPOSED 6" EXISTING ROADS, PRIOR TO ANY CONCRETE OR PAVEMENT BEING PLACED. REVISIONS CURBING 2. INDICATES PARKING SPACE FOR LOADING DOCK . 3. A 6' TALL FENCE WITH 2" SPACING BETWEEN PICKETS SHALL BE INSTALLED ON TOP OF THE PROPOSED RETAINING WALL. 4. GUARDRAIL SHALL BE INSTALLED ALONGSIDE THE CURB, AS SHOWN. UTILITY NOTES: 1. MAINTAIN A MIN. OF 10' SEPARATION HORIZONTALLY FROM EDGE OF PIPE TO EDGE OF PIPE BETWEEN ALL SANITARY SEWER AND WATER LINES. 2.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ENGINEER SURVEY WORKSHEETS OF ALL ROADWAYS, PARKING LOTS PROPOSED VDOT STD. GR-2A AND DRAINAGE STRUCTURES PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF CURBING, DRAINAGE, OR UTILITIES TO COLLINS BETWEEN CURB AND FENCE/WALL ENGINEERING FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. COLLINS ENGINEERING SHALL 28' PRIVATE ACCESS PROPOSED 20' FOR ENTIRE LENGTH OF WESTERN UTILITY ESMT. VERIFY ALL SURVEY SHEETS TO ENSURE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AND PROPER ELEVATIONS FOR RETAINING WALL, AS SHOWN CONSTRUCTION. (1733 ADT) PROPOSED 2-AXLE 30' 3. ROADWAY, PARKING AND PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING SHALL BE LOCATED NO CLOSER THAN 5 HORIZONTAL LONG TRUCK UNMARKED FEET FROM ANY WATER OR SANITARY SEWER PIPE OR APPURTENANCE. PARKING (MAX. 13 4. PROPOSED WATERLINE SHALL BE FULLY INSTALLED AND TESTED PER CITY STANDARDS AND DESIGN SPACES POSSIBLE) CONCEPTUAL LOCATION MANUAL PRIOR TO CONNECTION TO EXISTING. COORDINATE WITH PUBLIC UTILITIES (970-3800) TO PROPOSED RETAINING WALL w/ OF STACKABLE PALLETS SCHEDULE THE WATERLINE SHUTDOWN AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE. PROOF OF SUCCESSFUL FENCE/HANDRAILS ON TOP. PROPOSED EXPANSION PRESSURE AND BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTS WILL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE TO PUBLIC UTILITIES. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL FFE SHALL MATCH 5. GATE VALVES SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE CURBS OR GUTTER PANS. WALL IN ACCORDANCE w/ EXISTING SLAB 6. EXISTING SANITARY SEWER FROM THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE FLOWS THROUGH THE SITE & DETAILS & SHALL CONSTRUCT (FFE=436.88) AROUND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT DISTURB THE EXISTING PERFORATED DRAINS AT BASE OF SANITARY SEWER. WALL w/ STONE BACKFILL. PROPOSED 8" 7. THE PROPOSED WATERLINES SHALL BE PUBLIC. 8. NO WATER METERS ARE PROPOSED WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT. WATER FOR THE PROPOSED BUILDING 3/22/16 7/22/16 10/7/16 1/16/17 CL. 52 D.I. W/L PEPSI EXPANSION SITE PLAN AMENDMENT EXISTING (TYP.) EXPANSION SHALL BE SUPPLIED VIA THE EXISTING WATER METER ON SITE. DRAINAGE DEMO 9. THE PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT SHALL BE PUBLIC & SHALL BE WITHIN A PROPOSED PUBLIC 434.293.3719 EXISTING MAINTENANCE EASEMENT. DITCH NOTES: W/L FIRE PROTECTION: 1. NEW WATERLINE SHALL BE CEMENT LINED PER CITY SPECIFICATIONS. 2. THE CONNECTION TO THE EXISTING WATERLINE SHALL BE MADE USING 1. AN APPROVED WATER SUPPLY OR FIRE PROTECTION SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE AS SOON AS PROPOSED A SOLID SLEEVE, NOT A TAPPING SLEEVE AND VALVE, AS THE EXISTING COMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL ARRIVES ON SITE. VDOT. STD. LINE WILL HAVE TO BE SHUT DOWN TO CUT AND CAP. 2. ALL FIRE LANE PAVEMENT SHALL BE CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING FIRE APPARATUS WEIGHTING 75,000 LBS. CG-6 3. THRUST RESTRAINT WILL BE REQUIRED WITHIN 40' OF ALL FITTINGS. 3. OVERHEAD WIRING OR OTHER OBSTRUCTION SHALL BE HIGHER THAN 13'-6". 4. PIVS SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN 5' FROM FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONS, BUT NO CLOSER THAN 3' GRADING & DRAINAGE NOTES: ALL PROPOSED SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1 SHALL HAVE A LOW MAINTENANCE GROUND COVER FOR EXISTING 20' SANITARY STABILIZATION PURPOSES. THESE AREAS SHALL NOT BE PLANTED WITH A GRASS COVER FOR SEWER EASEMENT STABILIZATION & SHALL BE A GROUND COVER CHOSEN FROM TABLE 3.37C OF THE VESCH. TIE INTO EX. 8" W/L w/ A PROPOSED 45° BEND. CUT 200 GARRETT STREET SUITE K- CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 - PROPOSED & ABANDON EX. TEE & W/L 45° BENDS BEYOND PROPOSED BEND. PROPOSED LOADING DOCK w/ CONC. PAD EXISTING 6" SANITARY PROPOSED CANOPY SEWER LATERAL PROPOSED RETAINING w/ CONC. PAD ON WALL (3' MAX.) FOR EXISTING GRADE END PROPOSED ST PROPOSED 20' LOADING DOCK w/ PRO R. 2 TO FENCE AT EXISTING HANDRAILS RUN POS C FENCE POST UTILITY ESMT. OFF ED APTUR FAC I IM E PROPOSED ILIT NTO T PROVE REMA STOP SIGN Y F HE E ME IND OR QUA XISTIN NTS & ER OF (SHALL REMAIN) NTI G, O DIRE TY TRE NSITE CT 3- PROPOSED ATM SW ENT M LOADING DOCKS w/ CONC. PAD ON CITY STD. RE-2. CONCRETE EXISTING GRADE ENTRANCE APRON. CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL A FLOW LINE THAT STARTS AT THE UPLAND EXISTING SITE PLAN E/P AND ENDS AT PROPOSED STR. 2. STR. 2 TO BE INSTALLED AT PROPOSED CURB CONNECTION. LOADING SPACES (3 SPACES) EXISTING RETENTION STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY PROJECT SHEET JOB NO. APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF STREAM BUFFER PROPERTY LINE 112069 (TYP.) SCALE 1"=30' SHEET NO. APPROXIMATE LIMITS 3 OF FLOOD PLAIN REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 5/23/16 REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 12/1/16 REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 9/2/16 D.A. #6 1.18ac. Cw=0.90 Tc=5min. INITIAL SUBMITTAL REVISION DESCRIPTION REVISIONS PROPOSED VDOT STD. GR-2A BETWEEN CURB AND FENCE FOR ENTIRE LENGTH OF WESTERN RETAINING WALL, AS SHOWN PROPOSED EXPANSION FFE SHALL MATCH EXISTING SLAB (FFE=436.88) EXISTING DRAINAGE DITCH D.A. #4 PROPOSED VDOT. STD. 0.04ac. CG-6 Cw=0.90 3/22/16 7/22/16 10/7/16 1/16/17 Tc=5min. PEPSI EXPANSION SITE PLAN AMENDMENT 434.293.3719 PROPOSED RETAINING WALL (3' MAX.) FOR LOADING DOCK w/ HANDRAILS (SHALL REMAIN) 200 GARRETT STREET SUITE K- CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 - D.A. #2 0.08ac. Cw=0.65 Tc=5min. TIE PROPOSED STORM SEWER DRAINAGE PLAN & COMPUTATIONS INTO EXISTING INLET. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY EXISTING RETENTION LOCATION & DEPTH OF D.I. STORMWATER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. MANAGEMENT FACILITY PROJECT SHEET JOB NO. 112069 SCALE 1"=40' SHEET NO. 4 DESIGN VEHICLE: 2-AXLE 30' TRUCK MIN. INSIDE TURNING RADIUS: 28.3' REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 5/23/16 REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 12/1/16 REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 9/2/16 MIN. OUTSIDE TURNING RADIUS: 42' R42' R28.3' DESIGN VEHICLE: 2-AXLE 30' TRUCK 3-POINT MIN. INSIDE TURNING RADIUS: 28.3' INITIAL SUBMITTAL REVISION DESCRIPTION TURN IN MIN. OUTSIDE TURNING RADIUS: 42' REVISIONS REVERSE NOTE: THE DESIGN VEHICLE IS A 2-AXLE 30' TRUCK (SHOWN ON THE LEFT). HOWEVER THE COMBINED WIDTH OF BOTH LANES CAN ACCOMMODATE AN R42' 18-WHEEL SEMITRAILER (SHOWN HERE) R2 8.3 ' R28.3' NOTE: NOTE: VEHICLES WILL BE ABLE TO CONTINUE THE THROUGH MOVEMENT & VEHICLES WILL BE ABLE TO CONTINUE THE THROUGH MOVEMENT & WILL NOT BE REQUIRED TO TURN AROUND WITH THE RECENTLY WILL NOT BE REQUIRED TO TURN AROUND WITH THE RECENTLY APPROVED PEPSI-BOTTLING COMPANY EXPANSION SITE PLAN APPROVED PEPSI-BOTTLING COMPANY EXPANSION SITE PLAN AMENDMENT ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING. AMENDMENT ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING. FORWARD TURNING MOTION 3/22/16 7/22/16 10/7/16 1/16/17 PEPSI EXPANSION SITE PLAN AMENDMENT 434.293.3719 SCALE : SCALE : SCALE : 1"=20' 1"=20' 1"=20' 200 GARRETT STREET SUITE K- CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 - PROFILES & VEHICULAR MOVEMENT PROPOSED GRADE FILL AT 95% COMPACTION PROPOSED FILL AT 95% (TYP.) GRADE COMPACTION EXISTING (TYP.) GRADE PROPOSED EXISTING VDOT STD. EW-1 GRADE 8" 45° BENDS INV. =425.79 8" CL. 52 2- 8" 45° D.I. W/L W/L BENDS 8" 45° BENDS COMPLETE F.H. ASSEMBLY w/ 6" G.V. TIE INTO EX. 8" W/L w/ A PROPOSED 8" 45° BEND. CUT & ABANDON THE EX. TEE & W/L BEYOND PROPOSED BEND. PROJECT SHEET JOB NO. 112069 SCALE AS SHOWN STR 6 - EXISTING REROUTED WATER LINE SHEET NO. 5 REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 5/23/16 REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 12/1/16 REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 9/2/16 INITIAL SUBMITTAL REVISION DESCRIPTION REVISIONS 3/22/16 7/22/16 10/7/16 1/16/17 PEPSI EXPANSION SITE PLAN AMENDMENT 434.293.3719 200 GARRETT STREET SUITE K- CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 - ” NOTES & DETAILS Retaining Wall Notes: 1. The contractor shall generate a separate final design/cutsheets of the retaining wall system performed by a structural engineer for construction. The retaining wall designs shown on these plans are approximate in nature and are subject to change with the final design performed by a licensed professional structural engineer. This applies to all retaining walls shown on this set of plans. 2. Contractor shall notify Collins Engineering with the final designs of the retaining walls prior to construction for verification. 3. The retaining wall details, dimensions and sizes shown on the Collins Engineering plans are an approximation. These values are subject to change with the structurally engineered walls, by others, and are provided for informational purposes only to assist with price and quantity estimations. 4. Concrete extension footers for block retaining walls may be required. This is possible for the entire length of the wall, but is most likely only required for wall heights in excess of 15 feet. An appropriately compacted foundation with backfilled stone and drain pipes in accordance with manufacturer & design requirements are required for the entire length of the walls. The retaining walls shall also be reinforced with geogrid strips if applicable. 5. The retaining wall elevations shown reflect exposed design elevations and do not account for additional wall depths for the foundation. Any steep grading between, below and/or above walls shall be taken into consideration with the final design. Steep grades can minimize wall heights, however wall heights and asbuilt grades may vary during the construction process and all final elevations are to be provided by the structural engineer meeting the intent of the proposed plans. 6. Guardrails are required for decks, porches & walls elevated more than 30" in height. Guardrails must be a minimum of 42" tall, unless surrounding a pool, at which point the minimum height shall be 48". 7. All work shall comply with current Virginia uniform statewide building code. PROJECT 8. Plans & retaining walls approved for permit subject to approval of construction. SHEET 9. Railing shall withstand a concentrated load of 350+lbs at a minimum. 10. Picket spacing shall be 3 7 8" wide to 2". 11. The final design of the retaining walls proposed & sealed with these plans shall be confirmed by the contractor with their manufacturer's licensed professional structural engineer, and certified, to ensure compliance with proposed product. Should any concerns be discovered the contractor shall notify the engineer prior to purchasing & installation of the retaining wall infrastructure. JOB NO. 112069 SCALE NONE SHEET NO. 6 6 6 43 43 PRE-DEVELOPMENT POST Re-DEVELOPMENT SCALE: 1"=50' SCALE: 1"=50' REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 5/23/16 REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 12/1/16 REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 9/2/16 430 430 426 426 X EXISTING EDGE EXISTING EDGE OF BUILDING OF BUILDING EXISTING CURB DIRECTING RUNOFF TO STORM SEWER & EXISTING ONSITE SWM DA A FACILITY. THE POST-DEVELOPMENT CN= 95.4 SCENARIO WILL REDIRECT THIS RUNOFF INITIAL SUBMITTAL REVISION DESCRIPTION DA= 1.30 ac. TO A DIFFERENT EXISTING, ONSITE SWM X Tc= 0.10 hrs. REVISIONS FACILITY WHERE ATTENUATION WILL 414 414 OCCUR. SEE TOWNES ENGINEERING SWM CN= DA A CALCULATIONS. 93.1 DA= 1.18 ac. Tc= 0.10 hrs. 42 42 2 2 X 41 41 0 0 EXISTING PAVED PARKING AREA 41 41 0 0 X EXISTING STORM SEWER DIRECTING PROPOSED CURB, DROP INLETS AND STORM RUNOFF TO ONSITE SWM FACILITY SEWER REDIRECT RUNOFF TO THE EXISTING, 41 4 LOCATED ON PEPSI PROPERTY. THE 41 4 ONSITE SWM FACILITY LOCATED BETWEEN POST-DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO WILL THE SEMINOLE SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER REDIRECT THIS RUNOFF TO A DIFFERENT & THIS DEVELOPMENT. THIS RELIEVES THE X BURDEN ON THE EXISTING SWM FACILITY. EXISTING,432ONSITE SWM FACILITY WHERE 324 ATTENUATION WILL OCCUR. SEE TOWNES 40 4 43 ENGINEERING SWM CALCULATIONS. 40 4 43 0 0 0 0 43 43 DI INA NG DI INA NG 41 41 H E H E 4 42 4 42 TC G TC G X A I A I DR XIST DR XIST 0 9 0 9 41 0 42 41 0 42 E E 0 0 42 42 18 18 4 4 4 4 42 42 41 41 4 4 4 4 43 43 412 412 424 424 CI M ER ION CI M ER ION FA AGE AT ENT FA AGE AT ENT 40 40 OVERLAND FLOW BETWEEN CURB 4 & 416' CONTOUR 8 4 8 3/22/16 7/22/16 4217 4217 10/7/16 1/16/17 Y T Y T N MW T N MW T PEPSI EXPANSION SITE PLAN AMENDMENT LIT EN LIT EN 430 430 MA OR RE MA OR RE CURRENTLY DRAINS TO EXISTING SWM FACILITY TIE 8.83 TIE 8.83 0 0 41 41 ST TING ST TING BETWEEN PEPSI & SEMINOLE SQUARE. THIS WILL 44 44 436 436 8 8 X X 0 0 CONTINUE TO BE THE CASE WITH IN THE IS IS 42 42 EX EX 434.293.3719 POST-DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO, ITS RUNOFF WILL 430 430 BE MODIFIED FROM SHEET FLOW TO STORM SEWER. 0 0 43 43 X X 43 43 424 424 0 0 TP TP 43 43 X X 2 2 X X X X STORMWATER MANAGEMENT NARRATIVE: 200 GARRETT STREET SUITE K- CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 - STORMWATER QUANTITY NOTES: 1. DA A's post-development flows are redirected into the existing basin, where they receive attenuation. 2. Detention & compliance with 9VAC25-870-66 is met through the existing detention basin. Townes Engineering has provided routing calculations reducing the post-development flows to levels less than or equal to pre-development flows. These post-development flows are released into a nonerosive adequate channel (existing concrete pipe with a riprap outfall) to Meadow Creek, which is where STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN post-development DA A is 1% of Meadow Creek's overall watershed and the adequate channel analysis can end. Please see the attached calculations from Townes Engineering for final stormwater quantity compliance. (Section B.1.a, B.4.a, C.2.a and C.3.a) 432 420 THE POINT OF ANALYSIS FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT IS THE EXISTING RISER STRUCTURE. DA 'A' EXISTING SEMINOLE BASIN REPRESENTS THE SUBAREA ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PLAN's IMPROVEMENTS. DA 'A' ABUTS THE 'EAST SCALE: 1"=30' CONTRIBUTORY DRAINAGE AREA' SHOWN ON WW ASSOCIATES SHEET 34 OF 35 (SEE ATTACHED SWM 92 REPORT FOR MAPPING OF THE POINT OF ANALYSIS). DA 'A' ALSO REPRESENTS THE 426 PROPERTY LIMITS 418 4 33 . ADDITIONAL/MODIFIED RUNOFF ENTERING THE EXISTING BASIN. THIS RUNOFF ENTERS THE430BASIN VIA (TYP.) V . AN ADEQUATE RIPRAP CHANNEL. MODIFICATIONS TO THE BASIN ARE PROPOSED TO ATTENUATE THE 422 412 IN RUNOFF AND ENSURE POST-DEVELOPMENT FLOWS ARE LESS THAN PRE-DEVELOPMENT FLOWS. 414 PLEASE SEE THE STORMWATER QUANTITY NOTES ON THIS SHEET & THE ATTACHED SEMINOLE 420 BASIN 414 ROUTING CALCULATIONS FOR EVIDENCE OF CHANNEL AND FLOOD PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. 412 416 414 422 X 414 DRAINAGE 4 EXISTING 42 DITCH 418 414 410 430 420 412 430 410 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT X OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF THE 404 420 410 416' CONTOUR ELEVATION 440 410 430 404 LIMITS OF EXISTING SWM BASIN & EASEMENT DEFINED BY THE 418 416' CONTOUR ELEVATION 450 0 44 414 452 418 CONTRACTOR SHALL MODIFY THE OUTFALL 4 420 PIPE's OPENING TO HAVE A DIAMETER OF 42 47.5". THIS MODIFICATION WILL PROVIDE 6 SUPPLEMENTAL ATTENUATION THAT 2 44 44 424 OFFSETS THE INCREASES IN FLOWS RESULTING FROM THE PROPOSED EXISTING OUTFALL FOR SEMINOLE SQUARE IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH43 0 THIS 454 SHOPPING CENTER TO BE RELOCATED UNDER PLAN. A DIFFERENT SET OF PLANS. SEMINOLE SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER AND THIS PP 434 LP DEVELOPMENT WILL CONTINUE TO OUTFALL 432 INTO THE EXISTING, ONSITE SWM FACILITY PROJECT SHEET 0 44 FH 6 43 JOB NO. EXISTING 56"x56" RISER RIM ELEVATION= 415.79'. RISER STRUCTURE HAS A 39"x39" 112069 ORIFICE OPENING WITH AN INVERT ELEVATION=403.3'. RISER STRUCTURE RELEASES RUNOFF INTO A Ø60" OUTFALL PIPE. THE 2- AND 10-YEAR POST-DEVELOPMENT SCALE OUTFLOWS ARE NOT EROSIVE ON THE EXISTING MANMADE PIPE, AS IS EVIDENT IN THE CURRENT STATE OF THE PIPE. THIS, AND THE EXISTING RIPRAP AT THE OUTLET AS SHOWN OF THE Ø60" PIPE ARE ADEQUATE. THE RUNOFF IS RELEASED INTO MEADOW CREEK, WHERE DA A's SUBAREA IS 1% OF MEADOW CREEK's WATERSHED. SHEET NO. 7 EXISTING SEMINOLE REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 5/23/16 REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 12/1/16 REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 9/2/16 SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER EXISTING SEMINOLE SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER EXISTING ZAN POST OFFICE ROA D INITIAL SUBMITTAL REVISION DESCRIPTION REVISIONS HILLSDALE DRIVE EXTENSION EXI CO EXISTING SEMINOLE SQUARE SHOPPING STI UR CENTER EXISTING SEMINOLE NG T SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER SEM EXISTING PEPSI SEE THIS SHEET MATCHLINE, PLANT INO 3/22/16 7/22/16 PROPOSED 10/7/16 1/16/17 PEPSI EXPANSION SITE PLAN AMENDMENT HILLSDALE DRIVE PEPSI PLANT EXTENDED RIGHT LE OF WAY 434.293.3719 EXPANSION PROPOSED HILLSDALE DRIVE RIGHT OF WAY HILLSDALE DRIVE EXTENSION OVERLAID WITH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SEMINOLE SQUARE EXPANSION 200 GARRETT STREET SUITE K- CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 - NOTES: SOURCE OF HILLSDALE DRIVE EXTENSION IS McCORMICK TAYLOR. FILES PROVIDED ARE CURRENT TO DATE & WERE PROVIDED TO COLLINS ENGINEERING IN 2016. HILLSDALE DRIVE EXTENSION SEE NEXT SHEET FOR DETAILS OF WHERE HILLSDALE DRIVE ABUTS THIS DEVELOPMENT UNDER REVIEW. PEPSI PRIVATE GREENBRIER SEE THIS SHEET EXISTING DRIVE AISLE MATCHLINE, DRIVE HILLSDALE DRIVE EXTENDED RIGHT OF WAY PEPSI PLANT PARKING EXISTING PEPSI PLANT PROJECT SHEET JOB NO. 112069 SCALE EXISTING 1"=50' HILLSDALE DRIVE SHEET NO. 8 EXISTING SEMINOLE EXISTING POST SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER OFFICE REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 5/23/16 REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 12/1/16 REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 9/2/16 INITIAL SUBMITTAL HILLSDALE DRIVE REVISION DESCRIPTION EXTENDED RIGHT OF WAY REVISIONS PEPSI PRIVATE ACCESS BACK-OF-CURB HILLS SHARED USE PATH DRIVE DALE EXTEN SION PROPOSED EXPANSION ASSOCIATED w/ SEMINOLE SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER 3/22/16 7/22/16 10/7/16 1/16/17 PEPSI EXPANSION SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PROPOSED RETAINING WALL ASSOCIATED w/ PROPOSED PEPSI PLANTHILLSDALE DRIVE RIGHT OF WAY PEPSI PRIVATE 434.293.3719 PEPSI EXPANSION PLAN DRIVE AISLE EXPANSION SHALL REMAIN OUTSIDE DRIVE AISLE HILLSDALE DRIVE THE LIMITS OF THE 416' CONTOUR PROPOSED PEPSI EXISTING STORM SEWER & SWALE ASSOCIATED WITH EXTENDED RIGHT OF WAY PLANT EXPANSION PEPSI AMENDMENT #2 PLANS TO BE REMOVED w/ CONSTRUCTION OF HILLSDALE DRIVE EXTENSION HILLSDALE DRIVE EXTENSION OVERLAID WITH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT EXISTING SWM FACILITY 200 GARRETT STREET SUITE K- CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 - PROPOSED RETAINING WALL ASSOCIATED w/ SEMINOLE SQUARE EXISTING PEPSI SHOPPING CENTER PLANT PEPSI PLANT SHALL REMAIN OUTSIDE PARKING THE LIMITS OF THE 416' PROPOSED PEPSI PLANT CONTOUR DRIVE AISLE EXPANSION HILLSDALE DRIVE EXTENSION NOTES: 1. SOURCE OF HILLSDALE DRIVE EXTENSION IS McCORMICK TAYLOR. FILES PROVIDED ARE CURRENT LIMITS OF SURVEYED 416' CONTOUR TO DATE & WERE PROVIDED TO COLLINS ENGINEERING ELEVATION IN 2016. 2. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS IN THE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS SHALL BE INSTALLED AFTER THE HILLSDALE DRIVE EXTENSION IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETED. PROJECT SHEET JOB NO. 112069 SCALE 1"=30' SHEET NO. 9 LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE PROPOSED TREELINE REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 5/23/16 REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 12/1/16 REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 9/2/16 PROPOSED CRITICAL SLOPE IMPACTS CE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE PER VESCH 3.02 SSF SUPER SILT FENCE PER VESCH 3.05 X X X X X X X X X X X X IP IP STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION PER VESCH 3.07 CIP CIP CULVERT INLET PROTECTION PER VESCH 3.08 RWD RIGHT-OF-WAY DIVERSION PER VESCH 3.11 OP OUTLET PROTECTION PER VESCH 3.18 TS TS TEMPORARY SEEDING PER VESCH 3.31 PS PS PERMANENT SEEDING PER VESCH 3.32 INITIAL SUBMITTAL REVISION DESCRIPTION MU MU MULCHING PER VESCH 3.35 REVISIONS TP TREE PROTECTION & PRESERVATION PER VESCH 3.38 DC DC DUST CONTROL PER VESCH 3.39 SR SURFACE ROUGHENING PER VESCH 3.29 3/22/16 7/22/16 10/7/16 1/16/17 PEPSI EXPANSION SITE PLAN AMENDMENT 434.293.3719 EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL NARRATIVE & NOTES 200 GARRETT STREET SUITE K- CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 - FLOW OF RUNOFF SHALL OCCUR XX X X X X X X PERPENDICULAR TO THE SILT FENCE WHEN FILL OPERATIONS ARE LEVEL AT THE END OF EACH DAY, LIMITING CHANNELED FLOW TO THE SILT FENCE. XX X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL A 10' LONG SECTION OF OVERLAPPING X SILT FENCE (3rd ROW) BEHIND THE XX X X X X X STAGGERED 45° CATCHMENTS SEE ABOVE FOR SUPER SILT FENCE X X ENSURE DOUBLE PROTECTION AT SPECIFICATIONS, SSF ALL TIMES AT THE OPENINGS. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL 45° CATCHMENTS EVERY 100', STAGGERED BETWEEN THE TWO X PARALLEL ROWS OF SILT FENCE. THE CATCHMENTS SHALL EXTEND OUTWARD A CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL TWO ROWS MINIMUM OF 2' AT A 45° ACUTE ANGLE RELATIVE OF PARALLEL SILT FENCE, AS SHOWN ON TO THE SILT FENCE, AS SHOWN. X THE PLANS. PROJECT SHEET JOB NO. 112069 SCALE N/A SHEET NO. 10 SILT FENCE 0.05ac. PROPOSED TREE LINE (TYP.) SILT FENCE REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 5/23/16 REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 12/1/16 0.08ac. REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 9/2/16 EXISTING 30' NON-EXCLUSIVE ACCESS EASEMENT (D.B. 498, PG. 633) INITIAL SUBMITTAL REVISION DESCRIPTION REVISIONS SILT FENCE 0.10ac. SOIL BOUNDARY PROPOSED TREE LINE (TYP.) SOIL TYPE 88 (TYP.) 3/22/16 7/22/16 10/7/16 1/16/17 PEPSI EXPANSION SITE PLAN AMENDMENT EXISTING DRAINAGE 434.293.3719 DITCH SILT FENCE 0.09ac. SILT FENCE 0.05ac. EXISTING 20' SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT SILT FENCE 200 GARRETT STREET SUITE K- CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 - 0.08ac. EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN PHASES I & IA EXISTING 6" SANITARY SEWER LATERAL SILT FENCE 0.08ac. PROPOSED TREE LINE (TYP.) SILT FENCE 0.10ac. EXISTING RETENTION STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY EXISTING DRAINAGE DITCH SILT FENCE 0.09ac. PROJECT SHEET JOB NO. APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF STREAM BUFFER 112069 SILT FENCE 0.08ac. SCALE 1"=30' SHEET NO. APPROXIMATE LIMITS 11 OF FLOOD PLAIN SILT FENCE SILT FENCE 0.03ac. 0.04ac. PROPOSED TREE LINE (TYP.) REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 5/23/16 REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 12/1/16 REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 9/2/16 EXISTING 30' NON-EXCLUSIVE ACCESS EASEMENT (D.B. 498, PG. 633) INITIAL SUBMITTAL REVISION DESCRIPTION REVISIONS PROPOSED EXPANSION FFE SHALL MATCH EXISTING SLAB (FFE=436.88) PROPOSED TREE LINE (TYP.) 3/22/16 7/22/16 10/7/16 1/16/17 PEPSI EXPANSION SITE PLAN AMENDMENT EXISTING DRAINAGE 434.293.3719 DITCH EXISTING 20' SANITARY PROPOSED RETAINING SEWER EASEMENT WALL (3' MAX.) FOR LOADING DOCK w/ HANDRAILS 200 GARRETT STREET SUITE K- CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 - 3- PROPOSED LOADING DOCKS EXISTING 6" SANITARY EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN PHASE II PROPOSED ROUTE PROPOSED ROUTE w/ CONC. PAD ON SEWER LATERAL SILT FENCE PARKING w/ CONC. PAD CANOPY w/ CONC. PAD 0.11ac. ON EXISTING GRADE ON EXISTING GRADE EXISTING GRADE SILT FENCE 0.06ac. PROPOSED TREE LINE (TYP.) (SHALL REMAIN) RWD & IP 0.05ac. EXISTING RETENTION STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY PROJECT SHEET JOB NO. APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF STREAM BUFFER 112069 SCALE 1"=30' SHEET NO. APPROXIMATE LIMITS 12 OF FLOOD PLAIN PS PERMANENT SEEDING SCHEDULE PAVED WASH RACK REVISIONS REVISION DESCRIPTION 3/22/16 INITIAL SUBMITTAL 200 GARRETT STREET SUITE K- CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 - 7/22/16 434.293.3719 REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 5/23/16 10/7/16 REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 9/2/16 PROJECT 1/16/17 REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 12/1/16 PEPSI EXPANSION SITE PLAN AMENDMENT 13 SCALE JOB NO. N/A SHEET NO. SHEET 112069 EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS PROPERTY LINE (TYP.) REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 5/23/16 REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 12/1/16 REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 9/2/16 EXISTING 30' NON-EXCLUSIVE ACCESS EASEMENT (D.B. 498, PG. 633) INITIAL SUBMITTAL REVISION DESCRIPTION REVISIONS 28' PRIVATE ACCESS PROPOSED 20' UTILITY ESMT. PROPOSED RETAINING WALL w/ PROPOSED EXPANSION HANDRAILS ON TOP. SEE SITE NOTES: FFE SHALL MATCH PLAN FOR DETAILS. 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE ADEQUATE EXISTING SLAB (FFE=436.88) LANDSCAPING IS INSTALLED SCREENING THE PROPOSED RETAINING WALLS, AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS, AND MEETS CITY APPROVAL DURING INSPECTIONS. 3/22/16 7/22/16 10/7/16 1/16/17 PEPSI EXPANSION SITE PLAN AMENDMENT 2. LANDSCAPING PROPOSED AT BASE OF EXISTING RETAINING WALLS FOR SCREENING SHALL DRAINAGE BE PLANTED ABOVE THE 416' CONTOUR, AS 434.293.3719 DITCH SHOWN ON THE PLANS. PROPOSED FENCE LINE EXISTING 20' SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT 200 GARRETT STREET SUITE K- CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 - PROPOSED LOADING DOCK w/ CONC. PAD EXISTING 6" SANITARY PROPOSED CANOPY SEWER LATERAL w/ CONC. PAD ON EXISTING GRADE END PROPOSED FENCE AT EXISTING FENCE POST (SHALL REMAIN) 3- PROPOSED LOADING DOCKS LANDSCAPING PLAN w/ CONC. PAD ON PROPOSED 20' EXISTING GRADE PRIVATE DRNG. ESMT. EXISTING RETENTION STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY PROJECT SHEET JOB NO. APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF STREAM BUFFER PROPERTY LINE 112069 (TYP.) SCALE 1"=30' SHEET NO. APPROXIMATE LIMITS 14 OF FLOOD PLAIN REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 5/23/16 REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 12/1/16 REVISED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PER COMMENTS DATED 9/2/16 EXTEND PROPOSED FENCE TO EXISTING FENCE WHILE STAYING WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE PROPERTY INITIAL SUBMITTAL REVISION DESCRIPTION REVISIONS EXISTING 30' NON-EXCLUSIVE 3/22/16 7/22/16 10/7/16 1/16/17 PEPSI EXPANSION SITE PLAN AMENDMENT 434.293.3719 PROPOSED VDOT STD. GR-2A BETWEEN CURB AND FENCE FOR ENTIRE LENGTH OF WESTERN PROPOSED RETAINING WALL, AS SHOWN VAR. WIDTH UTILITY ESMT. PROPOSED 2-AXLE 30' LONG TRUCK PARKING (15 SPACES) PROPOSED SEGMENTED PROPOSED EXPANSION RETAINING WALL w/ HANDRAILS FFE SHALL MATCH ON TOP. CONTRACTOR SHALL 200 GARRETT STREET SUITE K- CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 - EXISTING SLAB INSTALL WALL IN ACCORDANCE (FFE=436.88) w/ DETAILS & SHALL CONSTRUCT PROPOSED PERFORATED DRAINS AT BASE OF FENCE LINE WALL w/ STONE BACKFILL. EXISTING DRAINAGE DITCH LIGHTING PLAN EXISTING 6" SANITARY SEWER LATERAL PROPOSED VAR. WIDTH UTILITY ESMT. (SHALL REMAIN) PROPOSED 20' PRIVATE DRNG. ESMT. EXISTING RETENTION STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY PROJECT SHEET JOB NO. 112069 SCALE 1"=30' SHEET NO. 15 This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: October 2, 2017 Action Required: Consideration of a Special Use Permit Presenter: Carrie Rainey, City Planner, Neighborhood Development Services Staff Contacts: Carrie Rainey, City Planner, Neighborhood Development Services Title: SP17-00004 Special Use Permit (SUP) for Automobile Sales at 1530 E. High Street Background: Amir Zandinejad, acting as the representative of E. Grant and Barbara H. Cosner, has submitted an application for automobile sales use at 1530 E. High (Tax Map 50, Parcel 15). The applicant requests a Special Use Permit (SUP) pursuant to City Code Sec. 34-796, which states that automobile sales are allowed in the Central City (CC) Corridor with an SUP. The application describes a small dealership that would begin with three (3) to five (5) vehicles on site for sale, and grow to no more than 15 vehicles. The applicant proposes to utilize the existing building on the subject property with no expansions and minor modifications, such as paint. The full application package submitted for the September 12, 2017 Joint Public Hearing and subsequent Planning Commission recommendation can be viewed at: http://www.charlottesville.org/home/showdocument?id=55991 Discussion: Please see the staff report prepared for the September 12, 2017 Joint Public Hearing (Attachment B) for more information. Among the matters discussed by the Planning Commission at their September 12, 2017 meeting were the following:  How the current update to the Comprehensive Plan and potential changes to the code of ordinances may affect the E. High Street area in the future.  Non-conformance of E. High Street with the Streets that Work Plan and whether those standards can be applied to this application. 1  The existing billboards located on the subject property, and whether advertising for the proposed automobile sales use is allowed.  Whether a provisional SUP could be granted that limited the period of time for which the SUP would be allowed.  The similarity of the proposed use with the existing uses on the corridor.  A desire to retain Entrance Review Board review pertaining to the required certificate of occupancy for the Entrance Corridor Overlay District regulations. Staff recommended to Planning Commission on September 12, 2017 that a request for automobile sales could be approved with the conditions noted in the staff report (Attachment B). Alignment with Council Vision Areas and Strategic Plan: The project supports City Council’s Vision Area of “Economic Sustainability” by providing a new locally owned small business. The project supports City Council’s Strategic Plan “An Inclusive Community of Self-sufficient Residents” goal by contributing to objective 1.4 “Enhance financial health of residents” by allowing the establishment of a small local business. The project supports City Council’s Strategic Plan “A Strong, Creative and Diversified Economy” goal by contributing to objective 4.2 “Attract and cultivate a variety of businesses” through revitalization of an existing vacant parcel with a new commercial use. Community Engagement: City Council held a joint public hearing with the Planning Commission on September 12, 2017. The public hearing was heavily attended, and many attendees spoke. Two (2) citizens spoke regarding the application. One speaker asked for confirmation that adequate parking would be available on site for customers visiting the subject property (staff confirmed the conceptual plan included in the application materials demonstrated compliance with parking requirements in Z.O. Sec. 34-984). One speaker noted the importance of considering pedestrian movement in relationship to the existing curb cuts on the subject property. Budgetary Impact: No direct budgetary impact is anticipated as a direct result of approving an SUP for the applicant’s parcel. 2 Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission took the following action: Mr. Santoski recommended approval of the SUP with conditions as it will serve the interest of public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. Ms. Dowell seconded the motion. The Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the SUP for automobile sales with the conditions included in the draft resolution (Attachment A). Alternatives: City Council has several alternatives: (1) by motion, take action to approval the attached resolution for the special use permit (as recommended by the Planning Commission); (2) by motion, take action to approve the special use permit with modified conditions; (3) by motion, take action to deny the special use permit; or (4) by motion, defer action consideration of the special use permit. Attachments: A. Proposed Resolution B. Staff Report, dated September 1, 2017 3 SP17-00004 RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO AUTHORIZE AUTOMOBILE SALES AT 1530 EAST HIGH STREET WHEREAS, E. Grant and Barbara H. Cosner (“Applicant”) are the owners of certain property located at 1530 East High Street, identified on City Tax Map 50 as Parcel 15 (Tax Map Parcel 500015000) and containing approximately 0.321 acres (“Subject Property”), pursuant to City Code Sec. 34-796, has requested City Council to approve a special use permit to authorize the sale of automobiles on the Subject Property (the proposed “Special Use”). The Subject Property is within the City’s Central City Corridor (Mixed Use) zoning district, with frontage on East High Street; and WHEREAS, the requested Special Use is generally described within the Applicant’s application materials submitted in connection with SP17-00004, including: (ii) the original application materials dated July 7, 2017; (ii) the application narrative; and (iii) the preliminary site plan (collectively, the “Application Materials”); and WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to utilize the existing building on the Subject Property with minor modifications and provide the required five (5) parking spaces pursuant to City Code Sec. 34-984; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the original application materials dated July 7, 2017, and the City’s Staff Report pertaining thereto, and following a joint public hearing, duly advertised and conducted by the Planning Commission and City Council on September 12, 2017, the Commission voted to recommend that City Council approve the requested Special Use; and WHEREAS, upon consideration of: the comments received during the joint public hearing, the Planning Commission’s recommendation, and the Staff Report, as well as the factors set forth within Sec. 34-157 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, this Council finds and determines that granting the requested special use permit subject to suitable conditions would serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that, pursuant to City Code Sec. 34-796, a special use permit is hereby approved and granted to authorize automobile sales on the property at 1530 East High Street, subject to the following conditions: 1. At no time shall more than fifteen (15) vehicles being offered for sale be present on the Subject Property. 2. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of the Charlottesville City Code, 1990, as amended, storage of inoperable vehicles, as defined within City Code Sec. 5-150(a)(1), is prohibited on the Subject Property. 3. The Subject Property shall not be used as an “automobile graveyard” or “junkyard” as those terms are defined in Virginia Code Sec. 33.2-804. 4. No improvements shall be commenced prior to approval of any required permits, which can include: Development in the Floodplain permit, final site plan, and certificate of appropriateness for improvements to the existing building. 5. The applicant shall provide plantings along East High Street in conformance with City Code Sec. 34-778(b)(1), the installation of which is subject to approval by the City Floodplain Administrator. 6. All outdoor lighting and light fixtures shall be full cut-off luminaires. The spillover light from luminaires onto public roads and onto property adjacent property shall not exceed one-half (½) foot candle. A spillover shall be measured horizontally and vertically at the property line or edge of right-of-way or easement, whichever is closer to the light source. 7. No outdoor storage of automobile tires or other accessory elements associated with automotive uses is permitted on the Subject Property. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF HEARING: September 12, 2017 APPLICATION NUMBER: SP17‐00004 Project Planner: Carrie Rainey Date of Staff Report: September 1, 2017 Applicant: E. Grant and Barbara H. Cosner Applicant’s Representative(s): Amir Zandinejad Current Property Owner: E. Grant and Barbara H. Cosner Application Information Property Street Address: 1530 E High Street (“Subject Property”) Tax Map/Parcel #: Tax Map 50 Parcel 15 Total Square Footage/ Acreage Site: Approx. 0.321 acres (13,983 square feet) Comprehensive Plan (General Land Use Plan): Mixed Use Current Zoning Classification: Central City Mixed Use Corridor (“CC”) Tax Status: Parcel is up to date on payment of taxes Completeness: The application generally contains all of the information required by Zoning Ordinance (Z.O.) Secs. 34‐41(d), and 34‐158(a) and (b). 1 Applicant’s Request (Summary) The applicant requests a Special Use Permit (SUP) pursuant to Z.O. Sec. 34‐796, which states that automobile sales are permitted with an SUP. The subject property has street frontage on E. High Street. The application narrative (Attachment A) describes a small dealership that would begin with three (3) to five (5) vehicles on site for sale, and grow to no more than 15 vehicles. The applicant proposes to utilize the existing building on the subject property with no expansions and minor modifications, such as paint. However, as the property is currently vacant, parking must be provided pursuant to Z.O. Sec. 34‐971 and complete a site plan pursuant to Z.O. Sec. 34‐802(a) to establish the use. The preliminary site plan is found in Attachment C. Vicinity Map Applicant Property 2 Context Map 1 Context Map 2‐ Zoning Classifications R‐3 R‐2 HS CC Applicant Property B‐3 KEY ‐ B‐3: Commercial, CC: Central City Mixed Use, HS: High Street Mixed Use, R‐2: Two‐Family Residential, R‐3: Multifamily Residential 3 Context Map 3‐ General Land Use Plan, 2013 Comprehensive Plan Applicant Property KEY –Purple: Mixed Use, Yellow: Low Density Residential, Blue: Public or Semi‐Public Context Map 4‐ Environmental Factors Applicant Property KEY – :Floodway : 1% Exceedance Floodplain (BFE) 4 Standard of Review City Council may grant an applicant a special permit or special use permit (SUP), giving consideration to a number of factors set forth within Zoning Ordinance Sec. 34‐157. If Council finds that a proposed use or development will have potentially adverse impacts, and if Council identifies development conditions that could satisfactorily mitigate such impacts, then Council may set forth reasonable conditions within its SUP approval. The role of the Planning Commission is to make an advisory recommendation to the City Council, as to (i) whether or not Council should approve a proposed SUP and if so, (ii) whether there are any reasonable development conditions that could mitigate potentially adverse impacts of the propose use or development. Section 34‐157 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance lists a number of factors that Council will consider in making a decision on a proposed SUP. Following below is staff’s analysis of those factors, based on the information provided by the applicant. (1) Whether the proposed use or development will be harmonious with existing patterns of use and development within the neighborhood. The properties immediately surrounding the subject property are described as: Direction Use Zoning North Automobile Repair/Servicing CC South Restaurant CC East Vacant B‐3 West Restaurant HS The buildings immediately surrounding the subject property are one (1) to two (2) story buildings, primarily functioning as commercial businesses. The subject property and adjacent properties are mostly covered in asphalt paving with small building footprints relevant to the parcel sizes. Properties south of the subject property, fronting on E High Street, range from restaurants and retail stores to automobile repair shops and automobile sales. Properties north of the subject property, fronting on Long Street and River Road, include retail stores and automobile focused businesses such as part or tire sales and car washes. One (1) block west of the subject property, most properties are R‐2 Two‐Family Residential where buildings tend to remain below two (2) stories. Burnley Moran Elementary School is located less than a quarter (1/4) mile west of the subject property. The applicant proposes no additional buildings or major site modifications. The application narrative states the existing building will be painted and the subject property cleaned up. 5 Staff Analysis: The proposed use of the property is automobile sales. The immediate surrounding area is a mix of automobile‐focused businesses, service shops, restaurants, and retail stores. The proposed use is harmonious with the existing patterns of use and development within the corridor. The established residential zone west of the corridor is not likely to be impacted by increases in traffic due to the proposed automobile sales use. The Traffic Engineer has reviewed the application and determined the sale of no more than 15 vehicles will not have an adverse impact on existing traffic patterns. (2) Whether the proposed use or development and associated public facilities will substantially conform to the city's comprehensive plan. The applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, as required by Z.O. Sec. 34‐41(d)(2), is attached as Attachment A. Below are specific areas of the Comprehensive Plan for which the development is in compliance: a. Land Use 1.1: Examine opportunities in the following areas […] High Street/Martha Jefferson [..] 2.2: Encourage small businesses that enhance existing neighborhoods and employment centers. 3.2: […] Provide opportunities for nodes of activity to develop, particularly along mixed‐use corridors. Below are specific areas of the Comprehensive Plan for which the development may not be in compliance: b. Land Use 3.2: Enhance existing neighborhood commercial centers and create opportunities for others in areas where they will enhance adjacent residential areas. […] Comprehensive Plan The 2013 Comprehensive Plan identified several specific areas of the city where additional study may be warranted, through Small Area Plans. Included in this list is the High Street/Martha Jefferson area (wherein the subject property is located). The Comprehensive Plan states that “the relocation of Martha Jefferson Hospital is responsible for the new and transitional uses that are developing for both the former hospital as well as other properties in this neighborhood and differ from the vision created in previous plans. This area has been identified for study to include the Little High neighborhood and the area extending from 6 High Street to River Road to evaluate the most appropriate urban design solutions for continued residential uses and economic development.” However, a Small Area Plan for this area has not yet begun. The General Land Use Plan calls for the subject property and areas immediately north, west, and south of the subject property to be Mixed Use land use. The General Land Use Plan calls for Low Density Residential land uses immediately east of the subject property (on property zoned B‐3 Commercial), and in close proximity west of the subject property (see Context Map 3 above). The Comprehensive Plan describes Mixed Use areas as “zones in the City where developments of moderate or high intensity are encouraged, and where a large variety of uses may be permitted, including many commercial uses, residential uses, and some limited research and manufacturing where appropriate.” Streets that Work Plan The May 2016 Streets that Work Plan (approved September 2016 as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan) labels E. High Street as a Mixed Use B typology, and nearby streets such as Willow Drive and Riverdale Drive a Local Street typology. The full plan can be viewed at: http://www.charlottesville.org/departments‐and‐services/departments‐h‐ z/neighborhood‐development‐services/streets‐that‐work/streets‐that‐work‐plan Mixed Use B streets are characterized as able to support high levels of walking, bicycling, and transit as they connect important destinations within the City and surrounding county. The Streets that Work Plan recommends a minimum clear zone width of seven (7) feet for sidewalks, which are noted along with a curbside buffer zone (the area between the curb and sidewalk) as the highest priority items in the Mixed Use B typology. The subject property is also served by a generally complete (but mostly un‐buffered) sidewalk network immediately adjacent to the subject property and within the vicinity of the subject property. Existing sidewalks are generally five (5) or less in width. Staff Analysis: Several goals in the Comprehensive Plan speak to a desire to encourage small business and provide activity along mixed use corridors. The applicant proposes to reactivate a vacant property with a small business in line with the existing uses of the corridor. E. High Street in the vicinity of the subject property is not in compliance with the Streets that Work plan, as described above. However, high traffic volumes and the necessity for multiple vehicular travel lanes in the immediate vicinity make improvements to the frontage of the subject property difficult. Any improvements to the E. High Street corridor would also fall under the Flood Hazard Protection Overlay District, which is further described in section 4(b) below. 7 (3) Whether proposed use or development of any buildings or structures will comply with all applicable building code regulations. The applicant proposes no new buildings or structures. (4) Potential adverse impacts, including, but not necessarily limited to: a) Traffic or parking congestion Traffic The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the application materials, and requires no traffic impact analysis for a proposed automobile sales use with no more than 15 vehicles. E. High Street and Long Street are both identified as principal arterial roads and are high volume roads. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) 2016 annual average daily traffic volume estimates indicates E. High Street in the vicinity of the subject property carries 20,000 vehicles per day (AADT). Long Street (Route 250) carries 42,000 vehicles per day (AADT) in the vicinity of the subject property. Staff Analysis: The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the application and has found the proposed use of automobile sales with up to 15 vehicles will not create an adverse effect on traffic on surrounding City streets. Vehicular Access Current vehicular ingress and egress to the subject property includes two (2) access points on E High Street, as seen in photographic images in the narrative and site plan (Attachments A and C). Staff Analysis: The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the application and will not require any modifications to the existing ingress/egress driveways. Parking Z.O. Sec 34‐984 states motor vehicle sales (without service facilities) require one (1) parking space per 300 square feet or gross floor area. As shown on the site plan (Attachment C), the gross floor area of 15 vehicles is approximately 975 square feet (assuming 65 square feet of area for each vehicle). The existing building floor area is approximately 375 square feet. This results in 1,350 square feet of gross floor area, requiring five (5) parking spaces. 8 Staff Analysis: Based on the information provided in the site plan, it appears that the minimum parking requirements of the zoning ordinance can be met for the proposed development. Other Modes of Transportation Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT) bus stops are located within a quarter (1/4) mile of the subject property at Hazel Street. The subject property is also served by a generally complete (but mostly un‐buffered) sidewalk network immediately adjacent to the subject property and within the vicinity of the subject property. Crosswalks in the general vicinity are typically unmarked. However, the crosswalk immediately south of the subject property at E. High Street and Willow Drive has high visibility markings and flashing pedestrian warning signs. In the recently approved update to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, E. High Street was noted as a location recommended for bicycle lanes. The Plan also identified the intersection of E. High Street and Long Street as needing pedestrian improvements. Staff Analysis: The proposed sale of up to 15 automobiles may result in a minor increase in pedestrian traffic or CAT ridership. Staff believes the potential increases will not adversely impact the existing pedestrian facilities or CAT system. b) Noise, lights, dust, odor, fumes, vibration, and other factors which adversely affect the natural environment The proposed automobile dealership of no more than 15 vehicles may result in increased noise, odor, or fumes as a result of the operation of vehicles for customer testing purposes and the general positioning of vehicles. Floodplain Hazard Protection Overlay District The subject property is partially in the floodway (see Context Map 4 above), which is defined by Z.O. Sec. 34‐1200 to be the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved to carry and discharge the base flood without increasing the water surface elevation more than one (1) foot at any point. The remainder of the property is located in the floodplain, defined by Z.O. Sec. 34‐ 1200 to be a SFHA or special flood hazard area. Pursuant to Z.O. Sec. 34‐254(e)(vi), a special exception must be granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) for the sale of new and used cars within a floodway. If Council should approve the SUP application, the applicant must subsequently file a Development in the Floodplain permit request with the Floodplain Administrator pursuant to Z.O. Sec. 34‐256(a). 9 The applicant does not propose any new construction with this application. Should the property owner wish to construct on the subject property in the future, the provisions of the Flood Hazard Protection Overlay District division of the zoning ordinance (Z.O. Secs. 34‐ 240 through 34‐261) shall apply. Among other requirements, this division requires applicants proposing new construction and land disturbance in the floodway to demonstrate through engineering analysis that the proposed encroachments will not result in any increased flood levels, erosion, or peak flows. Non‐residential construction within the floodplain must either be floodproof or set at least one (1) foot above the base flood elevation (BFE). No use, activity, or developments shall be established or conducted within the floodway or floodplain except upon approval of a permit by the Floodplain Administrator pursuant to Z.O. Sec. 34‐256(a) Staff Analysis: The potential impacts to the floodway and floodplain will be analyzed and considered in detail by the Floodplain Administrator and BZA, should Council approve the SUP request. No activity or improvements will be permitted unless it is confirmed that there will be no adverse effect, pursuant to the requirements of the Flood Hazard Protection Overlay District. c) Displacement of existing residents or businesses The subject property and existing building are vacant. d) Discouragement of economic development activities that may provide desirable employment or enlarge the tax base The subject property is currently vacant. As such, the proposed automobile sales use will increase economic activity and may enlarge the tax base. e) Undue density of population or intensity of use in relation to the community facilities existing or available The City’s Comprehensive Plan identifies community facilities as fire protection, police enforcement, and emergency response services; public utilities and infrastructure; and public parks and recreation opportunities. The applicant has not adequately discussed this issue within its comprehensive plan analysis required by Z.O. Sec. 34‐41(d)(2). In that aspect, the application is not sufficiently detailed. However, the applicant does indicate in the proposed project narrative (Attachment A) the redevelopment of the site will include plantings along E. High Street to “soften and improve the pedestrian experience.” If this representation is important to the Commission, staff recommends including a condition that these improvements be depicted within the final site plan. 10 Staff Analysis: The proposed automobile sales use may result in some increased demand on physical facilities and services provided. Impacts such as those on the City’s water and sewer facilities can be adequately evaluated and addressed during the site plan and certificate of occupancy processes. A preliminary review of the proposal indicates the City’s existing water and sewer facilities are adequate to serve the proposed development. The proposed use is unlikely to have an impact on amenities such as public parks or recreation opportunities, as the applicant proposes no residential units or additional residential density to the corridor. f) Reduction in the availability of affordable housing in the neighborhood No residential units currently exist on the subject property. The proposed use of automobile sales will not trigger the requirement for compliance with Z.O. Sec. 34‐12. (Affordable dwelling units). g) Impact on school population and facilities No residential units are proposed for the subject property. Therefore, there will be no resulting impact on school populations or facilities. h) Destruction of or encroachment upon conservation or historic districts The subject property is not within a conservation or historic district. i) Conformity with federal, state and local laws, as demonstrated and certified by the applicant Based on the information contained within the application, the proposed use would likely comply with applicable federal and state laws. As to local ordinances (zoning, water protection, etc.), it generally appears that this project, as detailed in the application, can be accommodated on this site in compliance with applicable local ordinances. The potential impacts to the floodway and floodplain will be analyzed and considered in detail by the Floodplain Administrator and BZA, should Council approve the SUP request. j) Massing and scale of project No new buildings or structures are proposed in conjunction with this SUP application. The subject property and adjacent properties are mostly covered in asphalt paving with small building footprints relevant to the parcel sizes. 11 Staff Analysis: The existing building on the subject property is harmonious in scale and mass with the surrounding area. (5) Whether the proposed use or development will be in harmony with the purposes of the specific zoning district in which it will be placed; In 1949 the property was zoned B Business District. In 1958 the property was zoned B‐2 Business District. In 1976 the property was zoned B‐3 Commercial District. In 1991 the property was zoned B‐3 Commercial District. In 2003 the property was zoned CC Central City Corridor. The intent of the Central City Corridor (CC) district is to facilitate the continued development and redevelopment of the quality medium scale commercial and mixed use projects currently found in those areas. The district allows single use development, but encourages mixed use projects. The regulations are designed to encourage use of and emphasize proximity to natural features or important view sheds of natural features. Development allowed is of a scale and character that is appropriate given the established development that surrounds the district. (Z.O. Sec. 34‐541(11)). The subject property is also directly across the street from properties zoned High Street Corridor (HS) district. The intent of the HS district states that areas included within this district represent a section of High Street that has historically developed around medical offices and support services, as well as neighborhood‐oriented service businesses such as auto repair shops and restaurants. The regulations within this district encourage a continuation of the scale and existing character of uses established within this district, and are intended to facilitate infill development of similar uses. (Z.O. Sec. 34‐541(7)). Staff Analysis: While the applicant does not propose a mixed use project as encouraged by the district, the applicant does propose to re‐activate a vacant property with a commercial use that is a similar scale and character to the surrounding uses. The potential floodway and floodplain regulations of the subject property will be a limiting factor in future development of the site. The proposed use provides activation of the subject property and is in harmony with the intent of both the CC and HS districts. (6) Whether the proposed use or development will meet applicable general and specific standards set forth within the zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, or other city ordinances or regulations; and Based on the information contained within the application, the proposed development would likely comply with applicable local ordinances. However, final determinations cannot 12 be made prior to having the details required for final site plan approval. The Planning Commission approves preliminary site plans reflecting proposed development of property that is subject to a SUP pursuant to Z.O. Sec. 34‐820(d)(2). The Commission may wish to designate the staff to administratively review and approve the site plan, if administrative review is determined to be appropriate. (7) When the property that is the subject of the application for a special use permit is within a design control district, city council shall refer the application to the BAR or ERB, as may be applicable, for recommendations as to whether the proposed use will have an adverse impact on the district, and for recommendations as to reasonable conditions which, if imposed, that would mitigate any such impacts. The BAR or ERB, as applicable, shall return a written report of its recommendations to the city council. The subject property is located within an entrance corridor overlay district, pursuant to Z.O. Sec. 34‐307(a)(10). The entrance corridor review board (ERB) issues certificates of appropriateness (COA) when a site plan is required, pursuant to Z.O. Sec. 34‐309(c). A site plan is required for the proposed use, pursuant to Z.O. Sec. 34‐802(a). However, the applicant proposes to paint the existing building and update fixtures, which typically does not require a site plan and would receive an administratively approved COA, pursuant to Z.O. Sec. 34‐309(a)(2). The ERB may wish to designate the staff to administratively review and approve the COA, if administrative review is determined to be appropriate. Public Comments Received Community Meetings Required by Z.O. Sec. 34‐41(c)(2) The applicant held a community meeting on July 26, 2017 beginning at 5:00pm at CitySpace (100 5th Street NE). Property owners within 500 feet, the Martha Jefferson Neighborhood Association, the Woolen Mills Neighborhood Association, and the Little High Neighborhood Association were notified of the meeting per requirements in Z.O. Sec. 34‐41(c)(2). The letter provided by the applicant, in addition to the sign in sheets from the meeting, can be found in Attachment D. No one except the applicant and City staff attended the community meeting. Other Comments One citizen noted by phone she is concerned with the proximity of the proposed automobile dealership to Burnley Moran Elementary School, particularly the increase in traffic as related to the automobile sales use. 13 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends it is reasonable to permit automobile sales at this location, if proper conditions are applied. The Planning Commission may wish to designate the staff to administratively review and approve the site plan. The ERB may wish to designate the staff to administratively review and approve the COA. Recommended Conditions Staff is of the opinion that, if this landowner’s request for a special use permit to allow “automobile sales” per City Code §34‐796 is approved then the following conditions are necessary as reasonable safeguards to assure the public safety, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice: 1. At no time shall more than 15 vehicles being offered for sale be present on the subject property. 2. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of the Charlottesville City Code (1950), as amended, storage of inoperable vehicles is prohibited on the subject property. For the purpose of this special use permit, the term “inoperable motor vehicle” shall have the meaning set forth within City Code §5‐150(a)(1). 3. The subject property shall not be used as an “automobile graveyard” or “junkyard” as those terms are defined in Virginia Code §33.2‐804. 4. No improvements shall be commenced prior to approval of any required permits which can include: Development in the Floodplain permit, final site plan, and certificate of appropriateness for improvements to the existing building. 5. The applicant shall provide plantings along E. High Street in conformance with City Code §34‐778(b)(1), the installation of which is subject to approval by the City Floodplain Administrator. 6. All outdoor lighting and light fixtures shall be full cut‐off luminaires. The spillover light from luminaires onto public roads and onto property adjacent property shall not exceed one‐half (½) foot candle. A spillover shall be measured horizontally and vertically at the property line or edge of right‐of‐way or easement, whichever is closer to the light source. Suggested Motions 1. I move to recommend approval of SP17‐00004 to permit automobile sales at the subject property, subject to the conditions recommended by staff, because I find that the proposed use, if conducted in accordance with the conditions, will serve the interests of public necessity, convenience, the general welfare, or good zoning practice. 14 OR, 2. I move to recommend denial of SP17‐00004. Attachments A. Updated Special Use Permit Narrative received July 7, 2017 B. Special Use Permit Application received July 7, 2017 C. Site Plan received August 31, 2017 D. Community Meeting Materials received July 14, 2017 15 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: October 2, 2017 Action Required: Vote on Resolution Staff Contacts: Alex Ikefuna, Director of NDS Presenter: Alex Ikefuna, Director of NDS Title: Honorary Street Name Designation – Heather Heyer Way Background: On August 12, 2017, Ms. Heather D. Heyer was struck down by a vehicle near the corner of 4th Street and Water Street in Downtown Charlottesville, while exercising her peaceful First Amendment right to speech. The terror attack that resulted in Ms. Heyer’s death, and serious injuries to dozens more, shocked our community and touched the heart and soul of not only Charlottesville, but the entire country. Discussion: On August 21, 2017, the City Council expressed an interest in memorializing Ms. Heyer by designating a portion of 4th Street, SE and NE, from East Water Street to East Market Street as Heather Heyer Way. This honorary designation would pay tribute to Ms. Heyer’s dedication to justice, fairness and positive social change. Ms. Heyer was a young woman that believed in equal rights for all. At the time of her death, Ms. Heyer was a paralegal in a local law firm. Her family has established the Heather D. Heyer Foundation to honor her memory. According to the foundation, donations received by the foundation will be used to provide scholarships to individuals that are interested in positive social change. For more information on the foundation, please visit www.heatherheyerfoundation.com. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Priority Areas: According to the City’s honorary Street name policy, “honorary street name designations should be limited to individuals, or events that have made an important and lasting contribution to the City of Charlottesville or represent a key part of its history. The street to be designated should have a connection to the individual/event and his/her contribution.” Heather D. Heyer epitomized City Council Agenda RE: Honorary Street Name Designation Page 1 of 3 this provision, as her life was taken prematurely on this street on August 12, for standing up for social justice and racial equality. Approval of this agenda item is consistent with the City’s commitment to create “a community of mutual respect” by recognizing the important contributions of community members both past and present. This request also aligns with Goal 1.5 of the City’s 2018 – 2020 Strategic Plan of “intentionally address issues of race and equity;” a goal that Heather D. Heyer lived and died for. Location Map: Attached Citizen Engagement: No public engagement was held; however, Ms. Heyer’s mother has given her support and approval for the honorary designation. The community has also expressed a desire to honor Ms. Heyer in several ways, and this designation would be in keeping with community spirit. Budgetary Impact: There is a cost of $500 per designation to cover the cost of sign material and fabrication. The installation and on-going maintenance will be completed by City staff. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the resolution to give this street an honorary designation. Attachment: Resolution. Map. City Council Agenda RE: Honorary Street Name Designation Page 2 of 3 RESOLUTION Honorary Street Name Designation – Heather Heyer Way 4th Street, SE and NE between East Water Street and East Market Street WHEREAS, City Council adopted a policy for Honorary Street Name Designation; and WHEREAS, City staff has reviewed the application for appropriateness and verified the historical information; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that 4th Street, SE and NE between East Water Street and East Market Street shall bear the honorary name Heather Heyer Way. City Council Agenda RE: Honorary Street Name Designation Page 3 of 3 RT SQ HEATHER D. HEYER HONORARY STREET NAME NE DESIGNATION ST 2ND E M ARK ET ST R (4T ST N HEYE NE) D. NE H S E DOW HER NTO ST T WN 5TH PE D T EST HEA RIA N MA LL Market Street Garage R (4T ST S HEYE SE E) D. H S E T S ST HER 3RD T HEA Water Street Garage E W SE ATE R ST ST 5TH CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA. Agenda Date: October 2, 2017 Action Required: Second Reading: Ordinance Presenter: Susan Elliott, Climate Protection Program Coordinator Staff Contacts: Susan Elliott, Climate Protection Program Coordinator Kristel Riddervold, Environmental Sustainability Manager Missy Creasy, Assistant Director, NDS Mary Joy Scala, Preservation and Design Planner, NDS Title: Zoning Text Amendment for Solar Energy Systems (2nd of 2 Readings) Procedural Background On May 1, 2017, City Council initiated a zoning text amendment to expressly allow solar energy systems. The City Council referred the proposed amendments to the Charlottesville Planning Commission for review and recommendations. A joint public hearing was conducted by City Council and the Planning Commission on May 9, 2017. Planning Commission Recommendation—On June 13, 2017, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that City Council should approve the attached amendments to the Zoning Ordinance in order to authorize solar energy systems subject to appropriate regulations. As a condition of their approval, the Planning Commission has also recommended that, prior to a Second Reading of the proposed Ordinance, City Council should request the Board of Architectural Review and Entrance Corridor Review Board to weigh in as to whether any additional zoning text amendments might be necessary in order to ensure that those design review bodies will have authority, under their respective ordinance provisions, to review the compatibility of each different type of solar energy system that might have a significant impact on a major design control district, a conservation district or an entrance corridor. Board of Architectural Review and Entrance Corridor Review Board–The Board of Architectural Review (BAR) discussed solar energy systems (SES) at their July 18, 2017 meeting, and the Entrance Corridor Review Board (ECRB) discussed SES at their August 8, 2017 meeting. Both boards provided recommendations to City Council as detailed in the attachments and summarized in the ”Recommendation” section below. City Council – 1st of 2 Readings– On July 5, 2017, the proposed ordinance was brought to City Council for the 1st of 2 readings. Due to the late hour, Council chose to hear the presentation and ask questions but to postpone discussion until the 2nd reading. Executive Summary of Proposed Text Amendments The proposed zoning text amendment is intended to establish the underlying zoning code for all zoning districts and to maintain any additional review or restrictions as applicable by overlay zoning or design control districts. A summary of the proposed text adjustments are explained in this report. Additional attachments include a table summarizing the proposed code language, birds-eye-view diagrams for “low- density residential districts” and “all other zoning districts”, images of example solar energy system installations and configurations, and further information regarding topics such as the reflectivity of solar PV panels. Why is a Zoning Text Amendment for Solar Energy Systems Needed? There is an increasing demand for solar energy systems within Charlottesville, Virginia, and the country. The City‟s current zoning code does not reference solar energy system installations directly. Therefore, City Environmental Sustainability Division staff recommends certain revisions and the addition of a new section to the zoning code to clarify allowable locations and heights for solar energy systems. The recommendations are based on national best practices, a review of the existing zoning code for structures and uses of similar sizes and forms, and input from the local solar industry. This proposal aims to clarify that solar energy systems are allowed by-right as accessory in all zoning districts and provide some clear guidance on how and where these systems are installed in the city. This proposal maintains that solar energy systems will remain subject to any additional design controls as applicable (e.g. entrance corridor properties and protected historic properties will continue to require review from the Planning Commission and Board of Architectural Review). This work supports the Streets That Work Code Audit, responds to recommendations from the 2015 Smart Growth America (SGA) Technical Assistance assessment, and is consistent with the cooperative MOU for Collaboration between the City and County Regarding the Environment. While City staff has received limited community concerns regarding our solar PV practices and processes, SGA described the lack of reference in the code text as a barrier due to the potential ambiguity it presents. Furthermore, the City is participating in the national SolSmart program (SolSmart) – background on SolSmart provided later in this Memo. The City has been awarded Bronze level designation as a „solar-friendly community‟ and is pursuing Silver level, which requires that zoning code clearly allows solar energy systems as an accessory use by-right in all major zoning districts. SGA and SolSmart both recommend that solar PV be clarified in the zoning code. Considerations in Drafting the Proposed Ordinance: Environmental Sustainability staff worked cooperatively with our SolSmart Advisor, NDS, and the City Attorney‟s office to draft the proposed ordinance attached to this Memo. Considerations included: - current conditions accepted for installations - existing zoning code allowances for related items, such as appurtenances and accessory structures - best practices specific to solar PV (rather than other types of mechanical equipment) - experienced-based feedback from the local solar installation industry - sample model codes from SolSmart and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality - comments from the Planning Commission meeting on May 9, 2017 Proposed Changes to the Ordinance The full text of the proposed ordinance amendments is attached as well some reference diagrams and example images. The specific recommended changes to the ordinance are: Sec. 34-1101. Appurtenances Proposed edits to this section aim to improve clarity on allowable placement of solar energy systems in relationship to building height maximums, minimum required yards, and setbacks from lot lines. Also proposed is eliminating the use of the unclear term appurtenance. Sec. 34-1108: Standards for solar energy systems This is a new section being proposed to provide clear standards for solar energy systems, which are currently not directly addressed in the code. This section proposes height maximums, location restrictions, safety requirements, and references to other applicable codes – such as the state building and fire code – for solar energy systems. Also includes that solar energy systems may be attached and incorporated into building façades such as roof tiles, shutters, canopies (e.g. „building integrated solar‟) Sec. 34-1146. Nonconforming structures, permitted changes. The proposed changes aim to clarify that solar energy systems are allowed on nonconforming buildings or structures. Sec. 34-1147. Expansion of nonconforming uses or structures. The proposed changes provide clarity on the consideration of solar energy systems for expansion of nonconforming uses and structures. Sec. 34-1200. Zoning—Definitions The definition of Accessory building, structure, or use currently lists common examples of accessory buildings and structures, but does not clarify examples of accessory uses. The proposed changes include adding examples equipment or fixtures as accessory uses, which include heating, electrical and mechanical equipment, utility service lines and meters, and solar energy systems. Furthermore, a definition of solar energy systems is added to clarify the use of the term throughout the Zoning Ordinance. Background on the SolSmart Program In March 2016, the City of Charlottesville earned SolSmart Early Adopter status and began pursuing „solar-friendly community‟ designation. By participating in the SolSmart program, Charlottesville‟s primary aims are to: 1) Receive national recognition for the good work that Charlottesville does as a Green Leader 2) Move forward on the solar photovoltaic (PV) Smart Growth America recommendations and the Code Audit portion of “Streets That Work” 3) Improve our processes and policies where it makes sense SolSmart is funded by the US Department of Energy and is supported by – amongst other organizations – The Solar Foundation, the National League of Cities and the International City/County Management Association. SolSmart assists localities to adopt local government best practices and policies that contribute to reducing the soft costs of solar photovoltaic (PV) system installations. Solar PV systems use solar panels to generate electricity. While the hardware costs (e.g. equipment costs) for solar PV have reduced significantly over the past 5 years, nationwide studies have shown that soft costs (e.g. permitting, inspections, and financing costs) can amount to 60% of a solar PV system‟s installation costs. As a result of a successful joint application from the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle, the localities were awarded free technical assistance in the form of an on-site SolSmart Advisor for a period of up to 6 months through July 2017 to assist both the City and the County in achieving their SolSmart designation goals. One of the primary focuses of the SolSmart Advisor‟s work with the City was to assist staff in reviewing local zoning code and drafting proposed updates related to solar energy systems. Discussion 1) The proposed zoning text amendment is intended to establish the underlying zoning code for all zoning districts and to maintain any additional review or restrictions as applicable by overlay zoning or design control districts. Upon review by the ECRB and the BAR of SES, possible placements of SES on properties, and the proposed SES zoning text amendment, several points were concluded (see attachment for further detail):  No amendments are warranted to the entrance corridor ordinance,  Amendments are recommended to the historic conservation district and architectural design control district ordinances,  In the proposed zoning text amendment, under Sec 34-1101 a (2), “in aggregate” should be added to the text so it would not be interpreted that each type of item could, by itself, cover 25% of the roof. 2) Local solar PV industry practitioners who have aligned themselves as members of the recently-launched Charlottesville Renewable Energy Alliance (CvilleREA) reviewed the originally proposed zoning text amendment and supported the draft without concern. A couple of CvilleREA members subsequently noted that the 15 foot height maximum could be restrictive for parking lot solar canopies. Staff and these members are willing to work together on a zoning text amendment proposal to address this specific application for solar energy systems. 3) The City has been awarded Bronze level designation in the SolSmart program and is pursuing Silver level. Silver level designation requires that zoning code clearly allows solar energy systems as an accessory use by-right in all major zoning districts. Passage of the proposed solar zoning text amendment would meet this requirement. 4) Through discussion with members of the public who provided comment in response to the presentations at the Planning Commission meetings, it was suggested that the City consider passing the proposed solar zoning text amendment with an enactment clause to postpone it going into effect until after the items 1 and 2, listed above, could be addressed. 5) Additional zoning text amendments can be initiated by either City Council or the Planning Commission. Amendments initiated by City Council require that the proposed amendment be returned to Council with Planning Commission review within 100 days. Alignment with Council Vision Areas and Strategic Plan This action aligns with: - City Council Vision: A Green City - Strategic Plan Goals 2, 3, and 4 - Comprehensive Plan o Chapter 4, Goal 5 o Chapter 4, Goal 6 (Strategies 1, 2, and 4) o Chapter 5, Goal 8, Strategy 7 o Community Value 3 and Value 5 Additionally, it is consistent with the City‟s commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including those recently reiterated in the June 19, 2017 Climate Resolution, the previously referenced cooperative MOU for Collaboration between the City and County Regarding the Environment, Streets That Work Code Audit, and 2015 Smart Growth America (SGA) Technical Assistance recommendations. Community Engagement Growing demand and interest in local solar PV installations has been observed over the past 3 years as demonstrated through the popular Solarize Charlottesville campaigns led by the Local Energy Alliance Program (LEAP) and subsequent increased market activity and requests for solar PV electrical permits. Staff has received comments observing that allowance of solar energy systems is not clear in the zoning ordinance. Staff worked with local solar PV industry practitioners who have aligned themselves as members of the recently-launched Charlottesville Renewable Energy Alliance (CvilleREA) to review the proposed zoning text amendment and provide comments. Staff also incorporated comments from the public and the Planning Commissioners provided at the May 9, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. Budgetary Impact No additional funding is required. Recommendation Staff recommends that City Council adopt the proposed zoning text amendments (ZTA) for solar energy systems and direct staff to propose ordinance amendments to address recommendations noted by the BAR, the ECRB, and in relation to parking canopy structures. Alternatives Council can choose to: 1. Adopt the proposed solar energy systems ZTA and direct staff to address the recommendations noted by the BAR, the ECRB, and in relation to parking canopy structures, either: a. as separate processes, or b. by seeking an enactment clause to the solar energy systems ZTA. Additionally, Council could provide direction as to whether staff should return proposals to the Planning Commission, or, to the City Council. 2. Adopt the proposed solar energy systems ZTA and direct staff to not address the recommendations noted by the BAR, the ECRB, and in relation to parking canopy structures. 3. Maintain the current zoning code and not support the recommended zoning text amendments. Attachments:  Ordinance with the proposed zoning text amendments  Supplemental reference materials including: o Summary Table – proposed zoning text o Diagrams – showing proposed allowable locations for solar energy systems in low density residential zoning districts and in all other zoning districts o Pictures of Example Solar Energy Systems  Addendum from the City‟s Preservation and Design Planner detailing comments and recommendations from the BAR and the ECRB ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND RE-ENACT THE CODE OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE (1990), AS AMENDED, CHAPTER 34 (ZONING), SECTIONS 34-1101, 34-1146, 34-1147, and 34-1200, AND TO ADD A NEW SECTION 34-1108, TO EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZE SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS WHEREAS, in accordance with Virginia Code §15.2-2286(A)(7), the Charlottesville City Council previously initiated amendments of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charlottesville, Chapter 34 of the Code of the City of Charlottesville (1990), as amended (“Zoning Ordinance”), to expressly allow permit solar energy systems, and City Council referred the proposed amendments to the Charlottesville Planning Commission for review and recommendations, in accordance with Virginia Code §15.2-2285; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted jointly by City Council and the Planning Commission on May 9, 2017 following public notice as required by law; and WHEREAS, on June 13, 2017, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that City Council should approve certain proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, to expressly authorize solar energy systems subject to appropriate regulations, finding that such amendments are required by the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice; and WHEREAS, this City Council concurs with the Planning Commission that the proposed zoning text amendments are required by the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice, and further, Council finds that the proposed amendments have been designed to give reasonable consideration to the purposes set forth within Virginia Code §15.2- 2283 and have been drawn with reasonable consideration given to the matters set forth within Virginia Code §15.2-2284; NOW, THEREFORE, this City Council does hereby amend and re-enact the Code of the City of Charlottesville (1990), as amended, as follows: Strikeout text = existing provisions proposed to be deleted Blue font text = new provisions proposed to be added 1. Chapter 34, Article X (Definitions), Section 34-1200 is amended and re-enacted, as follows: Sec. 34-1200: Zoning--Definitions Accessory building, structure or use means a building, structure or use located upon the same lot as the principal use, building, or structure, the use of which is incidental to the use of the principal structure. Garages, carports and storage sheds are common residential accessory buildings and structures. Heating, electrical and mechanical equipment, utility service lines and meters, solar energy systems, and related equipment, are equipment or fixtures used accessory to a building or structure located on the same lot. Page 1 of 5 means equipment used primarily for the collection and use of solar Solar Energy System energy for water heating, space heating or cooling, or other application requiring an energy source. 2. Chapter 34, Article IX (General Regulations) is hereby amended and re-enacted as follows: Sec. 34-1101. – Exclusions from building height and minimum yard requirements Appurtenances. (a) None of the following An appurtenance to a building or structure shall not be counted in measuring the height of a building or structure: (1) rooftop solar energy systems, subject to the provisions of 34-1108; (b) (2) rooftop heating, electrical, and mechanical equipment, or elevator returns, which are necessary for or in connection with the proper operation of a building in accordance with USBC requirements, provided that no such equipment or elevator return, as installed No rooftop appurtenance shall: (i) itself measure more than eighteen (18) feet in height above the building, or (ii) cover more than twenty-five (25) percent of the roof area of a building ; (3) Telecommunications equipment, subject to the provisions of 34-1070 et seq.; (4) Chimneys constructed or attached to the side of a building, which extend above the level of the roof deck of a building to a height required by the USBC or VSFPC; (c) (5) Other equipment or structures constructed or installed above the roof deck of a building, so long as they: (i) comply with the height and area requirements set forth in paragraph (2) above, and (ii) contain no Within a rooftop appurtenance, no enclosed space that is shall be designed for or that can be used as any type of habitable residential space. The provisions of this paragraph shall not preclude open-air space on a building rooftop from being used accessory to the primary use of the building. (b)(d)Each of the following appurtenances may encroach into minimum required yards as specified: (1)Window sills, roof overhangs, belt courses, cornices and ornamental features may encroach into a required yard by no more than twelve (12) inches. (2)Open lattice-enclosed fire escapes, fireproof outside stairways, and the ordinary projections of chimneys and flues may encroach into a required rear yard by no more than five (5) feet. (3)Chimneys or flues being added to an existing building may encroach into a required side yard, but not closer than five (5) feet to the side lot line. Page 2 of 5 (4)Elevator shafts, and heating, electrical and mechanical equipment, which are if screened in accordance with the requirements of Section 34-872, may encroach into a required side or rear yard. (5)Handicapped ramps meeting ADA standards may encroach into a required yard. (6) Solar energy systems may encroach into required front, side and rear yards, subject to the provisions of sec. 34-1108 (limitations on placement in front of buildings). No solar energy system shall be placed closer than five (5) feet to any lot line. (6)Except as otherwise provided above: (7) a. Uncovered and unenclosed structures (such as decks, porches, stoops, etc.) attached to a building, and appurtenances which have a maximum floor height of three (3) feet above the finished grade, may encroach into any required yard, but not closer than five (5) feet to any lot line and no more than ten (10) feet into a required front yard; however, no such structure or improvement appurtenance, shall occupy more than thirty (30) percent of a rear yard. (8) b. Any appurtenance to a For any single- or two-family dwelling, an unenclosed structure attached to the façade of the dwelling, and having a height greater than three (3) feet above finished grade, may encroach into a required front yard by up to ten (10) feet, but no closer than five (5) feet to a front lot line.; however, Any such structure such appurtenance shall comply be in compliance with the applicable side yard setback (s). (c) c. No enclosed structure that is attached to any building appurtenance, regardless of height (including but not limited to a screened-in porch), shall encroach into any required yard. Sec. 34-1108. Standards for solar energy systems The following requirements apply to solar energy systems: (1) Solar energy systems shall be installed in compliance with applicable provisions of the USBC and the VSFPC. (2) A solar energy system may be installed on the roof of any building or structure, whether principal or accessory. (i). The height of a solar energy system installed on the roof of a single- or two-family dwelling, or on the roof of an accessory building or structure on the same lot as such dwelling, may extend up to five (5) feet above the highest point of the roof of the building or structure on which it is installed. Page 3 of 5 (ii). Except as limited by subparagraph (i), above, a rooftop solar energy system may extend up to fifteen (15) feet above the highest point of the roof of the building or structure on which it is installed. (3) A solar energy system may be attached and incorporated as part of any building façade (for example: roof tiles, window shutters, canopies, etc.). (4) Placement in front of buildings: (i) Within required front yards--Within a required front yard, a solar energy system may be incorporated as part of any structure allowed by Sec. 34-1101(b)(7) and Sec. 34- 1101(b)(8). Otherwise, no solar energy system shall be located within a required front yard. (ii) Within other areas forward of the front building façade—Within a low-density residential zoning district, except as provided in subparagraph (i), above, no solar energy system may be located forward of an imaginary line extending along the exterior façade of a residential building, parallel to the front lot line and extending between the side lot lines. In all other zoning districts, a solar energy system may be located in an area between the front building façade and the required front yard. (5) Except as provided in paragraph (2)(i), above, a solar energy system, together with its support, shall not itself exceed a height of fifteen (15) feet unless otherwise required by the USBC or VSFPC for a specific use. Sec. 34-1146. Nonconforming structures, permitted changes. (a) A nonconforming structure may be changed, altered, repaired, restored, replaced, relocated or expanded only in accordance with the provisions of this section and of sec. 34-1147, and subject to all approvals required by law…… ….(e) A solar energy system may be placed on or attached to on a nonconforming building or structure. Page 4 of 5 Sec. 34-1147. - Expansion of nonconforming uses or structures. (a) Nonconforming uses or structures may expand only in accordance with the provisions of this section. Whenever a percentage limitation is placed on expansion, that limitation shall be the total expansion allowed, in increments of any size that add up to the total, or all at once. All expansion shall occur on the lot occupied by the nonconforming use or structure, inclusive of any permitted consolidations or re -subdivisions. (b) Nonconforming uses, other than structures, may be expanded on an area of a lot not originally devoted to the nonconforming use, provided such expansion meets all current requirements of this chapter applicable only to the expansion. The placement or installation of a solar energy system on a building or lot shall not be deemed an expansion of a nonconforming use. (c) Nonconforming structures. (1) Nonconforming single-family dwelling. The structure may be expanded as provided within this subsection. New or expanded residential accessory structures (such as storage sheds, garages, swimming pools, etc.) may be permitted. Expansion of the dwelling, and new or expanded accessory structures, shall meet all zoning ordinance requirements, including height, yard and setbacks, for the zoning district in which located; except that extension of an existing front porch that encroaches into a front yard required by this ordinance shall be permitted to the side yard(s), so long as such extension will not result in an increase in the front yard encroachment. A single-family detached dwelling that is nonconforming because it encroaches into any required yard(s) may be expanded as long as the expansion will not result in an increase in the yard encroachment(s). However, expansions in height to existing nonconforming s ingle- family dwellings, which do not meet current setback requirements, shall be permitted only if: (i) the dwelling is only being increased in height, and (ii) the footprint of the dwelling will remain unchanged by the proposed expansion in height. Such expansion will not required to meet more restrictive setbacks enacted since the date the dwelling became nonconforming; however, all other zoning regulations for the district in which the dwelling is located shall apply. (2) Nonconforming structures, other than single-family dwellings. Where the use of a nonconforming structure is permitted by right, or with a special use or provisional use permit, in the zoning district in which the structure is located, then expansion of a nonconforming structure may be ap proved provided that: (i) yard, setback, screening and buffering, and height standards applicable to the proposed expansion are met; (ii) all applicable sign regulations are met, and (iii) such expansion does not exceed twenty -five (25) percent of the gross floor area of the existing structure. For any proposed expansion exceeding twenty-five (25) percent of the gross floor area of the existing structure, all development standards applicable to the property as a whole shall be met. (3) Theplacement or installation of a solar energy system on a building or lot shall not be deemed an expansion of a nonconforming building or structure, and the area occupied by any such system shall not be included within the calculation of percentages of expansion pursuant to paragraphs (c)(2) or (e) of this section. (4) Where a nonconforming structure is utilized for or in connection with a nonconforming use, then no expansion of the nonconforming structure shall be approved unless the zoning administrator certifies that: (i) expansion of the nonconforming structure would not result in expansion of the nonconforming use, or (ii) expansion of the nonconforming structure would result in expansion of the nonconforming use, but expansion of the nonconforming use would meet the requirements of section 34-1147(b), above. (5) (4)Prior to the approval of any expansion of a nonconforming use or structure, nonconforming status shall be verified by the zoning administrator. (d) In the event of any permitted expansion of a nonconforming structure, all signs located on the property shall be brought into full compliance with current zoning ordinance requirements. (e) Permitted expansions for nonresidential, nonconforming uses that require special or provisional use permits are required to obtain special or provisional use permits only when such expansions exceed twenty -five (25) percent of the gross floor area of the existing structure. Page 5 of 5 Solar Energy Systems – Zoning Text Amendment – Summary Chart General Provisions for All Solar Energy Systems: Defined as: Uses accessory to the use of the building, Sec. 34-1200 structure or use being served; for purposes of the city’s zoning ordinance, they are not considered to be buildings or structures. Solar Energy System means equipment used primarily for the collection and use of solar energy for water heating, space heating or cooling, or other application requiring an energy source. Shall be: Installed in compliance with applicable Sec. 34-1108(1) provisions of the Uniform Statewide Building Code (USBC) and the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code (VSFPC). Rooftop Systems: May be installed on the roof of any building Sec. 34-1108(2) or structure, whether principal or accessory Height: Single- or two-family dwellings: Sec. 34-1108(2) Example: Angled solar May extend up to five (5) feet above the installation on single- or highest point of the roof of the building or two-family dwellings with structure on which it is installed flat roofs All other uses: Examples: Parking May extend up to fifteen (15) feet above the garage solar canopies highest point of the roof of the building or and rooftop canopy on structure on which it is installed … commercial flat roof … unless otherwise required by the USBC or Sec. 34-1108(5) VSFPC for a specific use. Excluded from measuring the height of a Sec. 34-1101(a)(1) building or structure, subject to the provisions of Sec. 34-1108 Perimeter Non-residential buildings: Sec. 34-1108(1) – Setback: A minimum 6-foot-wide clear perimeter via reference to around the edges of the roof. Or, where USBC and VSFPC either axis of the buildings is 250 feet or less, there shall be a minimum 4-foot-wide clear perimeter around the edges of the roof (VSFPC 605.11.3) For reference purposes only – Not Intended for inclusion in the zoning code Solar Energy Systems – Zoning Text Amendment – Summary Chart PAGE 2 Non-Rooftop Systems (e.g. systems that are ground-mounted or incorporated into a building or structure): May be attached and incorporated as part Sec. 34-1108(3) Examples: roof tiles, of any building façade * New Addition window shutters, canopies Setbacks: Min. 5 feet from any lot line Sec. 34-1101(b)(6) * New Addition A clear, brush-free area of 10 feet shall be Sec. 34-1108(1) – required for ground-mounted photovoltaic via reference to arrays. (VSFPC 605.11.4) USBC and VSFPC Height: Together with its support, shall not itself Sec. 34-1108(5) Examples: parking exceed a height of fifteen (15) feet unless canopies, pole-mounted otherwise required by the USBC or VSFPC solar panels, outdoor for a specific use seating canopies, incorporated in decks and porches Placement in May encroach into required front, side, and Sec. 34-1101(b)(6) Yards: rear yards, subject to the provisions of * Adjusted to Sec. 34-1108 reference Sec. 34- 1108 for all yard provisions Required Front Yards: Sec. 34-1108(4) May be located within a required front yard * New Addition only when incorporated as part of an allowed structure per Sec. 34-1101(b)(7) and Sec. 34-1101(b)(8). Note: Attached and unenclosed structures that are allowed in required front yards are defined in Sec. 34-1101(b)(7) and Sec. 34- 1101(b)(8). No adjustments to these sections are included in this proposal. Low-Density Residential Zoning Districts: Not allowed in any front or side yard between the line of the front building façade and the front lot line, unless incorporated as part of an allowed structure as defined in Sec. 34-1101(b)(7) and Sec. 34-1101(b)(8). All Other Zoning Districts: Allowed between the front building façade and the required front yard. For reference purposes only – Not Intended for inclusion in the zoning code Low-Density Residential Districts Solar Energy Systems Allowed Solar Energy Systems Allowed on Structures Without an Allowed, Unenclosed Structure in Front Yard With an Allowed, Unenclosed Structure in Front Yard Min. 5’ to Lot Line Min. 5’ to Lot Line Accessory Accessory Structure Structure Rear Yard Rear Yard Min. 5’ to Lot Line Min. 5’ to Lot Line Min. 5’ to Lot Line Min. 5’ to Lot Line Primary Primary Structure Structure Front Façade Line Attached Front Yard Front Yard Unenclosed (Non-Required) (Non-Required) Structure Side Side Side (Up to 10’ into Side Yard Yard Yard Req. Front Yard) Yard Required Required Front Yard Front Yard Min. 5’ to Lot Line Min. 5’ to Lot Line Diagrams Show: Proposed Sec. 34-1101(b)(6) and Sec. 34-1108(4) Existing Sec. 34-1101(b)(7) and Sec. 34-1101(b)(8) All Zoning Districts Except Low-Density Residential (Commercial, Mixed Use, etc. Does not include Low-Density Residential.) Solar Energy Systems Allowed Solar Energy Systems Allowed on Structures Without an Allowed, Unenclosed Structure in Front Yard With an Allowed, Unenclosed Structure in Front Yard Min. 5’ to Lot Line Min. 5’ to Lot Line Accessory Accessory Structure Structure Rear Yard Rear Yard Min. 5’ to Lot Line Min. 5’ to Lot Line Min. 5’ to Lot Line Min. 5’ to Lot Line Primary Primary Structure Structure Attached Front Yard Front Yard Unenclosed (Non-Required) (Non-Required) Structure SideSide Side Side (Up to 10’ into Side Yard Yard Yard Yard Req. Front Yard) Yard Required Required Front Yard Front Yard Min. 5’ to Lot Line Min. 5’ to Lot Line Diagrams Show: Proposed Sec. 34-1101(b)(6) and Sec. 34-1108(4) Existing Sec. 34-1101(b)(7) and Sec. 34-1101(b)(8) Section 34-1108(2) Applies to all zoning districts Examples of allowable rooftop solar energy systems on accessory structures Mounted on garages and sheds Photo Credits: SOLAR Generation, The Solar Shed Prepared for Charlottesville Planning Commission – June 13, 2017 Section 34-1108(2)(i) Applies only single-and two-family dwellings Examples of allowable rooftop solar energy systems up to 5 feet in height above highest point of the roof Tilted solar energy systems on sloped or flat roofs Photo Credits: NZ Builders, Shades of Green Landscape Architecture, Solaire Energy Systems Prepared for Charlottesville Planning Commission – June 13, 2017 Section 34-1108(2)(ii) Applies to all except single-and two-family dwellings Examples of allowable rooftop solar energy systems up to 15 feet in height above highest point of the roof Rooftop Canopies Photo Credits: Lumos Solar Prepared for Charlottesville Planning Commission – June 13, 2017 Section 34-1108(2)(ii) Applies to all except single-and two-family dwellings Examples of allowable rooftop solar energy systems up to 15 feet in height above highest point of the roof Parking Garage Canopies Photo Credit: Washington & Lee University Prepared for Charlottesville Planning Commission – June 13, 2017 Section 34-1108(3) Applies to all zoning districts Examples of allowable solar energy systems incorporated into building facade Building-integrated solar energy systems in residential districts Photo Credits: Lumos, Saxman Photography Prepared for Charlottesville Planning Commission – June 13, 2017 Section 34-1108(3) Applies to all zoning districts Examples of allowable solar energy systems incorporated into building facade Building-integrated solar energy systems in non-residential districts Photo Credits: U.S. Department of Energy, TRA Snow and Sun Prepared for Charlottesville Planning Commission – June 13, 2017 Section 34-1108(3) Applies to all zoning districts Examples of allowable solar energy systems incorporated into building facade Building-Integrated Solar Energy Systems in non-residential districts Photo Credits: Lumos Prepared for Charlottesville Planning Commission – June 13, 2017 Section 34-1108(4)(i-ii) Applies to all zoning districts, including low-density residential districts Examples of allowable solar energy systems mounted on an attached, unenclosed structure that is allowed to encroach into the required front yard Mounted on unenclosed, attached porches Photo Credits: Sunfix, Solar Connexion LLC Prepared for Charlottesville Planning Commission – June 13, 2017 Section 34-1108(4)(i-ii) Applies to low-density residential districts Example of solar energy system that is NOT ALLOWED between building setback line and the adjacent front lot line Photo Credits: eBay Prepared for Charlottesville Planning Commission – June 13, 2017 Section 34-1108(5) Applies to all zoning districts Examples of allowable solar energy systems up to 15 feet in height Ground-mounted solar energy systems in residential districts Photo Credits: Survival Renewable Energy, Sunoco Energy Systems Prepared for Charlottesville Planning Commission – June 13, 2017 Section 34-1108(5) Applies to all zoning districts Examples of allowable solar energy systems up to 15 feet in height ConnecTables are installed at UVA and Two pole-mounted solar energy systems Albemarle High School are installed at Charlottesville High School Photo Credits: ConnecTable, Zep Solar Prepared for Charlottesville Planning Commission – June 13, 2017 Section 34-1108(5) Applies to all zoning districts Examples of allowable solar energy systems up to 15 feet in height Ground-mounted solar energy systems in non-residential districts Photo Credits: Zep Solar Prepared for Charlottesville Planning Commission – June 13, 2017 CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCE ROOFTOP SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCE ROOFTOP SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM RESIDENTIAL GROUND-MOUNTED SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM SOLAR CANOPY CHARLOTTESVILLE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ROOFTOP SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM CHARLOTTESVILLE COMMERCIAL ROOFTOP SOLAR CANOPY – in a Historic District CHARLOTTESVILLE COMMERCIAL ROOFTOP SOLAR CANOPY – in a Historic District CHARLOTTESVILLE FACILITIES MAINTENANCE BUILDING ALBEMARLE COUNTY PARKING SOLAR CANOPY REFLECTIVITY OF PHOTOVOLTAIC SOLAR PANELS COMPARED TO OTHER BUILDING MATERIALS Source: “Investigating Safety Impacts of Energy Technologies on Airports and Aviation.” Report commissioned by U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration and National Academy of Science Transportation Research Board and prepared in cooperation with Harris, Miller, Miller, and Hanson, Inc. https://ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/dashboard/searchResults/titleDetail/PB2012100306.xhtml Attachment to Council Memo regarding Solar Energy Systems ZTA – Second Reading Impacts of proposed amendments on historic and design review Background: On May 1, 2017, City Council initiated a zoning text amendment to expressly allow solar energy systems. The City Council referred the proposed amendments to the Charlottesville Planning Commission for review and recommendations. A joint public hearing was conducted by City Council and the Planning Commission on May 9, 2017. On June 13, 2017, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that City Council should approve the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance in order to authorize solar energy systems subject to appropriate regulations. As a condition of their approval, the Planning Commission has also recommended that, prior to a Second Reading of the proposed Ordinance, City Council should request the BAR and Entrance Corridor Review Board to weigh in as to whether any additional zoning text amendments might be necessary in order to ensure that those design review bodies will have authority, under their respective ordinance provisions, to review the compatibility of each different type of solar energy system that might have a significant impact on a major design control district, a conservation district or an entrance corridor. Discussion: The Entrance Corridor Review Board discussed SES at their August 8, 2017 meeting and recommended the following to City Council: that they make no revisions to the ordinance concerning the entrance corridor review process because it does not appear to be affected by the new solar ordinance, but that they give good credence to the recommendations of the BAR and they draft amendments in accordance with their concerns. The Board of Architectural Review discussed SES at their July 18, 2017 meeting and recommended the following:  In general, the BAR wants to encourage solar energy systems but still wants to review them as they have been doing.  In historic conservation districts, ordinance changes are needed in order to continue to review solar panels that are visible additions to a building. They are clearly additions to the historic fabric.  In ADC districts it is unclear whether the BAR can continue to review freestanding solar structures that are too small to require a building permit. Ordinance changes may be necessary for the BAR to continue to be able to review them.  The BAR wanted to alert the Planning Commission that, everywhere, not only in historic districts, a 15- ft solar structure (for instance on a parking garage) could cover the entire rooftop of a building which would change the massing. They did not know if that would be an issue.  Under Sec 34-1101 a (2) it was suggested that “in aggregate” be added to the text so it would not be interpreted that each type of item could, by itself, cover 25% of the roof. Recommendations: The Preservation and Design Planner recommends the following: 1. No zoning amendments are needed to allow continued design review of solar installations in entrance corridor districts. However, when the Entrance Corridor Guidelines are updated, they should be amended to include specific guidelines that address solar installations. 2. The Board of Architectural Review wants to encourage solar energy systems but still wants to review them. Within historic conservation districts, because rooftop solar panel installations cannot be considered “additions,” the historic conservation district ordinance should be amended to specifically allow review when solar panels are proposed on a roof visible from the frontage street. 3. The current ordinance language regarding what requires review in ADC districts is fairly inclusive. The only type of solar installation that may not be addressed is a solar panel placed on the ground without any structure. It is recommended that the ADC ordinance be amended to include review of these installations. 4. Under Sec 34-1101 a (2) “in aggregate” should be added to the text so it would not be interpreted that each type of item could, by itself, cover 25% of the roof. This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: October 2, 2017 Action Required: Approval of Resolution Presenter: Stacy Pethia, Housing Program Coordinator Staff Contacts: Stacy Pethia, Housing Program Coordinator Title: Dogwood Housing Loan Extension Background: By resolution approved September 7, 2007, the Charlottesville City Council approved a loan of $850,000 to Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA) to assist Woodard Properties LLC in the purchase of fifty-seven (57) residential rental units, commonly known as Dogwood Housing. The terms of the loan were zero interest for five years, with the original principal amount of the note due and payable if any of the units were sold, transferred, devised or otherwise disposed of during the five year period (based on a formula tied to the assessed value of each property) or by October 31, 2012. On August 20, 2012, City Council approved extension of the loan, through October 31, 2017. The terms of the loan remained the same, and the note continued to be secured by a recorded second lien Deed of Trust executed between Dogwood Properties of Charlottesville, LLC and PHA. Keith Woodard, on behalf of Dogwood Properties of Charlottesville, LLC, is requesting the City extend the loan for another five (5) years at zero interest. Discussion: Since the 2007 purchase of the fifty-seven (57) residential units comprising Dogwood Properties, and in accordance with the intent of the original $850,000 loan to Woodard Properties LLC, Dogwood Properties of Charlottesville LLC has offered the above referenced units as affordable housing. On June 30, 2017, at the request of Dogwood Properties, staff met with Keith Woodard and Amanda Hester (property manager for Dogwood) to discuss the City’s potential interest in extending the loan agreement for an additional five (5) year period, as well as a number of Dogwood Properties staff concerns related to the current loan terms. Specifically, they requested City staff work with them to streamline many of the processes associated with the loan terms. The promissory note (dated October 31, 2007) associated with the original loan outlined conditions related to the definition of affordable housing to be applied to the Dogwood Properties rental units, the rents to be charged to each household leasing units from Dogwood Properties, and the maximum amount monthly rents could be increased each year. These conditions are as follows: Borrower covenants and agrees that the properties listed on Exhibit A shall, during the term of this Note or any extension thereof, be leased as affordable rental housing. As used herein, the term “leased as affordable rental housing” shall mean (i) leased to families with a household income no greater than eighty percent (80%) of the Charlottesville area median household income; and (ii) that the amount of rent charged to each household, or the amount of rent paid by each household that is the beneficiary of a rent subsidy, shall not increase by more than five percent (5%) of per annum. With the August 20, 2012 extension of the loan, the terms of the promissory note were amended to more clearly define the amount of rent to be charged each household as: (ii) that for families receiving Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) through Housing Choice vouchers or other programs, that the rent charged be based on the fair market rent values as established through the TBRA administrator; and (iii) that the amount of rent paid by all other tenant families be limited to no more than 30% of their gross annual income and that the rental rate charged for each unit, shall not increase by more than five percent (5%) per annum, up to an amount equal to 30% of the tenant’s gross income. The terms of the promissory note were further amended, via City Council resolution dated November 2, 2015. These changes were initiated at the request of Dogwood Properties and developed in partnership with City staff. The new terms further define the rent amounts to be charge each tenant household: 2. That for families not receiving tenant based renal assistance through Housing Choice vouchers or other programs where the rent is set by other program regulations: (i) that for households with incomes at 50% AMI or less the rent charged shall comply with HUD Low HOME rent limits, as revised from time to time; and (ii) that for households with incomes greater than 50% AMI but less than 80% AMI, the rent charged shall comply with HUD High HOME rent limits, as revised from time to time; and 3. That for families receiving tenant based rental assistance through Housing Choice vouchers or other programs that the rent charged be based on the fair market rent values as established through the rental assistance provider and relevant program regulations. The 2015 amendments also included a two-year grace period for tenants who become income-ineligible while leasing an affordable rental housing unit from Dogwood Properties. Additionally, Dogwood Properties has also agreed to a number of additional terms. These include: 1) allowing the City to inspect individual rental units associated with Dogwood Properties to ensure they meet the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Housing Quality Standards, and 2) submitting a report, by December 31st of each year, providing the following information for each rental unit in Dogwood Properties:  Unit Address  Number of Bedrooms  Current Rent  Occupant Household Size  Occupant Household Income  Change of occupancy with date of change (if applicable)  Rent at end of previous occupancy (if applicable)  Rent at beginning of new occupancy (if applicable)  Household size of new occupant (if applicable)  Household income of new occupant (if applicable)  Percent of Current Household Income to Rent Amount After reviewing the current loan terms and additional conditions, staff agrees with the need to not only streamline the processes associated with the loan terms, but to clarify some of the terms themselves. To that end, should City Council decide to approve an extension of the Dogwood loan, staff recommends amending the loan terms to include the following: 1. Qualifying Households  Dogwood Properties will continue to lease units to households earning no more than 80% of Area Median Income (AMI). 2. Tenant Portion of Rent The standard measure of housing affordability is housing that costs no more than 30% of a household’s gross annual income. For household’s receiving rental assistance through the federal Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program or other rental assistance program, this level of affordability is protected through program regulations. Dogwood Properties agreed to apply, and has been applying, this housing affordability standard to all Dogwood Property tenant households throughout their tenancy. Strict adherence to this policy often results in tenants, experiencing slight (up to 5%) increases in their rent- to-income ratio, being forced to move from their Dogwood home. To help ensure lower-income families are able to enjoy housing stability, staff recommends increasing the allowable tenant share of rent (for non-rent assisted households) be raised from 30% of gross household income to 35% of gross household income. A precedent for this rent-to-income ratio increase can be found in HUD authorized changes to HCV program regulations through the Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration program. Under this program, MTW designated housing authorities are to (with HUD approval) waive HCV and Public Housing program regulations to meet local needs. Of the 38 housing authorities with MTW status, 19 have been approved to waive the 30% of household income cap on program participant households’ share of rent in an effort to increase housing choice among program participating households. Staff recommends the following tenant rent-share terms be included in the new loan terms, if the loan renewal is approved:  Dogwood Properties will ensure tenants pay no more than 30% of their household income at time of initial lease-up.  Allow all non-rent assisted tenants with household incomes between 50% - 80% of AMI to pay up to 35% of their income towards their rent. 3. Annual Rent Increases  This shall remain at no more than 5% per annum. 4. Income Certifications  Dogwood Properties will verify household income for all new tenants to ensure they meet the income qualifications for housing, and that the appropriate rent limit is used.  After the initial income qualification is established, Dogwood Properties will recertify all non-rent assisted tenants’ household incomes at least once every 24 months.  For all tenants receiving assistance through the Housing Choice Voucher program or another rental assistance program, Dogwood Properties will provide the City with copies of each household’s annual recertification letter. Again, the HUD approved changes to the HCV program by MTW housing authorities provides precedent for biennial income certifications. MTW housing authorities implementing biennial recertifications do so for two primary reasons. The first is to decrease program administrative burdens. More importantly, the change to biennial recertifications acts as a means to encourage employment among program participating households by ensuring a household’s share of their monthly rent does not immediately increase with modest increases in wages. These same reasons apply to the proposed changes in loan terms outlined above. 5. Over-Income Households  Continue to provide a 2-year grace period for over-income households. 6. Inspections  Dogwood Properties will allow the City to conduct annual inspections of all rental units not inspected annually under the Housing Choice Voucher program, or another rental assistance program. 7. Reporting  Dogwood Properties will continue to submit a report by December 31st of each year.  The report will include all of the information currently provided (as outlined above) with the addition of one data point: o Amount of rental assistance received (if applicable) Since the purchase of Dogwood Housing in 2007, Dogwood Properties has continued to provide a valuable source of affordable rental housing options to the Charlottesville community. Staff believes that, with the agreed upon changes discussed above, Dogwood Housing will continue to benefit our lower-income neighbors into the future. As such, staff recommends renewing the 2007 loan – with the amended loan terms – for an additional five years. Community Engagement: There has been no public process regarding this loan. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Priority Areas: This item aligns directly with Council’s vision to provide Quality Housing Opportunities for All. Budgetary Impact: This item could have an impact on the CAHF in that denial of the requested loan extension would result in repayment of $850,000 in affordable housing funds. Recommendation: Staff recommends the loan be renewed for an additional 5 year period with the above referenced loan terms. Alternatives: N/A Attachments: Resolution Dogwood Rental Spreadsheet RESOLUTION APPROVING EXTENSION OF LOAN AGREEMENT OF DOGWOOD PROPERTIES, LLC LOAN AGREEMENT WHEREAS, on February 1, 2013, the City of Charlottesville approved issuance of an $850,000 loan to Dogwood Properties of Charlottesville, LLC (“Recipient”) to assist with the purchase of 57 rental units to serve as affordable housing; and WHEREAS, the Recipient has requested a five (5) year extension to the Loan Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Recipient has requested they be allowed to modify some of the terms of the Loan Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, City and Recipient agree to amend the Agreement, as follows: 1. All non-rent assisted tenants with household incomes between 50% - 80% of AMI shall be allowed to pay up to 35% of their household income towards their rent without risk of losing their housing. 2. After the initial household income qualification is established, Recipient will recertify all non-rent assisted tenants’ household incomes at least once every 24 months. 3. For all tenants receiving assistance through the Housing Choice Voucher program or another rental assistance program, Recipient will provide the City with copies of each household’s annual recertification letter. 4. Recipient shall add the following data point to the report submitted to the City each December: o Amount of rental assistance received (if applicable) 5. Extend term of the Loan Agreement to October 31, 2022. All provisions of the Loan Agreement not specifically amended by this Amendment shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the day and year written above. Dogwood Housing ‐ Household Information as of Dec. 2016 Percent of Income Housing Percent of Income # of Total 2016 December December % Change in # in 2016 when Assistance? Income to when Change in Address Bedrooms Rent 2016 Rent 2015 Rent Rent Household Income qualified (Y/N) Rent 2016 Qualified Occupancy Additional Info 353 10th St. Cottage Studio $8,208 $699 $679 2.95% 2 $9,036 $0 Y 90.84% #DIV/0! IRC Refugees* 353 10th St., Apt. A 2 $4,145 $829 $789 New Tenant 4 $0 $0 Y #DIV/0! 8/1/16 IRC Refugees 353 10th St., Apt. B 2 $5,193 $799 $770 New Tenant 3 $0 $0 Y #DIV/0! 6/16/16 IRC Refugees 353 10th St., Apt. C 2 $5,439 $799 $799 New Tenant 2 $30,000 $30,000 N 18.13% 5/7/16 353 10th St., Apt. D 2 $9,588 $799 $799 0.00% 1 $34,907 $34,841 N 27.47% 27.52% 406 12th St., Apt. A 3 $10,068 $839 $839 0.00% 7 $22,200 0 Y 45.35% #DIV/0! IRC Refugees 406 12th St., Apt. B 3 $9,988 $839 $829 1.21% 1 $11,244 N/A Y 88.83% Orig. DW Res./CRHA 406 12th St., Apt. C 3 $4,670 $839 $829 New Tenant 6 $550 N/A Y 849.09% 7/5/16 IRC refugees 406 12th St., Apt. D 3 $5,034 $839 $829 New Tenant 3 $40,040 $40,040 Y 12.57% 25.14% 7/1/16 1110 Gordon, Apt. A 3 $10,008 $839 $829 1.21% 1 $32,100 N/A N 31.18% Original Dogwood resident 1110 Gordon, Apt. B 3 $5,705 $839 $825 New Tenant 5 $1,300 N/A Y 438.85% 6/7/16 IRC refugees 1110 Gordon, Apt. C 3 $9,960 $830 $825 0.61% 7 $46,200 N/A Y 21.56% IRC refugees 1110 Gordon, Apt. D 3 $3,882 $839 $839 New Tenant 2 $40,000 N/A 9.71% 8/8/16 1112 Gordon, Apt. A 3 $2,378 $849 $839 New Tenant 5 $2,500 0 Y 95.12% #DIV/0! 10/7/16 IRC refugees 1112 Gordon, Apt. B 3 $8,732 $839 $829 New Tenant 3 $33,720 $34,989 Y 25.90% 2/14/16 1112 Gordon, Apt. C 3 $8,733 $839 $829 New Tenant 2 $18,460 $18,460 Y 47.31% 2/2/16 Alb. County Housing 1112 Gordon, Apt. D 3 $10,068 $839 $839 0.00% 5 $49,000 N/A Y 20.55% IRC refugees 517 Ridge, Apt. A 1 $7,875 $675 $650 3.85% 1 $14,040 0 Y 56.09% Alb. County Housing 517 Ridge, Apt. B 1 $566 $649 $649 0.00% 2 $30,596 $30,596 N 1.85% 25.45% 12/7/16 517 Ridge, Apt. C 1 $8,388 $699 $699 0.00% 1 $26,960 $26,000 N 31.11% 517 Ridge, Apt. D 1 $8,080 $675 $665 1.50% 1 $10,036 N/A Y 80.51% Orig. DW Res./Region Ten 517 Ridge, Apt. E 1 $4,614 $699 $675 New Tenant 1 $32,000 $32,000 Y 14.42% 26.21% 6/13/16 517 Ridge, Apt. F 1 $630 $699 $650 New Tenant 1 $33,700 $33,700 N 1.87% 24.89% 12/5/16 517 Ridge, Apt. G 1 $7,810 $699 $689 New Tenant 1 $35,750 $35,750 Y 21.85% 1/25/16 517 Ridge, Apt. H 1 $4,777 $699 $660 New Tenant 1 $35,000 $35,000 N 13.65% 6/6/16 517 Ridge, Apt. I 1 $8,218 $689 $679 1.47% 1 $9,000 $0 Y 91.31% Region Ten 711 Ridge, Apt. A 3 $10,249 $899 $899 New Tenant 7 $43,900 0 23.35% 1/20/16 IRC refugees 711 Ridge, Apt. B 3 $6,323 $899 $885 New Tenant 6 $0 Y #DIV/0! 5/31/16 IRC refugees 711 Ridge, Apt. C 2 $7,281 $615 $615 New Tenant 2 $32,490 $0 Y 22.41% #DIV/0! 1/6/16 IRC refugees 618 Dice Street 3 $10,780 $915 $875 4.57% 4 $16,539 $12,996 Y 65.18% PHA 618 1/2 Dice Street 1 $7,540 $650 $640 New Tenant 1 $30,000 $30,000 Y 25.13% 1/14/16 302 10 1/2 Street 2 $9,698 $810 $799 1.38% 1 $9,036 $0 Y 107.33% #DIV/0! CRHA 304 10 1/2 Street 2 $9,840 $850 $820 3.66% 2 $14,484 Y 67.94% #DIV/0! CRHA 1005 Page Street 1 $7,920 $670 $650 3.08% 1 $11,100 N/A Y 71.35% Orig. DW Res./CRHA 1007 Page Street 1 $8,880 $760 $730 4.11% 1 $9,036 N/A Y 98.27% Region Ten 1009 Page Street 1 $6,780 $575 $560 2.68% 1 $26,000 N/A N 26.08% Original Dogwood resident 1019 Page Street 2 $8,790 $740 $725 2.07% 1 $9,036 N/A Y 97.28% Orig. DW Res./CRHA 1114 Gordon, Apt. A 2 $2,218 $899 $840 New Tenant 4 $720 N/A Y 308.06% 10/18/16 IRC refugees 1114 Gordon, Apt. B 3 $10,725 $900 $885 1.69% 4 $37,950 $32,240 N 28.26% 361 10th St., Apt. A 2 $10,000 $850 $825 3.03% 2 $0 N/A Y #DIV/0! Orig. DW Res./CRHA 361 10th St., Apt. B 2 $5,004 $899 $829 New Tenant 1 $41,477 N 12.06% #DIV/0! 7/15/16 414 10th St, Apt. A 3 $9,780 $815 $815 0.00% 6 N/A N #DIV/0! Original Dogwood resident 414 10th St, Apt. B 3 $10,200 $850 $850 0.00% 2 $0 $0 Y #DIV/0! Alb. County Housing 601 11th St, Apt. A 2 $2,432 $829 $820 New Tenant 4 $0 N/A Y #DIV/0! 10/4/16 IRC Refugees 601 11th St, Apt. B 2 $3,316 $829 $800 New Tenant 2 $15,400 N 21.53% 9/1/16 Alb. County Housing 313 4th Street 2 $9,948 $829 $829 0.00% 3 $43,000 $37,080 N 23.13% 26.83% 315 4th Street 2 $4,123 $859 $829 3.62% 2 $40,335 $40,335 N 10.22% 25.56% 8/8/16 629 Booker, Apt. A 2 $10,325 $875 $850 2.94% 1 $9,036 $9,339 Y 114.27% CRHA Percent of Income Housing Percent of Income # of Total 2016 December December % Change in # in 2016 when Assistance? Income to when Change in Address Bedrooms Rent 2016 Rent 2015 Rent Rent Household Income qualified (Y/N) Rent 2016 Qualified Occupancy Additional Info 629 Booker, Apt. B 2 $9,796 $850 $799 6.38% 4 $16,640 $13,843 Y 58.87% 73.68% VHDA 721 Nalle, Apt. A 3 $10,943 $930 $899 3.45% 6 $31,200 N/A Y 35.07% IRC Refugees 721 Nalle, Apt. B 3 $10,993 $940 $899 4.56% 2 $36,168 $40,216 N 30.39% 28.05% 306 7 1/2 St., Apt. A 3 $3,397 $999 $915 New Tenant 7 $4,080 N/A Y 83.26% 9/19/2016 IRC Refugees 306 7 1/2 St., Apt. B 2 $9,979 $860 $829 3.74% 1 $43,000 $41,000 N 23.21% 332 7 1/2 St., Apt. A 3 $1,457 $930 $899 New Tenant 2 $40,000 $40,000 N 3.64% 27.90% 11/14/16 332 7 1/2 St., Apt. B 2 $5,802 $849 $799 New Tenant 3 $38,000 $38,000 N 15.27% 26.81% 6/6/16 801 Harris, Apt. A 2 $4,591 $799 $785 New Tenant 1 $8,000 $8,000 N 57.39% 119.85% 7/7/16 Region Ten 801 Harris, Apt. B 2 $9,468 $789 $789 0.00% 1 $32,000 $31,930 N 29.59% 29.65% 407 Ridge, Apt. A 3 $10,800 $900 $900 0.00% 3 $34,000 $27,000 Y 31.76% 40.00% CRHA 407 Ridge, Apt. B 2 $10,480 $890 $850 4.71% 2 $12,000 N/A Y 87.33% IRC refugees ‐ college scholarships CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: October 2, 2017 Action Required: Resolution Staff Contacts: Stacy Pethia, Housing Program Coordinator Presenter: Stacy Pethia, Housing Program Coordinator Title: Implementation Plan for the Charlottesville Supplemental Rental Assistance Program (CSRAP) -- $900,000 Background: On June 19, 2017, City Council approved the Housing Advisory Committee’s recommendation for the creation of a supplemental rental assistance program for the City of Charlottesville. At that time, Council members instructed City staff to develop an implementation strategy for the program; that strategy is presented below. Discussion: The Charlottesville Supplemental Rental Assistance Program, or CSRAP, will provide monthly tenant-based rental assistance for Extremely Low-Income households, defined as those households earning 30% or less of Area Median Income as determined by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development annually. The program will be managed by the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority in accordance with the Federal Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP) rules and regulations, as well as with the City of Charlottesville’s Housing Policy 1. Please refer to the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations website for current Housing Choice Voucher Program regulations: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text- idx?SID=de72eabaef1db2d5df2946063f2206df&mc=true&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title24/24cfr982_ma in_02.tpl Subparts E – L are most relevant to the CSRAP including program regulations related to household eligibility (Subpart E), leasing a unit (Subpart G), Housing Quality Inspections (Subpart I), and rental assistance payments (Subpart K). The City’s Housing Policy 1, which provides reporting guidance for recipients of Charlottesville Affordable Housing Funds grants, is attached. CSRAP assistance will be issued according to the following priorities: 1. Ten (10) CSRAP rental assistance vouchers will be issued to households experiencing homelessness; 2. Twenty (20) CSRAP rental assistance vouchers will be issued to households enrolled in a local self-sufficiency program; AND 3. The remaining CSRAP rental assistance vouchers shall be issued to HCVP eligible household w Charlottesville Supplemental Rental Assistance Program (CSRAP) who are i) on the CRHA’s HCVP waiting list at the time of the CSRAP voucher issuance, and who also live or work in the City of Charlottesville. To help ensure housing stability for households on the CRHA’s HCVP waiting list who accept CSRAP vouchers, those families will remain on the HCVP waiting list and retain their ranking on that list. If one of these households are selected for the HCVP program, they will be given the opportunity to replace their CSRAP subsidy with a Housing Choice Voucher. The program varies from the Federal HCVP in the following ways: 1. CSRAP vouchers will not be eligible for portability outside of the City of Charlottesville without approval from the CRHA. Should approval be granted for a household to use their CSRAP voucher assistance outside of the City, the assistance must be used to rent housing only within Albemarle County. This allowance will assist households, having trouble locating affordable rental units that meet HUD Housing Quality Standards, utilize their rental assistance voucher. 2. CSRAP participating households will not experience an increase in their portion of the monthly rent (set at 30% of household income) more than once every two years. 3. The CRHA shall reexamine household income and family composition of the CSRAP participating household at least once every 24 months. In terms of program administration, the following rules apply: 1. The CSRAP will be funded through annual appropriations from the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund in the amount of $900,000 or an amount determined to be sufficient for program continuation. To help determine the annual funding amount, the CRHA will submit an annual estimate of the amount of money needed during the upcoming fiscal year, based on the rental assistance payments of households enrolled in the program at that time and an estimate of any rent increases for those households, as well as estimates of the cost of desired expansion of the program, to the City’s Housing Program Coordinator. 2. As households are enrolled in the program, the City’s Housing Program Coordinator will encumber CAHF funds in an amount equal to 24 months of rental assistance payments plus a ten percent (10%) contingency fee to cover the cost of any increases in the amount of CSRAP rental assistance. Funds will be transferred to the CRHA on a quarterly basis. To ensure CSRAP funds are serving target populations, and the program is structured to operate efficiently, the Housing Program Coordinator will evaluate the program annually, based on household statistics submitted by the CRHA on a quarterly basis. Results of these analyses will be used to create an annual report to City Council providing program updates, as well as determine the extent to which the CSRAP is meeting program goals. Community Engagement:  Housing Advisory Committee approved recommendation of CSRAP to City Council – March 15, 2017  HAC Policy Subcommittee proposed creation of CSRAP – March 2, 2017 Alignment with City Council Vision and Strategic Plan: This program aligns directly with Strategic Plan Goal 1.3: Increase affordable housing options. Budgetary Impact: Tis program will use funds previously appropriated to the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund (CAHF). The program, if approved at the recommended funding level, would decrease the funds available in the CAHF by $900,000. Recommendation Staff recommends City Council approve the attached Charlottesville Supplemental Rental Assistance Program (CSRAP) Grant Agreement at the requested level of program funding. Alternatives: City Council could choose to approve the CSRAP at a different level of program funding. Or, Council could choose to not fund the program at all, which may impact the City’s ability to increase the number of supported affordable housing units within the City of Charlottesville. Attachments: Resolution Charlottesville Supplemental Rental Assistance Program Grant Agreement Housing Policy 1 RESOLUTION Allocation of Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund (CAHF) for the Charlottesville Supplemental Rental Assistance Program (CSRAP) -- $900,000 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the sum of $900,000 be allocated from previously appropriated funds in the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund (CAHF) to the Charlottesville Supplemental Rental Assistance Program (CSRAP). Fund: 426 Project: CP-084 G/L Account: 530670 Charlottesville Supplemental Rental Assistance Program (CSRAP) $900,000 GRANT AGREEMENT Charlottesville Supplemental Rental Assistance Program (CSRAP) I. PURPOSE OF THE PROGRAM A. The City of Charlottesville has authorized the transfer of up to $900,000.00 from Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund (CAHF) to the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (CRHA) for use within the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2018, upon the following conditions: (i) the funding shall be used exclusively by CRHA to provide vouchers to individuals who are part of Extremely Low-Income Households, defined as those households earning 30% or less of Area Median Income as determined by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development annually within the City of Charlottesville, including, but not limited to, those who are homeless, elderly and/or disabled individuals, or those enrolled in a self-sufficiency program; and (ii) the administration of this funding by CRHA shall be in accordance with the terms of this document, and shall be referred to as the “Charlottesville Supplemental Rental Assistance Program” (“CSRAP”). B. The City is authorized by Va. Code §36-7 to provide money to a housing authority, to enable or assist the authority to carry out its purposes. II. PROGRAM FUNDING The CSRAP shall be funded through the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund (CAHF). III. ADMINISTRATION Unless provided otherwise in this program outline, the CRHA shall administer the CSRAP in accordance with federal Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP) rules and regulations, as amended, and the City of Charlottesville’s Housing Policy 1, as amended. For purposes of administration of the CSRAP, the term “household” shall mean and include any one (1) or more individual(s) who comprise a single housekeeping unit. IV. ADMISSIONS/PREFERENCES AND THE WAITING LIST A. Eligible Households shall be selected and admitted from the CRHA's existing HCVP waiting list in accordance with the HCVP rules and regulations established by the CRHA for selection and admission for tenant-based housing assistance through the CSRAP unless specified otherwise in this outline. Only Extremely Low Income Households shall be issued CSRAP vouchers. A Household can apply to participate in the CSRAP Program if individual(s) within the Household live or work within the City of Charlottesville at the time of the application; however, CSRAP vouchers shall be issued only to subsidize rental payments owed by a Household for rental of a dwelling located within the City of Charlottesville, except as per the provision in Section V.B.iii. B. The CRA shall issue the CSRAP vouchers according to the following priorities: (i) Ten (10) CSRAP rental assistance vouchers will be issued to Households who are homeless. (ii) Twenty (20) CSRAP rental assistance vouchers will be issued to Households enrolled in a local self-sufficiency program. (iii) The remainder of the CSRAP funded vouchers (i.e., those not issued in accordance with Sections IV.B(i) or IV.B(ii), above) shall be issued to HCVP eligible households, if the individual(s) within those Households live or work in the City of Charlottesville, and if the Household(s) is or are on the CRHA’s HCVP waiting list at the time of the issuance of a CSRAP voucher. C. Households on the CRHA’s HCVP waiting list who accept CSRAP voucher(s) shall remain on the HCVP waiting list, and shall retain their ranking on that list. If an individual or household on the HCVP waiting list is selected by CRHA for the HCVP program, CRHA shall offer that Household the opportunity to replace any CSRAP subsidy being received with an HCV. V. TENANT-BASED HOUSING ASSISTANCE A. CSRAP vouchers shall be administered as tenant-based housing assistance, in accordance with the CRHA’s HCVP rules and regulations (except as otherwise specifically provided in this grant agreement). B. Notwithstanding any CRHA HCVP rule or regulation to the contrary, (see Section V.A, above), the following rules apply specifically to the CSRAP: (i) Vouchers shall not be eligible for portability as such term is defined and utilized in 24 C.F.R. §§ 982.351 and 982.353, as amended. (ii) Households receiving a CSRAP voucher shall have 90 days to locate, and lease, a rental housing unit within the City of Charlottesville. (iii) Should a Household be unable to locate a rental unit that it can afford (based on the 30% required contribution referenced in subparagraph (iv), following below) within the City of Charlottesville within the initial 90-day CSRAP voucher term, the CRHA may grant one 90-day extension, or may allow recipient household to search for rental housing within Albemarle County. (iv) Household receiving a CSRAP voucher shall be required to contribute 30% of the monthly adjusted gross income of that Household toward rent each month. The Household’s required rent contribution shall be determined at the time the Household is accepted into the CSRAP, and thereafter shall not be increased more than once every 24 months; regardless of whether or not the rent contribution is increased during any 24 month period, CRHA shall continue to verify and keep records as to the Household income, report income to the City, and comply with the requirements within this Grant Agreement. (v) CSRAP vouchers shall be provided monthly. The monthly housing assistance payment shall be equal to the applicable HCVP payment standard for bedroom size for the Charlottesville area, as established annually by the Virginia Housing and Development Authority, minus the tenant’s portion of the rent. (vi) The CRHA shall reexamine the income and family composition of each Household receiving CSRAP vouchers, at least once every 24 months. Any Household that experiences a decrease in income may request a reexamination and adjustment of the requirement for 30% monthly income participation (see subparagraph (iv), above) at any time. VI. CONTINUING ELIGIBILITY FOR CSRAP FUNDING A. Subject to availability of CSRAP funds and the terms of this Grant Agreement, CSRAP vouchers may be issued to a Household so long as the Household is in compliance with the CSRAP Program Rules and the CRHA’s HCVP rules and regulations (as amended). B. CSRAP-assisted Households shall be entitled to the Informal Hearing Procedures for Applicants and Participants of the Housing Choice Voucher and Moderate Rehabilitation Programs as defined by 24 CFR §982.54(d)(12) and (13) as amended, as administered by the CRHA. VII. PROGRAM FUNDING A. The City’s Housing Program Coordinator has verified that funding is available and has been appropriated by City Council to the CAHF to support the CSRAP through June 30, 2018. CSRAP may continue so long as funding from the CAHF is available and has been appropriated by City Council in amounts sufficient to support continuation of the CSRAP in subsequent fiscal year(s). B. Each year, in accordance with a schedule established by the City’s Budget Director, CRHA shall prepare and submit to the City an estimate of the amount of money needed during the ensuing fiscal year for the CSRAP, based on the Households then participating in the CSRAP at that time, and based on CRHA’s estimate of any rent increases for those participating Households, and (at CRHA’s option) CRHA’s estimates of the cost of any desired expansion of the CSRAP to additional participants during the ensuing fiscal year. C. Upon determining that a Household is eligible to participate in the CSRA Program, CRHA shall prepare an Invoice in an amount necessary to provide funding for rental payments sufficient to provide rental Assistance for that Household through the end of the then-current calendar year quarter. CRHA shall transmit the Invoice to the City’s Housing Program Coordinator. Each initial Invoice shall be accompanied by the following (and the City shall not release any funds to CRHA pursuant to the Invoice, unless and until all of the required information has been received by the City): (i) A copy of the Household’s voucher, lease approval form, rent portions notice, rental unit information (including address and monthly rent), unit inspection report, and Household information (including income, size, composition), and (ii) a copy of an invoice or other statement of rent from the Household’s landlord, identifying the monthly rental amount for that Household, at time of initial lease- up. Upon determining that the Invoice is accurate and that all required information has been received, the City’s Housing Program Coordinator shall (i) initiate a transfer of CAHF Funding to CRHA in the amount requested by the Invoice, and (ii) shall encumber CAHF funds in an amount sufficient to provide monthly rental assistance to that Household, plus a ten percent (10%) contingency fee to cover any increases in the rental assistance amount, through the end of a twenty-four (24) month period from the date the Invoice is received. Except the specific amounts disbursed per the Invoice, subsequent funds for that Household shall be disbursed to CRHA in accordance with paragraph (D), following below. Invoices for new Housesholds as outlined in Paragraph C above will be paid to CRHA within 30 day of receipt of invoice and required documentation. (D) 30 days prior to the end of each calendar year quarter (specifically: on November 30, February 28, May 31, and August 31 each calendar year), the CRHA will submit to the City of Charlottesville, an itemized Quarterly Invoice, listing each recipient Household participating in the CSRA Program as of the date of such Invoice, and specifying the amount of monthly rent required for each Household (both household rent portion and rental assistance amount) for the calendar year quarter next succeeding the date of the Quarterly Invoice. Each such Quarterly Invoice shall add up each of the amounts required for the CSRA Program for the upcoming quarter, and shall give a total amount necessary to satisfy the Program commitments for that upcoming calendar year quarter. (E) Each itemized Quarterly Invoice referenced in Paragraph (D), above, shall be accompanied by the following information (in addition to the information required by paragraph (D), above) and this information shall be presented in the form of a Quarterly Report in an Excel Spreadsheet or other format mutually acceptable to both CRHA and the City’s Housing Program Coordinator. Each Quarterly Report shall providing program and household statistics, including but not necessarily limited to:  Date voucher issued  Date voucher extended (if applicable)  Date unit leased  Name (head of household)  Unit Address  Total Monthly Rent  Amount of Monthly Rental Assistance Provided  Household Income  %AMI  Employment Status  Number of Wage Earners  Household Composition  Number of Adults  Number of Children  Number of Children Under 5-years  Number of Elderly (65 years+)  Number of Disabled  Race/Ethnicity No funds will be released pursuant to any new Purchase Order received from CRHA, unless and until all required Quarterly Reports have been received. Payments to CRHA for the CRASP vouchers will be due to CRHA within 30 days of completed Quarterly Invoice and Report referenced in Paragraph D and E above. (vi) All reports shall be submitted to the City of Charlottesville’s Housing Program Coordinator. OFFERED BY: City of Charlottesville By: _____________________________ Date: ___________________________ ACCEPTED BY: Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority By: _____________________________ Date: ____________________________ City of Charlottesville Objectives for Use of Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund (CAHF) and Criteria/Priorities for Award of Funds Housing Policy 1 – as recommended by HAC on 9/17/14 ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL ON OCTOBER 20, 2014 General Information There are three housing policies that comprise the recommendations of the Housing Advisory Committee (HAC). Policy 1, written to address appropriate usage of the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund (CAHF), was originally adopted by City Council on November 3, 2008, with a focus on the following topics: 1) funding categories, 2) target populations, 3) criteria for review of applications, and 4) affordability definition. The revised policy, as contained herein, has refined the text to include: 1) general information; 2) consideration of other City efforts; 3) definitions of all pertinent terms, 4) guidelines for use of CAHF; 5) accountability and tracking; and 6) how to apply for CAHF and potential use of funds. Policy 2 involves “Incentives the City can provide to Encourage Development with Affordable Housing Units” and Policy 3 covers “Criteria for Awarding Multi-Family Incentive Funds/Strategic Investment Funds Revolving Loan Fund. Both policies were adopted at the same time as Policy 1, but neither is included herein as these are separate documents. More than five years have passed since the policy was first adopted and the national and local housing markets have undergone significant changes during this time. Accordingly, the HAC has identified an update of this housing policy as essential to ensuring that City housing policies are current and relevant to help inform CAHF funding decisions. The City of Charlottesville currently utilizes the annual Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget process to fund its affordable housing efforts through the CAHF. This process is initiated on an annual basis through the submittal of a request from the City’s Housing Development Specialist (Neighborhood Development Services) to the Budget Office. The amount of the annual request is based on the funding recommendations contained in Table 8 of the report entitled “City of Charlottesville 2025 Goals for Affordable Housing” (2025 Housing Goal - as adopted on February 1, 2010). In addition to CIP funds, the City also has an Affordable Dwelling Unit ordinance (codified at City Code §34- 12) that provides for payments in lieu of providing actual affordable units when rezoning or special use permits of a specified level of density are required. While the City would prefer that developers provide actual units either on or off site, the State enabling legislation for this ordinance is written such that it is unlikely that units will be built, because the CAHF contribution level is generally less expensive and does not require a 30 year compliance period after funds are provided. Lastly, the final source of CAHF funds is voluntary contributions made through proffers. As the frequency and amounts are highly unpredictable, there is no way to quantify the impact of proffered contributions; however, this is also a source of funds for the CAHF. This policy is applicable to all funds appropriated into the CAHF, regardless of their source (unless otherwise specified herein or by directive from City Council). Consideration of Other City Efforts City Council Vision for Housing: Quality Housing Opportunities for All - Our neighborhoods retain a core historic fabric while offering housing that is affordable and attainable for people of all income levels, racial backgrounds, life stages, and abilities. Our neighborhoods feature a variety of housing types, including higher density, pedestrian and transit oriented housing at employment and cultural centers. We have revitalized 1 public housing neighborhoods that include a mixture of income and housing types with enhanced community amenities. Our housing stock is connected with recreation facilities, parks, trails, and services. Comprehensive Plan: The current City of Charlottesville Comprehensive Plan (as adopted on August 13, 2013) provides the legal basis for all land use and policy decisions related to housing in the City. The goals and objectives included in the Comprehensive Plan must therefore be taken into consideration with any and all CAHF decisions, realizing that each project will differ and that competing values will have to analyzed on a case by case basis. 2025 Housing Goal Report: According to the subject report, the City has adopted the following as its goal for supported affordable housing in the City: “Increase the ratio of supported affordable units to 15% of total housing units by 2025.” The 2025 report states that CAHF dollars should be leveraged to the maximum extent feasible. Table 8 of the 2025 Housing Goal (which establishes yearly funding levels necessary to reach the 2025 goal) is based on the assumption that the City will contribute 8.4% of the funds needed to preserve or create supported affordable housing, while the remaining 91.6% will be provided by other sources. Definitions1 2 Affordable and/or Affordable Housing : Housing for occupant(s) at or below 80% of Area Median Income who are paying no more than 30 percent of income for Gross Housing Costs, including utilities.3 Income calculations should be based on 24 CFR Part 5, unless otherwise required by another funder. Applicant: An organization seeking financial assistance from the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund. Area Median Income (AMI): Median family income limits as adjusted by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) annually by family size. Asset-Based Community Development: A methodology that seeks to identify and use the strengths within communities as a means for sustainable development (i.e., development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs). Beneficiary: Persons, households or families who benefit from funding received by a Recipient. Comparable Substitution: Housing unit committed as a Supported Affordable Unit in lieu of another Supported Affordable Unit lost due to any event resulting in a loss of Supported Affordable Unit status. Gross Housing Costs: For renters, the sum of contract rent and utility costs. For homeowners, the sum of mortgage, utilities, home insurance (including flood if required), private mortgage insurance, property taxes, and home owner association dues. Levels of Affordability: Tiers of Affordable Housing defined in terms of AMI. Families earning: between 120 and 80 percent AMI are considered “moderate-income”; between 80 and 50 percent AMI, "low-income"; between 50 and 30 percent AMI, "very low-income" and below 30 percent AMI, "extremely low-income." 1Words and terms included within the definitions section are capitalized throughout this document for ease of reference. Within the definitions section, defined words/terms are also bolded. 2 The City of Charlottesville has a variety of programs (other than CAHF) that support affordable and Supported Affordable Unit efforts; however, affordable and/or Supported Affordable Unit are defined specifically within each program based on the target Level of Affordability. 3 In the case of rental units and compliance with Code of VA 58.1-3295, properties financed with 26 USC §42, 26 USC §142(d) 24 CFR §983, 24 CFR §236, 24 CFR §241(f), 24 CFR§221(d)(3) or any successors thereof meet the local definition of affordable rental as noted herein. 2 People-Based Financial Supports: Funds provided to Recipients for use by income qualified beneficiaries that allow them to secure a Supported Affordable Unit (e.g., Housing Choice Vouchers or down payment/mortgage assistance). Project-Based Financial Supports: Funds provided to Recipients that produce or rehabilitate a Supported Affordable Unit at a specific location to achieve Levels of Affordability (e.g., Low Income Housing Tax Credit projects, Project Based Vouchers and land trusts). Project-Based Legal Supports: Legal controls that limit the income of Beneficiaries, the amount of rent charged, or resale price of a home (e.g., deed restrictions, regulatory compliance/affordability period, liens, or other). Recipient: An organization receiving financial assistance from the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund.4 Residency: Having a physical presence in the City of Charlottesville, with the intent to remain in the City either temporarily or permanently. Qualification is not based on a length of stay or time requirement. 5 Special Needs Population: Person(s) with a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, to include elderly, abused/battered spouses and/or children, children aging out of foster care, homeless persons, and chronic homeless persons. Supported Affordable Unit (SAU): Housing unit that achieves one or more Levels of Affordability using various sources of public funding and mechanisms including, but not limited to: HUD, VHDA, the City of Charlottesville, Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8), and/or deed restrictions. SAUs can be rental properties or owner-occupied dwellings. Levels of Affordability can be achieved through multiple mechanisms, such as People-Based Financial Supports, Project-Based Financial Supports and Project-Based Legal Supports, which can be combined. Guidelines for Use of CAHF The City’s intent for CAHF funding is to: (1) create incentives and opportunities to provide new Supported Affordable Units6 that would not otherwise exist and (2) to preserve existing Affordable Housing and to help maintain affordable units at a risk of being lost without the provision of such funds. To this end, the City realizes that flexibility is important. The following shall inform the use of limited funding, with respect to both preferences for awarding and general requirements for use of CAHF. - Preference is for projects that either preserve or provide additional Supported Affordable Units toward the City’s 2025 Housing Goal. - Applicants must clearly achieve one or more goals/objectives of the current Comprehensive Plan (or future updated versions). - Additional consideration will be given to projects that support the City Council Vision for Housing and achieve objectives/goals of the Strategic Action Team (SAT) Growing Opportunities Report, the Strategic Investment Area (SIA) Report, or various Small Area Plans /other reports as developed by or on behalf of the City of Charlottesville. - To the maximum extent feasible, CAHF should be paired with other City programs to maximize financial viability of projects. Current programs include: reduced water/sewer connection fee; tax 4 A Recipient could be a direct Beneficiary in some cases if funding is provided directly. This will only be allowed when provided by the Code of Virginia and incorporated into the City of Charlottesville Code of Ordinances. 5 Residency definition is based on program requirements for SNAP (i.e., Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, a.k.a. food stamps). 6 New supported affordable refers to either physically new or newly supported affordable (existing) units. 3 exemptions for housing improvements; free paint program; special tax rate for certain energy efficient buildings; and Design for Life C’ville. - Efficient use of resources must be considered relative to the amount of CAHF provided. Leverage as provided by the Applicant and CAHF cost per Supported Affordable Unit will be taken into consideration. Priority will be given to those programs / projects that leverage the most funds and require the least subsidy. - Funding can be used for mixed income Project-Based Financial Supports and People-Based Financial Supports 7; however, strong preference is for applications that benefit the lowest level of AMI, as defined herein to include extremely low income (30% AMI or less) and very low income (between 50 and 30 percent AMI), and low income (up to 60 percent AMI). - In order to realize the City’s vision of offering housing that is affordable and attainable for people of all income levels, preference is for approaches that address the Levels of Affordability that are in the shortest supply based on the demonstrated need. To the maximum extent feasible, the City should have housing stock sufficient to meet the needs of people across the income spectrum. - Applicants are encouraged to provide opportunities for meaningful neighborhood participation and use Asset-Based Community Development strategies. - Applicants must demonstrate their own financial viability as well as the financial feasibility of the project. - Each project will be evaluated with respect to its readiness to proceed based on status of site control, zoning, financial commitments, construction drawings, and other commonly used indicators, with preference given to those projects most likely to commence in a timely manner or to those projects where CAHF funding will expedite the process. - Funding requests will be evaluated with respect to the leverage the CAHF investment creates, and/or any proposed legal mechanisms requiring compliance and/or repayments that will be used to achieve continuing Levels of Affordability. - Project-Based approaches will conform to the City policy for energy efficiency and incorporation of Universal Design features, as adopted on April 21, 2008 (updated on April 21, 2014). - Funding can only be provided to non-profit organizations which have been designated as such by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service or to the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (CRHA). Only exceptions explicitly allowed by Code of Virginia and incorporated into the City of Charlottesville Code of Ordinances will be otherwise allowed. - Recipients must be in compliance with all federal, state, and local laws/regulations. - Beneficiaries of funds should primarily be City residents and/or be employed in the City.8 Recipients will be required to track and report on previous Residency to ensure compliance. - CAHF assistance must be used to support projects located within the City limits of Charlottesville, unless approved by City Council. 7 100% AMI is defined as the current median family income for a family of four for the City of Charlottesville as adjusted by HUD. Percentage adjustments for family size are 70% for one person, 80% for two persons, 90% for three persons, 108% for five persons, 116% for six persons, 124% for seven person and 132% for eight persons. For each person in excess of eight, the four-person income limit should be multiplied by an additional eight percent (e.g., for 9 persons multiple by 140%). Income limits are rounded to the nearest $50. This is consistent with the methodology used for calculation of HUD income limits. 8 Exceptions to preferences are 1) the homeless, 2) persons who lived in the City during the previous 2 years, and 3) conflicting funding requirements that have no Residency preferences. 4 - Funding will be primarily reserved for access to or the creation, preservation, and development of Supported Affordable Units. - Since market forces and demographics are subject to change, CAHF assistance may also be used on a limited basis to explore and encourage new models that are intended to enable affordable and/or Supported Affordable Units in the City. Accountability and Tracking Assistance for Rental Housing and Housing Rehabilitation The purpose of CAHF support for rental housing or housing rehabilitation is to increase the availability of Supported Affordable Unit rental options and also to allow qualified owners 9 to make essential repairs to maintain existing Affordable Housing and expand the City’s base of Supported Affordable Units. Accountability Measures Project-Based: Projects should have a supported mechanism in place to ensure affordability. The affordability period will vary depending upon the amount of CAHF assistance provided and the type of project, as shown below. TYPE OF PROJECT CAHF ASSISTANCE10 AFFORDABILITY PERIOD* Housing Rehabilitation <$5,000 (per unit) 1 year $5,001 - $10,000 3 years $10,001 - $ 15,000 5 years $15,001 - $25,000 10 years $25,001 - $40,000 15 years $40,001 - $55,000 20 years $55,001 - $70,000 25 years $70,001 and over 30 years Rental Housing* New Construction of Rental 20 years Housing Rehabilitation / Refinancing of 15 years Rental Housing * Period of Affordability is further subject to Federal and/or other funding requirements. If the period required by other funding is shorter than required by CAHF or if foreclosure or other provisions exclude the use of an affordability period, then CAHF will subordinate accordingly. It will be the responsibility of the Recipient to request subordination. If the period is longer than required by CAHF, then the longer term will be used. **Rental Housing affordability periods are consistent with the HUD HOME program guidelines. Affordability Period: The CAHF Recipient (or current owner should the property sell) of Project-Based Financial Supports for rental housing will be responsible for ensuring the affordability of assisted projects 9 Qualified owners can refer to either an owner occupied unit where the household meets specified income limits or to owners of rental units where assistance is provided for the benefit of income qualified tenants. 10 CAHF assistance amounts will be revisited to ensure reasonableness. Housing rehabilitation amounts will be reviewed and updated every 5 years. Changes shall be indexed to annual percentage changes in the Consumer Price Index for Housing in the South Urban Region as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, using the month/year of adoption of this policy as a start date. Rental Housing figures will be revised based on changes to the HOME regulations as promulgated by HUD. 5 during the required affordability period, as shown in the above table. The affordability period may be reduced by the City for a rental housing project that will significantly increase the number of Supported Affordable Units. In no event shall the affordability period be less than 10 years. Should affordability be lost during this period, the Recipient or current owner will be responsible for repayment of funds. . The amount of repayment will be reduced for each year of compliance. The annual reduction will be equal to the amount of assistance divided by the number of years in the affordability period (e.g., $300,000/20 = $15,000). For CAHF assistance of $300,000 for a new construction of rental housing project that remains supported affordable for 10 years, the amount of repayment would be $150,000. Alternatively, the Owner and/or Recipient may commit comparable other units to be SAUs for the remainder of the term (i.e., Comparable Substitution). People-Based: The CAHF Recipient of People-Based Financial Supports shall only use funds for income qualified Beneficiaries, as determined and agreed to by the City . CAHF Tracking Measures11 Project-Based: Within 30 days of receiving a certificate of occupancy for the project, the Recipient shall submit to the City an initial report which indicates the address of each Supported Affordable Unit within the project. On June 30 of every year thereafter during the applicable affordability period, the Recipient (or current owner should the property sell) will submit an annual report that indicates the address of all Supported Affordable Units, including those designated as a Comparable Substitution. People-Based: The CAHF Recipient of People-Based Financial Supports for rentals shall report to the City on an annual basis the addresses of Supported Affordable Units occupied by Beneficiaries who received CAHF support (or support through recycling of CAHF funds). Assistance for Homeownership The purpose and intent of CAHF support for projects including supported affordable homeownership is to create opportunities to help bolster the inventory of Supported Affordable Units and/or help low-income residents earn equity. In reviewing applications for CAHF funds to assist with homeownership, the City will consider, among other factors:  Applicant’s demonstrated history of providing Affordable Housing and/or Supported Affordable units  Applicant’s plan for continuing to provide additional Affordable Housing and Supported Affordable Units in the future  Any mechanisms for maintaining affordability periods of the unit over time  Any mechanisms for helping families earn savings through mortgage payments and appreciated value  Any mechanisms for sharing appreciation upon resale with the non-profit agency  Any mechanisms for sharing appreciation upon resale with the City  Any mechanisms for recycling funds back into future Supported Affordable Units via reinvestment, return of funds to the CAHF or to another affordable housing fund (as agreed to by the City)  Other creative mechanisms that help promote equity earning among low-income homeowners and/or leverage funding for future low-income housing opportunities Accountability Measures 11 There is no specified reporting format; therefore, any report providing the requested information may be used as long as the Supported Affordable Units are identified by address. 6 Project-Based: Funds received by the Recipient upon the sale of a designated Supported Affordable Unit shall be used by the Recipient to create access to additional Supported Affordable Units according to the Recipient’s Form 990 or shall be returned to the City as part of an appreciation-sharing agreement, unless otherwise authorized by the City. The Recipient shall notify the City following the sale of a designated Supported Affordable Unit and shall designate the fund into which the proceeds (or portion thereof) have been placed. People-Based: Funds received by the Recipient upon the sale of a designated unit shall be used by the Recipient to create access to additional Supported Affordable Units according to the Recipient’s Form 990 or shall be returned to the City as part of an appreciation-sharing agreement, unless otherwise authorized by the City. The Recipient shall notify the City following the sale of a designated unit and shall designate the fund into which the proceeds (or portion thereof) have been placed. CAHF Tracking Measures12 Project-Based: Within 30 days of closing on a Supported Affordable Unit that received Project-Based Financial Supports from CAHF, the Recipient will identify the unit as a Supported Affordable Unit in a notification submitted to the City that contains the address of the designated unit. On June 30 of every year thereafter, the Recipient shall submit a report that indicates the addresses of all Supported Affordable Units, including those that have secured Supported Affordable Unit status from the fund designated by the Recipient to receive proceeds from the sale of another Supported Affordable Unit(s)within the project or that are subject to Project-Based Legal Supports. People-Based: Within 30 days of closing on a Supported Affordable Unit where the Beneficiary received People-Based Financial Supports from CAHF, the Recipient will identify the unit as a Supported Affordable Unit in a notification submitted to the City that contains the address of the designated unit. On June 30 of every year thereafter, the Recipient will submit a report that indicates the addresses of all Supported Affordable Units, including newly designated units that have secured Supported Affordable Unit status from the fund designated by the Recipient to receive proceeds from the sale of another Supported Affordable Unit(s). How to Apply for CAHF & Potential Use of Funds13 Applications for CAHF will be accepted on a continual basis, with no set deadline. Applicants are strongly urged to communicate with City staff in advance to discuss their proposed project. If demand for funds exceeds available funds, then Applicants will be advised and preferences contained herein will help determine funding recommendations to City Council. The following is a list of potential uses for the CAHF; however, this list is not meant to be exclusive. - Redevelopment of CRHA Properties - Rental Housing - Homeownership - Down Payment & Closing Cost Assistance or Foreclosure Assistance - Homeowner and/or Rental Rehabilitation - Loan Program and/or Revolving Loan Fund 12 There is no specified reporting format; therefore, any report providing the requested information may be used as long as the Supported Affordable Units are identified by address. 13 All potential uses of funds are subject to the Code of Virginia and the City of Charlottesville Code of Ordinances. 7 - Single Room Occupancy or Boarding House - Energy Efficiency Upgrades - Rental Subsidies - Land Acquisition and Assembly in support of Supported Affordable Units and/or mixed income housing - Land Development in support of Supported Affordable Units and/or mixed income housing - Predevelopment Expenses when in support of a Supported Affordable Units project (e.g., feasibility analyses, market studies, A&E fees, environmental and/or geotechnical studies, relocation payments, appraisal costs, legal fees, permits, etc.)14 - Efforts involving the use of Low Income Housing Tax Credits, shared equity, community land trust and deed restrictions are encouraged to ensure long term affordability - Initiatives that preserve and/or expand housing opportunities for the Special Needs Population. - Preservation of existing Affordable Housing to provide Supported Affordable Units - Other projects as allowable under Virginia Code. Other Uses of CAHF Funds - Funding exceptions are possible; however, use of funds for programmatic purposes should only be allowed when a determination has been made that 2025 housing goal progress is on track or ahead of schedule. Even in these instances, programmatic uses should be limited to one time expenses that are provided through ADU payments or proffers. - Funding can be used for data collection to better understand housing issues/needs and to study Affordable Housing stock and Supported Affordable Unit issues as they relate to accomplishment of the 2025 housing goal. Funding should be limited to no more than 10% of the annual amount awarded to CAHF through the CIP process. - Funding may also be used for administration purposes related to HAC meetings, educational purposes, public outreach, staff training, and other minor expenses related to furthering Supported Affordable Unit efforts. This amount should be limited to 1% of the annual amount appropriated to the CAHF. 14 A cost share of 50% will be required for predevelopment initiatives unless these are City directed/requested. Repayment of funds will not be required if a project is deemed infeasible as a result of predevelopment efforts; however, the Recipient will be required to share/disclose all findings with the City. 8 This page intentionally left blank. Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority Rivanna Solid Waste Authority 695 Moores Creek Lane Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-9016 434.977.2970 • 434.293.8858 Fax www.rivanna.org MEMORANDUM TO: THE HONORABLE CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: BILL MAWYER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RIVANNA WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY SUBJECT: QUARTERLY UPDATE DATE: October 2, 2017 This quarterly update to provide information on drinking water, wastewater and solid waste projects currently in the planning, design or construction phases for the Rivanna Authorities. A general overview of the current and upcoming Capital Improvement Projects follows: 1. Odor Reductions at Moores Creek Wastewater Plant Scope: Provide two clarifier covers, one air scrubber, wastewater containment pipe, and chemical neutralizers. Status: Clarifier covers and chemical neutralizers have reduced odor levels. Construction of permanent facilities continues. Completion: February 2018 Cost: $10 million 2. Rivanna Wastewater Pump Station Scope: Replace existing pump station and increase wastewater pumping capacity from 25 to 53 million gallons per day. Completion: July 2017 Cost: $32 million 3. Granular Activated Carbon Facilities Scope: Add GAC contactors at all five water treatment plants to minimize disinfection byproducts in our drinking water. Completion: December 2017 Cost: $29 million 4. Water Treatment Plant Improvements Scope: Replace equipment which has reached end-of-service life at the South Rivanna, Observatory, and Crozet Water Treatment Plants. Completion: 2017-2022 Cost: $20 million 5. South Fork Rivanna to Ragged Mountain Reservoir Pipeline Right-of-Way Scope: Determine alignment and acquire rights-of-way for pipeline to transfer raw water between the South Rivanna Reservoir to Ragged Mountain Reservoir, as set forth by the community water supply plan. Completion: 2017-2021 Cost: $2.3 million 6. Avon Street to Pantops Water Main Scope: Provide a drinking water main between water storage tanks located on Pantops and Avon Street to improve hydraulic connectivity between the two tanks. Completion: 2017-2023 Cost: $13 million 7. Replace Ivy Transfer Station Scope: Provide 11,600 sq. ft waste transfer station and demolish the existing transfer station. Construction: 2017-2018 Cost: $3 million 8. Strategic Plan Scope: Create a Strategic Plan for the Authorities for the next five years to fifty years. Status: Six strategic goals have been drafted by the Project Steering Committee (PSC). Goal Teams are preparing implementation details to achieve each goal over the next five years. The PSC will conduct a Strategy Workshop to review the Goal Team recommendations and implementation details on October 12. Raftelis will provide an outline of the draft Strategic Plan for discussion by both Rivanna Boards in a joint work session during the regular Board meetings on November 14. We are on schedule to complete the Strategic Plan during the Board meeting on December 19. Completion: December 2017 Cost: $82,195 cc: RSWA Board of Directors RWSA Board of Directors 2