Agenda PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DOCKET TUESDAY, April 10, 2018 at 5:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. Commission Pre-Meeting (Agenda discussion(s)) Beginning: 4:30 p.m. Location: City Hall, 2nd Floor, NDS Conference II. Commission Regular Meeting Beginning: 5:30 p.m. Location: City Hall, 2nd Floor, Council Chambers A. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS B. UNIVERSITY REPORT C. CHAIR'S REPORT D. DEPARTMENT OF NDS E. MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE FORMAL AGENDA F. CONSENT AGENDA (Items removed from the consent agenda will be considered at the end of the regular agenda) 1. Minutes – February 27, 2018 - Work Session 2. Minutes – March 28, 2018 - Work Session 3. Subdivision - Paynes Mill 4. Site Plan - William Taylor Plaza Phase II III. JOINT MEETING OF COMMISSION/ COUNCIL Beginning: 6:00 p.m. Continuing: until all public hearings are completed Format: (i) Staff Report, (ii) Applicant, (iii) Hearing 1. Hogwaller Farm ZM-18-00001 – (918 Nassau Street) (Hogwaller Farm Development) – Justin Shimp (Shimp Engineering) on behalf of Charles Hurt and Shirley Fisher (owners) has submitted a rezoning petition for Tax Map 61 Parcels 79.17, 79.18, & 79.19, 918 Nassau Street, and a portion of Tax Map 61 Parcel 79 (Subject Properties). The rezoning petition proposes a change in zoning from the existing R-2 Two-family Residential to HW Highway Corridor with proffered development conditions. The proffered conditions include limiting height to 35’ max and removing some uses form the HW Corridor use matrix. Uses prohibited on the Subject Properties include, but are not limited to auto, medical, office, and large scale retail. The Subject Properties are further identified on City Real Property Tax Map 61 Parcels 79, 79.17, 79.18, 79.19, & 79.201. The Subject Properties is approximately 0.8 acres. The Land Use Plan calls for Low Density Residential. The Comprehensive Plan specifies density no greater than 15 units per acre. SP18-00004 – (918 Nassau Street) (Hogwaller Farm Development) – Justin Shimp (Shimp Engineering) on behalf of Charles Hurt and Shirley Fisher (owners) has submitted an application seeking approval of a Special Use permit (SUP) for a portion of Tax Map 61 Parcel 79, Tax Map 61 Parcels 79.16, 79.17, 79.18, & 79.19, 918 Nassau Street (Subject Properties). The SUP application proposes a density of 32 Dwelling Units Acres (DUA) per City Code Section 34-740. The applicant is requesting a rezoning (see petition ZM-18- 00001) and a SUP for the proposed development of (18) one-bedroom and (12) two- bedroom units split between (2) three-story buildings for a total of (30) dwelling units. The development is being proposed as an urban farm and will accommodate a 1,280 square foot greenhouse and a 600 square foot retail farm store. Additional parking, farm sheds, and agricultural fields supporting the development are proposed on an adjacent 7.52 acre county parcel. The Subject Properties are further identified on City Real Property Tax Map 61 Parcels 79, 79.16, 79.17, 79.18, 79.19, & 79.20. The Subject Properties are approximately 0.94 acres and has road frontage on Nassau Street. The Land Use Plan calls for Low Density Residential. The Comprehensive Plan specifies density no greater than 15 units per acre. Information pertaining to these requests may be viewed online at http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and-services/departments-h-z/neighborhood- development-services or obtained from the Department of Neighborhood Development Services, 2nd Floor of City Hall, 610 East Main Street. Persons interested in this Rezoning and SUP petition may contact Matt Alfele by email (alfelem@charlottesville.org) or by telephone (434-970-3636). 2. CP18-00001: Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Hydraulic Small Area Plan and Urban Development Area Designation - The Planning Commission and City Council will jointly conduct a public hearing on a proposed amendment to the 2013 Comprehensive Plan, to include the contents of the Hydraulic Small Area Plan, with the proposed small area including territory within the City of Charlottesville as defined below. The purpose of the Hydraulic Small Area Plan is to provide an intentional strategy to focus on land use associated with the US Route 29 corridor as the primary framework to inform future transportation solutions. It is intended to be a guide for new development and redevelopment within the defined Small Area toward a preferred model for growth and urban form, as well as to inform transportation solutions to support this growth. The proposed Small Area is located within the jurisdictions of both the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, providing an opportunity for a model of collaboration in community planning. Given that continued pressure for growth associated with this desirable location is anticipated, the Hydraulic Small Area Plan seeks to identify opportunities for a more sustainable mixed-use development pattern that departs from the historic, suburban patterns that dominate the area today. The Hydraulic Small Area Plan will also be recommended for designated as an Urban Development Area (UDA) as defined by Virginia Code section §15.2-2223.1 as appropriate for higher density development due to proximity to services and availability for redevelopment and/or infill development. The UDA map can be viewed here: http://www.charlottesville.org/home/showdocument?id=61351 The area covered by the proposed Small Area Plan is all land within the boundaries of the map on page 81 of the proposed Small Area Plan, titled “Figure 8: Conceptual Land Use Plan.” The proposed Small Area includes approximately 600 acres; 300 acres in the City and 300 acres in the County. The area is generally bounded by Greenbrier Drive/Whitewood Road to the North (with a proposed option for consideration including and adjacent to Albemarle County High School and Charlotte Yancey Humphris Park), US Route 250 to the South (with consideration to an option for including the Meadow Creek Gardens which are further south of Route 250), Meadow Creek to the East and North Berkshire Road/ Angus Road to the West (with consideration for an option to include an area encompassed by Georgetown Road and Barracks Road). The Hydraulic Small Area Plan includes portions of the following neighborhood planning areas: Meadows, Greenbrier, Barracks/Rugby. The Hydraulic Small Area Plan is one of the several Small Area Plans referenced in the implementation chapter of the City of Charlottesville’s 2013 Comprehensive Plan and the guidance referred to in the Hydraulic Small Area Plan will supplement, and in some cases will amend and supersede, the existing Comprehensive Plan recommendations for portions of those neighborhoods. The Hydraulic Small Area Plan, including attached maps, may be viewed at http://www.route29solutions.org/documents/2017.10.02_hydraulic_sap-final_report.pdf Following the joint public hearing, the Planning Commission may recommend to City Council that it should approve the Hydraulic Small Area Plan as presented, make recommendations for changes to the Hydraulic Small Area Plan and recommend approval of the Hydraulic Small Area Plan with the recommended changes, or disapprove the proposed Hydraulic Small Area Plan as a Comprehensive Plan amendment. The Commission will also recommend approval or disapproval of designation of the included area as an Urban Development Area as defined by Virginia Code section §15.2-2223.1. Report prepared by Alex Ikefuna, NDS Director 3. CP18-00002: Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Hydraulic Road and US 29 Transportation Improvement Plan: The Planning Commission and City Council will jointly conduct a public hearing on a proposed amendment to the 2013 Comprehensive Plan, to include the contents of the Hydraulic Road and US 29 Transportation Improvement Plan. The purpose of the Hydraulic and 29 Transportation Improvement Plan is to address safety and congestion issues within the small study area identified in CP18-00001 and to support that land use amendment by: • Establishing a highly connected, pedestrian friendly center; • Delivering reliable, efficient transit options; • Integrating bicycles and pedestrian amenities including safe and convenient ways to cross roadways; and • Balancing land use with right-sized transportation systems. The three proposed transportation improvement scenarios are located within the jurisdictions of both the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, providing an opportunity for a model of collaboration in community planning. The potential scenarios are as follows and as described below: • No-Build Scenario • Scenario 1 – Grade-Separated Intersection • Scenario 2 – Continuous Flow Intersection (CFI) • Scenario 3 – Grade-Separated Roundabout For the three proposed “build” transportation improvement scenarios there are eight (8) locations that are proposed to be improved. Seven (7) of those locations will have the same improvements for all three scenarios. The only differentiating feature of the scenarios is the proposed improvement at the Hydraulic Road/US 29 intersection. The common transportation improvements for the build scenarios are: 1. Hydraulic Road and Hillsdale Extension roundabout 2. Hydraulic Road and District Avenue roundabout 3. Zan Road grade-separated connection over US 29 4. Angus Road grade-separated intersection with right-turn only access and a signalized southbound US 29 U-turn 5. Hillsdale Drive extension to Holiday Drive 6. Relocation of westbound US 250 Bypass ramps to Hillsdale Drive Extension 7. Extend eastbound US 250 Bypass left-turn lane at Hydraulic Road No Build Scenario This scenario’s transportation network includes the existing infrastructure and the planned extension of Hillsdale Drive to the US 250 Bypass (improvements 5 and 6 above). Scenario 1 – Grade-Separated Intersection This scenario includes constructing bridges to carry US 29 thru traffic over Hydraulic Road. It provides a signalized intersection for Hydraulic Road and left-turning US 29 traffic. The left- turning US 29 traffic will exit the US 29 mainline via ramps that descend to Hydraulic Road. This intersection design allows US 29 thru traffic to flow freely, without having to be processed through a traffic signal. Left-turns from Hydraulic Road to US 29 would likely be prohibited at the signalized intersection under the US 29 bridges. Those left turns would need to be accomplished by proceeding thru the signal and making a U-turn at the roundabouts on either side of the Hydraulic Road/US 29 intersection. However, there is some potential to provide those left turns at the signalized intersection as well as to provide free-flow right turns from US 29 to Hydraulic Road. If this scenario is recommended, those potential provisions would be investigated in more detail. Scenario 2 – Continuous Flow Intersection (CFI) This scenario processes all intersection movements through a series of signals at an at-grade intersection. The distinguishing feature of a CFI is that left turns crossing opposing thru traffic on the major street (US 29) are made upstream of the main intersection (known as a displaced left- turn). This effectively removes one or more critical lane maneuvers at the intersection, thus reducing delay at the main intersection. Right turns from all directions will flow continuously. The timing of the series of signals will be coordinated so that traffic in all directions will only have to stop for a red light a maximum of one time. Scenario 3 – Grade-Separated Roundabout This scenario consists of constructing a roundabout above US 29, which allows US 29 thru traffic to flow freely. The roundabout is connected to US 29 via ramps and all turning movements from US 29 and the thru movements and turning movements from Hydraulic Road will all be processed via the roundabout. Following the joint public hearing, the Planning Commission may recommend to City Council that it should approve the recommended Hydraulic Road and US 29 Transportation Improvement Scenario and as presented, make recommendations for changes to the recommended Hydraulic Road and US 29 Transportation Improvement Scenario and recommend approval of the Hydraulic Road and US 29 Transportation Improvement Scenarios with the recommended changes, or disapprove the recommended Hydraulic Road and US 29 Transportation Improvement Scenario as a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Report prepared by Alex Ikefuna, NDS Director. Deferred by Applicant 4. SP18-00002 – Dairy Central (946 Grady Avenue) – Ashley Davies of Williams-Mullen, acting as agent for Dairy Holdings, LLC, owner of the Subject Property, has submitted an application seeking approval of a Special Use Permit (SUP) request to allow for a mixed-use project with a residential density up to 60 dwelling units per acre per City Code Section 34-780(b) and an increase in the maximum permitted height from 50-feet to 65-feet per City Code Section 34-777(b) at 946 Grady Avenue, also identified on City Real Property Tax Map 31 Parcel 60 (“Subject Property”). The Subject Property has frontage on Grady Avenue, Preston Avenue, 10th Street NW and West Street. The site is zoned CC – Central City Corridor with Individually Protected Property, and Entrance Corridor Overlay Districts. The property is approximately 4.35 acres. A residential density of 60 units per acre is proposed (up to 120 DUA by SUP can be requested) for a total of 261 units. The Land Use Plan calls for Mixed-Use. The Comprehensive Plan specifies density greater than 15 units per acre. Information pertaining to request may be viewed online at http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and-services/departments-h- z/neighborhood-development-services or obtained from the Department of Neighborhood Development Services, 2nd Floor of City Hall, 610 East Main Street. Persons interested in this rezoning petition may contact Brian Haluska by email (haluska@charlottesville.org) or by telephone (434-970-3186). Deferred by Applicant on 4/2/2018 IV. COMMISSION’S ACTION ITEMS Continuing: until all action items are concluded V. FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE/ADJOURN Tuesday, April 24, 2018 – 5:00 PM Work Session Comprehensive Plan Presentation - Ivy Corridor Preliminary Development Plan Tuesday, May 8, 2018 – 4:30 PM Pre- Meeting Tuesday, May 8, 2018 – 5:30 PM Regular Special Permit – Cleveland Avenue, Meeting 1817 Nassau Rezoning and Special Permit – 1206 Carlton ZTA – Parking Modified Zone additions Minutes – March 13 & 14, 2018 – Pre- meeting and Regular meeting Anticipated Items on Future Agendas Site Plan - Sunrise Park PUD Phase IV Entrance Corridor - 916, 920 East High Street, 325 10th Street NE (10th & High), ` Seminole Square shopping center SUP –MACAA (1021 Park Street) Persons with Disabilities may request reasonable accommodations by contacting ada@charlottesville.org or (434)970-3182 PLEASE NOTE: THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PRIOR TO THE MEETING. PLEASE NOTE: We are including suggested time frames on Agenda items. These times are subject to change at any time during the meeting. LIST OF SITE PLANS AND SUBDIVISIONS APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY 3/1/2018 TO 3/31/2018 1. Preliminary Site Plans a. 1011 East Jefferson Street – March 14, 2018 2. Final Site Plans a. 600 West Main Street – March 2, 2018 b. Quirk Hotel – 425 West Main Street – March 26, 2018 3. Site Plan Amendments a. McIntire Skate Park (TMP 450001000) – March 8, 2018 b. ARC of the Piedmont – Fire Service Line (TMP 37-80.1) – March 13, 2018 c. Murray High School - Patio Addition – (TMP 350001000) – March 22, 2018 4. Subdivision a. BLA – Preston Place & Burnley Avenue (TMP 5- 116, 116A-116F, 118) - March 6, 2018 Planning Commission Work Session February 27, 2018- 5:00 - 7:00 NDS Conference Room Members Present: Vice-Chairman Corey Clayborne (late), Gennie Keller, John Santoski, Jody Lahendro, and Kurt Keesecker Members Absent: Lisa Green, Taneia Dowell Staff Present: Matt Alfele, Brian Haluska, Zack Lofton, Missy Creasy, Carolyn McCray, Alex Ikefuna and Bart Pfautz; Facilitator: Allison Linney Call to Order: by Vice-Chair Clayborne at 5:00 AGENDA Ms. Creasy noted to the commission that there is a lot to cover; between 5:30-7pm they will need to run through the presentations for March 7th. Please bring the materials completed to the meeting. We will be on call/Skype with Lisa for the verbal parts and will need to have the PowerPoint ready to match the verbal presentation. She said this is the final time scheduled to make sure this is read and with all the other things this week there is not likely to be another time to review. Amanda Poncy invited Rick Siebert, Transportation Director to come to the Planning Commission work session because he has some thoughts on parking and is an expert on parking. Mr. Siebert said regarding parking in lieu of fees, the code requires you build 10 parking spaces via land use. You can build 5 parking spaces and pay an in lieu fee for the 5 spaces you didn’t build and that money would go to the city and be dedicated to the city actually supplying that additional parking or taking other transportation demand management actions and would mitigate the need for the other 5 parking spaces. Ms. Linney: said she attended a meeting with the CAT Advisory Board. John Jones, the Transit Director, and Lena Seville, they mentioned that they were not on the distribution list. The commission will hold a work session with all of the city’s boards and commissions at Carver Recreation Center on Wednesday. In all, more than three dozen groups have been invited to participate, ranging from the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail to the Charlottesville Youth Council. Concerning the review of chapter drafts of the comp plan, Stacy Pethia, Housing Coordinator, said goal #1 was deleted because it is a repeat of #2 and #3 which state: 2. Provide new housing options for residents of all income levels. 1 3. Establish a series of incentives to create new affordable, mixed-income, accessible and environmentally sustainable housing. She said there was feedback from the public that people were having trouble understanding the goals. Commissioner Santoski: said we didn’t want to give preferential treatment to any one board or commission and the way to do that was to invite all the boards and commissions, to the work session. Commissioner Lahendro: said we are asking the boards and commissions to represent and think about the concerns of their boards and commissions. He said we are asking them to channel their board and commission’s interest. They still have an opportunity to come back as individuals at any of the other public meetings. Commissioner Keller: said it should be the best effort of this group that’s worked very diligently for many months that hopefully it will be wrapped up to be presented in August and then it will be up to council to decide what they want to do. If they want to send it back to a new group, that is their prerogative. Commissioner Santoski: said my sense is that we need to move through the process and finish up what we need to do and then if it changes at some point in the future, that’s up to Council. City Attorney Lisa Robertson: said that it is not unusual for some localities to update their plans on a rolling basis. You don’t have to wait five whole years to get what you need. You can simultaneously have the housing strategy being developed and then at an appropriate point in time you could circle back and make adjustments as you need to on your land-use map or other pieces of your Comprehensive Plan to incorporate that data. Commissioner Keller: It seems to me that we can reference the housing strategy that is coming. We can make a recommendation that the Comprehensive Plan be considered for amendment when that’s complete. Ms. Creasy turned the meeting to the attention to what commission and staff will be doing on next Wednesday night. Overview of the agenda and objectives for the meeting were reviewed. Agenda – March 7th 5:30 – 5:45 – Welcome - Lisa G (3 minutes) Agenda Overview - Allison 5:45-5:55pm - Overview Lisa G (5 minutes) 6:00 -6:05pm - Instructions for the Chapter table discussion - Allison (5 Minutes) 6:05- 6:30pm - Chapter table discussion Come back to larger group setting 2 6:30-6:50pm - Land Use Presentation (15 minutes) Corey & Lisa 6:50-7:00pm Instructions for LU table discussion - Allison 7:00-7:45pm – Land Use Table Exercise 7:45-7:55pm - Report back by staff 7:55-8:25pm – Public Comment 8:25-8:30pm - Wrap up and next steps - Allison Public Comment Michael Payne: he thought this was the re-schedule from last week. He reiterated the importance of the community engagement chapter, including participatory budgeting as something in the master plan that is something that is worth looking at as a method of community engagement for the city. He said other cities have done it. The city is including it as a pilot project in the draft budget that just came out. It may be useful to codify that and likewise it would be very important to include the community land trust, and the affordable housing policies. The land trust might be one of the most powerful tools for the city to lock in affordability and might be worth highlighting more prominently in the comp plan. Mathew Slaats: The Bridge PAI’s executive director, spoke on the project Play the City, passed out flyers on budgeting and said this is a process where residents voice how to improve the city and will decide which projects in their neighborhood the city should plan, fund and build. We’ll do community engagement to collect ideas, anything from fixing up a playground to creating an urban garden. We’ll find the ideas with the most strength and go back to the people that proposed them, working together to create a proposal and budget for the project. In the process, people are learning what it takes to write a proposal and put a budget together. The important thing is that the idea is derived from the neighborhood residents. He said the city doesn’t have the resources to do amazing community engagement but there needs to be a much bigger commitment to continue to education everybody about it and what it is. On April 7th there will be a workshop at City Space. He appreciates all of your hard work. Adjourn: 7:40 3 Planning Commission Work Session March 28, 2018- 5:00 - 7:00 NDS Conference Room Members Present: Lisa Green, Gennie Keller, Jody Lahendro, Lyle Solla Yates and Kurt Keesecker Members Absent: Taneia Dowell, John Santoski, Staff Present: Matt Alfele, Brian Haluska, Zack Lofton, Missy Creasy, Alex Ikefuna Facilitator: Allison Linney Call to Order: by Chair Green at 5:00 Ms. Creasy provided an overview of the agenda for the evening which included a debrief from the March 7th meeting and preparation for the May meetings. It was noted that March 7 generally went well. A sheet was provided of summarized comments from the event and the Commission reviewed those. For the chapter tables, comments were made to provide for more time and have more focused questions. It was determined that the questions would be revisited since the audience is different and more time will be given to the chapter tables. There will be no more than 8 people at a table so staff will facilitate more tables if the crowds are large. For the land use discussion, there were comments to have the pinwheel graphic at the tables and to spend more time orienting to the map and then allowing additional quiet time to address the questions. For the map orientation it was noted that highlighters (not pink) would be present to allow the facilitator to mark the railroad for orientation. The Commission discussed updated questions and settled on the following language: Chapters 1. What reactions do you have to the recommended updates? 2. What have we missed with the updates? What should be removed from the chapter updates? Please provide comments. 3. What are the greatest challenges to achieving the chapter goals? Land Use 1. What are your initial reactions to the Land Use Map information presented? 2. To what extent does the map address the information shared at your topic table earlier? 3. What do you think about our understanding of what we heard about places, housing and jobs and connections to them? It was acknowledged that there was confusion about the use of the word intensity and it becoming interchangeable with density. Commissioners noted they would be more conscious of the use of words. The maps in the presentation will be updated to have a base map to make sure it is understood it is a map. The following agenda was developed for the May 1 meeting 6:00 – 6:10 - Welcome and Overview 1 6:10-6:45 - Chapter table discussion 6:45-7:00 Presentation by Lisa Green 7:00-7:40 – Land Use Table Discussion 7:40-8:00 – Report back and Next Steps Commissioner Lahendro agreed to be the understudy for Chair Green for the presentation. Staff will work to get the presentation recorded. Public Comment Cliff Fox – Owns property and has many clients who own property. He feels comments have not been taken. The map is very challenging. There should be a way to recognize the railroads. He noted that the Brandon Avenue and Ivy Corridor Plans have good graphics. Mark Rinaldi - He has looked at the chapters and has not seen much narrative for the plan. What about the use of demographics. Comprehensive Plans are not easy and need to balance good planning and public input. He feels the plan is disjointed. Chair Green – noted that we will have two additional new members on June 1, 2018 and we will need to provide background to those members. We will need a new representative to the BAR and will need to reassign committees with the new members coming. Please review the committee listing and think about what committees are of interest to you. Commissioner Keesecker noted the concern with having data to clarify the percentages of activities in the pinwheels. He noted that there was data available which might be helpful. It was noted that staff could meet with Mr. Keesecker to talk though how that might work. Adjourn: 7:00 2 March 7 Boards & Commissions Meeting Summary 34 boards and commissions attendees (who signed in) 21 boards and commissions represented 21 citizen attendees (who signed in) Logistics feedback summary • Need more time to read over chapter summary handout • Questions to initiate discussion were too vague • Need more time for first part (chapter discussions) and less time for second part (land use discussion) • Have main roads marked and differentiate the railroad on diagrams/maps • Have legends on the slideshow handouts (pie chart, walk/bike/transit diagram) • Give a general explanation of what a comprehensive plan and land use map are • Explain the difference between land use map and zoning map • Leave the presentation up during the discussions for reference • Fewer time warnings • Not enough time to get through all of the questions (either need more time or better questions) • Explain what the purpose of the meeting is – how is this feedback going to be used in the larger scope of the process? • Provide a better explanation for the gradient of colors and what intensity/density means Land use feedback summary • Strong focus on transportation connections – bike/ped/transit should be shown on map • The map should be informed by the housing needs assessment study • Greenspace areas should be shown better • The map should better reflect the value of the Rivanna River • Consider how the map reflects long term trends (urban renewal, etc.) • Better define intensity (especially as compared to density) and what each of the colors on the gradient mean • Need to think about/show how city’s land use connects in with surrounding areas (UVA and Albemarle County) • The transition zones should be more gradual • Some areas should be darker, especially considering their current land use (Cherry Avenue, JPA, UVA Hospital) • Really need to encourage bikeability/walkability and show on the map • Desire for overlays – bike/ped, transit, small area plans, etc. • Need to consider historic districts and preservation too • Flood plains should be considered 3 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A SUBDIVISION PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DATE OF HEARING: April 10, 2018 Project Planner: Carrie Rainey Date of Staff Report: April 2, 2018 Development: Paynes Mill (Tax Map 26 Parcels 34, 35, 116, 116.1) Applicant: Keith Lancaster of Southern Development Applicant’s Representative(s): W.D. Seward of Dominion Engineering Current Property Owner: June Payne and Verlease Bell Applicable City Code Provisions: 29‐1 through 29‐126 (Subdivision) Zoning District: Single‐Family Small Lot Residential (“R‐1S”) Reason for Planning Commission Review: The Planning Commission shall review major subdivisions per Section 29‐76(a). Vicinity Map 1 Standard of Review Approval of a subdivision is a ministerial function, as to which the Planning Commission has little or no discretion. When an applicant has submitted a subdivision that complies with the requirements of the City’s Subdivision Ordinance, then approval of the plat must be granted. In the event the Planning Commission determines there are grounds upon which to deny approval of a subdivision, the motion must clearly identify the deficiencies in the subdivision, that are the basis for the denial, by reference to specific City Code sections and requirements. Further, upon disapproval of a subdivision, the Planning Commission must identify the modifications or corrections that would permit approval of the subdivision. Summary W.D. Seward of Dominion Engineering, acting as agent for Southern Development, June Payne, and Verlease Bell, is requesting approval of a major subdivision to create 25 single‐family residential lots and one (1) new public street. This subdivision is considered major because it includes more than six (6) lots, the creation of a new public street, and the extension of public facilities. The properties are further identified on City Real Property Tax Map 26 Parcels 34, 35, 116, and 116.1 having frontage on Hartman’s Mill Road. The site is approximately 7.134 acres. The subdivision has undergone two (2) reviews by staff, with four (4) minor comments remaining to be addressed. Those comments are provided as suggested conditions in the Recommendation Section below. Subdivision Compliance Subdivisions are reviewed for compliance with City codes and standards. An overview of subdivision requirements and the location of those items on the subdivision plat are outlined below. Subdivision Requirements A. Compliance with design standards and improvements (per Sections 29‐160 ‐ 29‐163) 1. Blocks: One (1) new block will be created as a result of this subdivision. 2. Lots: The applicant is proposing to create 25 residential lots. 3. Parks, Schools, and other Public Land: No new public spaces will be created with this subdivision. 4. Preservation of natural features and amenities: Critical slopes as defined by Section 34‐1120(b)(2) are found on the site. The proposed site plan associated with the development shows the limits of critical slopes (see Attachment 2). No impact to the critical slopes is planned. 2 5. Soil Erosion and Sediment Control: The applicant has submitted an erosion and sediment control plan as part of the site plan process. The plan is undergoing review by the Engineering Division and must be approved prior to final site plan approval. 6. Monuments: Monuments will be used in the subdivision as needed. B. Compliance with the Street Standards for Subdivisions (Section 29‐180 – 29‐183) The proposed subdivision includes one (1) new public street. The design of the public street is under review by the Engineering and Traffic Divisions as part of the site plan review process and will be approved prior to the final plan approval. C. Compliance with Utility Standards for Subdivisions (Sections 29‐200 – 29‐204) The utility layout and configurations are under review by Public Utilities as a part of the site plan review process and will be approved prior to final plan approval. D. Compliance with applicable zoning district regulations (Sections 34‐350 – 34‐420) All lots shown on the subdivision plat are legal and buildable R‐1S single‐family residential lots. The lots conform to the regulations in Section 34‐1120 and 34‐1123. The lots also conform to Section 29‐161. Please note conformance with Section 29‐161(f)(1), regarding lot frontages on cul‐de‐sacs, is shown on the Layout Plan of the attached proposed final site plan in the Average Width Table. E. Compliance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance (Chapter 10) As noted before, the applicant will submit an erosion and sediment control plan as part of the site plan process, to be reviewed by the Engineering Division and must be approved prior to final site plan approval. Public Comments Received No comments received. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the subdivision with the following conditions: 1. Provide the effective date of the FEMA map cited in note 3. 2. Note 10 labels all stormwater management easements as private. Differentiate between the stormwater management BMP and the stormwater management system in the ROW. Stormwater management structures in the ROW must be constructed to City standards and dedicated to the City. 3 3. In general, the lots and easements appear to be acceptable to Utilities Department. Final utility easement layouts shall be approved by the Utilities Department prior to final subdivision approval. 4. Some stormwater easements along the road are called out as private but should be public. Easements should be public where storm lines in the road bump out onto parcels. Attachments 1. Final Subdivision Plat Dated March 2, 2018 2. Final Site Plan under staff review dated January 30, 2018 4 NOTES: · · t ee S · eet St r Str ge · Rid 1s t · · · VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1"=2,000' OWNER'S APPROVAL AREA SUMMARY: OWNER'S APPROVAL APPROVED FOR RECORDATION Charlottesville, VA 22911 172 South Pantops Drive 434.979.1681 (f) 434.979.8121 (p) dominioneng.com SHEET INFO. Engineering COVER SHEET Dominion PROJECT INFO. TAX MAP 26 PARCELS34, 35, 116 & 116.1 PAYNES MILL SUBDIVISION 03-02-2018 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA DATE: REVISION: 12-11-2017 DRAWN BY: SHEET: ne yor s BRV s ne s 08-21-2017 rs CITY COMMENTS er g ne r e an 03-02-2018 v sur g i PROJECT NO: REVISION: CHECKED BY: pl s i en de 16.0005 CITY COMMENTS BDJ 1 OF 8 ADJOINING PARCEL INFORMATION V7 HARTMANS MILL RD. RD 25 MILL 24 23 ES YN 22 A PA 21 14 15 16 20 19 1 13 17 18 2 12 11 3 V4 8 7 6 5 4 10 9 V6 V5 SHEET KEY SCALE: 1" = 200' Charlottesville, VA 22911 172 South Pantops Drive 434.979.1681 (f) 434.979.8121 (p) dominioneng.com SHEET INFO. Engineering ADJOINER INFO & SHEET KEY Dominion PROJECT INFO. TAX MAP 26 PARCELS34, 35, 116 & 116.1 PAYNES MILL SUBDIVISION 03-02-2018 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA DATE: REVISION: 12-11-2017 DRAWN BY: SHEET: er s BRV s er s 08-21-2017 ne yor s CITY COMMENTS g nn e r e an 03-02-2018 v sur g i PROJECT NO: REVISION: CHECKED BY: pl s i en de 16.0005 CITY COMMENTS BDJ 2 OF 8 I H G A B C D E F J V U K T S R P L Q O M N Charlottesville, VA 22911 172 South Pantops Drive 434.979.1681 (f) 434.979.8121 (p) dominioneng.com SHEET INFO. Engineering EXISTING CONDITIONS Dominion PROJECT INFO. TAX MAP 26 PARCELS34, 35, 116 & 116.1 PAYNES MILL SUBDIVISION 03-02-2018 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA DATE: REVISION: 12-11-2017 DRAWN BY: SHEET: ne yor s BRV s er s 08-21-2017 s CITY COMMENTS er g nn e r e an 03-02-2018 v sur g i PROJECT NO: REVISION: CHECKED BY: pl s i en de 16.0005 CITY COMMENTS BDJ 3 OF 8 I H J K Charlottesville, VA 22911 172 South Pantops Drive 434.979.1681 (f) 434.979.8121 (p) dominioneng.com SHEET INFO. Engineering LOT DIVISION & EASEMENTS Dominion PROJECT INFO. TAX MAP 26 PARCELS34, 35, 116 & 116.1 PAYNES MILL SUBDIVISION 03-02-2018 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA DATE: REVISION: 12-11-2017 DRAWN BY: SHEET: ne yo r s BRV s er s 08-21-2017 s CITY COMMENTS er g nn e r e an 03-02-2018 v sur g i PROJECT NO: REVISION: CHECKED BY: pl s i en de 16.0005 CITY COMMENTS BDJ 4 OF 8 P O N M L Charlottesville, VA 22911 172 South Pantops Drive 434.979.1681 (f) 434.979.8121 (p) dominioneng.com SHEET INFO. Engineering LOT DIVISION & EASEMENTS Dominion PROJECT INFO. TAX MAP 26 PARCELS34, 35, 116 & 116.1 PAYNES MILL SUBDIVISION 03-02-2018 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA DATE: REVISION: 12-11-2017 DRAWN BY: SHEET: er s BRV s er s 08-21-2017 ne yor s CITY COMMENTS g nne r e an 03-02-2018 v sur g i PROJECT NO: REVISION: CHECKED BY: pl s i en de 16.0005 CITY COMMENTS BDJ 5 OF 8 V U T S R P Q Charlottesville, VA 22911 172 South Pantops Drive 434.979.1681 (f) 434.979.8121 (p) dominioneng.com SHEET INFO. Engineering LOT DIVISION & EASEMENTS Dominion PROJECT INFO. TAX MAP 26 PARCELS34, 35, 116 & 116.1 PAYNES MILL SUBDIVISION 03-02-2018 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA DATE: REVISION: 12-11-2017 DRAWN BY: SHEET: er s BRV s er s 08-21-2017 n e yo r s CITY COMMENTS g nne r e an 03-02-2018 v sur g i PROJECT NO: REVISION: CHECKED BY: pl s i en de 16.0005 CITY COMMENTS BDJ 6 OF 8 H I G D EDETAILF 1"-30' SEE DETAIL ABOVE Charlottesville, VA 22911 172 South Pantops Drive 434.979.1681 (f) 434.979.8121 (p) dominioneng.com SHEET INFO. Engineering LOT DIVISION & EASEMENTS Dominion PROJECT INFO. TAX MAP 26 PARCELS34, 35, 116 & 116.1 PAYNES MILL SUBDIVISION 03-02-2018 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA DATE: REVISION: 12-11-2017 DRAWN BY: SHEET: er s BRV s er s 08-21-2017 ne yor s CITY COMMENTS g nne r e an 03-02-2018 v sur g i PROJECT NO: REVISION: CHECKED BY: pl s i en de 16.0005 CITY COMMENTS BDJ 7 OF 8 Charlottesville, VA 22911 172 South Pantops Drive 434.979.1681 (f) 434.979.8121 (p) dominioneng.com SHEET INFO. Engineering LINE & CURVE DATA Dominion PROJECT INFO. TAX MAP 26 PARCELS34, 35, 116 & 116.1 PAYNES MILL SUBDIVISION 03-02-2018 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA DATE: REVISION: 12-11-2017 DRAWN BY: SHEET: er s BRV s er s 08-21-2017 ne yor s CITY COMMENTS g nne r e an 03-02-2018 v sur g i PROJECT NO: REVISION: CHECKED BY: pl s i en de 16.0005 CITY COMMENTS BDJ 8 OF 8 FINAL SITE PLAN FOR PAYNES MILL SUBDIVISION TMP 26-34, 26-35, 26-116, 26-116.1 ee rs rs n rs s n yo er e e n an v sur i pl si VICINITY MAP PARCEL OVERVIEW SHEET INDEX g g SCALE: 1" = 1000' SCALE: 1" = 100' en de SP1 Cover Sheet SP2 Notes, Abbreviations, & Legend SP3 Existing Conditions / Tree Survey SP4 Layout Plan SP5 Grading Plan SP6 Landscape Plan SP7 Road And Waterline Profiles SP8 Storm Sewer Profiles & Details SP9 Storm Sewer Calculations, Details & Sight Distance Plan/Profile SP10 Sanitary Sewer Profiles & Details SP11 Road and Watermain Details SIGNATURE BLOCK DATE Water and Sewer Demands Per SCAT Regulations in 9VAC25-790-460 Daily Demand: Use Sewer Demands Rate 270 GPD/Unit = 25 Units X 270 = 6,750 GPD FIRE FLOW TEST Water Demands Max Hour Q = 11.4 X 25 Units X 0.544 = 155 GPM Peak Hour Q = 1.5 x 155 GPM = 233 GPM SHEET TITLE: DOM. PROJECT NO: FIRE FLOW CALCULATIONS INDEX TITLE: Q(20) = 920 ( (78-20)^0.54 / (78-56)^0.54) Q(20) = 1,552 GPM @ 20 psi Residual Pressure OK SHEET NO: DATE: ee rs rs ne r s rs n yo e e n an v s ur i pl si g g en de SHEET TITLE: DOM. PROJECT NO: INDEX TITLE: SHEET NO: DATE: ee rs rs n rs s n yo er e e n an rv pl s i su i g g en de SHEET TITLE: DOM. PROJECT NO: INDEX TITLE: SHEET NO: DATE: ee rs rs ne r s rs n yo e n ve s ur i an pl si g g en de SHEET TITLE: DOM. PROJECT NO: INDEX TITLE: SHEET NO: DATE: ee rs rs ne r s rs n yo e e n an g v s ur i en g pl s i de SHEET TITLE: DOM. PROJECT NO: INDEX TITLE: SHEET NO: DATE: ee rs rs ne r s rs n yo e e n an v s ur i pl si g g en de SHEET TITLE: DOM. PROJECT NO: INDEX TITLE: SHEET NO: DATE: ee rs rs n rs s n yo er e n ve sur i an pl s i g g en de SHEET TITLE: DOM. PROJECT NO: INDEX TITLE: SHEET NO: DATE: ee rs rs n rs s n yo er e n ve sur i an pl s i g g en de SHEET TITLE: DOM. PROJECT NO: INDEX TITLE: SHEET NO: DATE: STORM SEWER INLET DESIGN COMPUTATIONS STORM DRAIN CALCULATIONS 4.0 4.0 ee rs 426.22 0.58 rs n rs s n yo er e n ve 4.0 sur i an pl s i g g en de 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.55 4.0 SHEET TITLE: DOM. PROJECT NO: INDEX TITLE: SHEET NO: DATE: ee rs rs n rs s n yo er e n ve sur i an pl s i g g en de LAYING CONDITION A: SLOPE LATERAL @ 1/4":1' TO PROVIDE MINIMUM CLEARANCE FROM UTILITIES, PROVIDE TEE-WYE AND CLEANOUT SHEET TITLE: DOM. PROJECT NO: INDEX TITLE: LAYING CONDITION B: ROLL CONNECTION AT MAIN SHEET NO: TO PROVIDE 0.75' FROM 8" INV. SLOPE 5" LATERAL AT 1/8":1' TO PROVIDE MIN CLEARANCE FROM UTILITIES. PROVIDE TEE-WYE AND CLEAN OUT. DATE: ee rs rs n rs s n yo er e n ve sur i an pl s i g g en de SHEET TITLE: DOM. PROJECT NO: INDEX TITLE: SHEET NO: DATE: CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF FINAL SITE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: April 10, 2018 APPLICATION NUMBER: P17-0168 Author of Staff Report: Matt Alfele Date of Staff Report: March 23, 2018 Project Name: William Taylor Plaza PUD Phase II Site Plan Tax Map Parcel ID Tax Map 29, Parcels 146, 147, & 149 Applicant: Cherry Avenue Investments, LLC Applicant’s Representative: Charlie Armstrong (Cherry Avenue Investments, LLC) and Trey Steigman (Management Services Corporation) Applicable City Code Provisions: 34-800 – 34-827 (Site Plans), 34-867 (Landscape Plan) Zoning District: PUD (Planned Unit Development) with Architectural Design Control Overlay Date of Final Site Plan Submission: September 13, 2017 Date of Site Plan Review Conference: October 4, 2017 Reason for Planning Commission Review: All Site Plans associated with a property zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development) are subject to review by the Planning Commission. Vicinity Map Page 1 of 5 Legal Standard of Review Approval of a site plan is a ministerial function, as to which the Planning Commission has little or no discretion. When an applicant has submitted a site plan that complies with the requirements of the City’s Site Plan Ordinance, then approval of the plan must be granted. In the event the Planning Commission determines there are grounds upon which to deny approval of a site plan, the motion must clearly identify the deficiencies in the plan, that are the basis for the denial, by reference to specific City Code sections and requirements. Further, upon disapproval of a site plan, the Planning Commission must identify the modifications or corrections that would permit approval of the plan. Executive Summary Charlie Armstrong, acting as agent for the owner Cherry Avenue Investments LLC, is requesting approval of a final site plan for a twenty-seven (27) unit apartment building with underground parking. Road frontage for the development is along Ridge Street. This will be the final phase of the William Taylor Plaza PUD. Phase 1 (currently under construction) is a one hundred seventeen (117) room hotel with frontage along Cherry Avenue. A public plaza, arboretum, improvements to the streetscape along Cherry Ave and Ridge St, and parking infrastructure are all under construction as part of phase 1. The property is further identified on City Real Property Tax Map 29, Parcels 146, 147, & 149. The site is zoned Planned Unit Development and is approximately 0.33 acres. The Land Use Plan Map calls for Mixed Use. On December 29, 2016 the developer received a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) from the Board of Architectural Review (BAR). On March 10, 2017 the developer received a COA for the lighting and landscape plan from BAR. Site Plan Compliance The final site plan went through several rounds of review and the applicant has addressed comments to the satisfaction of staff. Site plans are reviewed for compliance with City codes and standards. An overview of site plan requirements and the location of those items on the site plan are outlined below. Site Plan Requirements A. Compliance with applicable zoning district regulation Planned Unit Development (per Zoning Ordinance §34-490 - - §34-520) Page 2 of 5 The property was originally rezoned to Planned Unit Development November 2, 2009 and amended July 20, 2015. The project complies with all requirements of a Planned Unit Development District. B. Section 34-828 Final Site Plan contents (inclusive of Preliminary Site Plan submission requirements, as found in §34-827, as required by §34-828(d)). 1. General site plan information, including but not limited to project, property, zoning, site, and traffic information: Found on Sheet 1 and 2. 2. Existing condition and adjacent property information: Found on Sheet 3. 3. Phasing for the project: Found on Sheet 2 and 3. 4. §34-827(d)(4); 34-828(d)(4) (grading for final SP is required to be shown with 2-foot contours): Topography and grading: Found on Sheet 4. 5. §34-827(d)(5): Existing landscape features and individual trees 6” caliper or greater: Found on Sheet 3 and the tree survey for phase 1. 6. §34-827(d)(6): The name and location of all water features: N/A. 7. §34-827(d)(7): One hundred-year flood plain limits: N/A. 8. §34-827(d)(8), (d)(12), (d)(14) and (d)(16); and 34-828(d)(7); a. Existing and proposed streets and associated traffic information: A traffic impact study was provided to the City’s Traffic Engineer with trip generation numbers shown on page 9 of the study. No new roads are proposed, but the travelway is found on Sheets 3 - 7. b. Location of existing and proposed ingress to and egress from the property, showing the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection: Found on Sheet 3 - 7. c. All areas intended to be dedicated or reserved for public use: Found on Sheet 4. d. Where deemed appropriate by the director due to intensity of development, estimated traffic generation figures: estimated vehicles per day: Found on Page 9 and 10 of the traffic impact study report as part of the Phase I development. 9. §34-827(d)(9), 34-828(d)(6): a. Location and size of drainage channels, and existing / proposed drainage easements: N/A b. References to specific types of SWM facilities, treatments, BMPs, LID technics: Found on Sheet 3, 4, & 5. The conversion of SWM facilities to BMP was part of the Phase I plan, but will be completed by the Phase II developer. 10. §34-827(d)(10), (d)(11), and 34-828(d)(5): Page 3 of 5 a. Location and size of existing water and sewer infrastructure: Found on Sheet 3 and 4. b. Proposed layout for water and sanitary sewer facilities and storm drain facilities: Found on Sheet 4. c. Location of other existing and proposed utilities and utility easements: Found on Sheet 4. d. Location and dimensions of all existing and proposed improvements: Found on Sheet 4. 11. §34-827(d)(15), §34-828(d)(9): Landscape plan: Found on Sheet 5. 12. §34-828(d)(1): Location and size of proposed signs: Found in the approved BAR materials. 13. §34-827(d)(2), §34-828(d(2): a. Proposed uses and maximum acreage occupied by each use, including open space: Found in the approved PUD Development Plan. b. Maximum height of all buildings and structures: Found on Sheet 2 and 5. c. Schedule of parking (maximum required and amount provided): Found on Sheet 2 and 4. d. Maximum impervious cover on site; maximum paved parking areas, method of computation of # of spaces required; type of surfacing for all areas: and on Sheets 2 and 4. e. Size, angle, with of parking spaces, location: Found on Sheet 3 and 4. f. §34-828(d)(2) requires written schedules or notes, to demonstrate that the requirements of Chapter 34 are being satisfied: i. §34-494 of the PUD Ordinance requires that no property within the PUD may be sold until provision is made to insure the establishment and ongoing maintenance and operation of all open space and other common areas within the development: Establishment of a maintenance agreement was part of Phase I approval. C. Additional information to be shown on the final site plan as deemed necessary by the director or Commission in order to provide sufficient information for the director or Commission to adequately review the preliminary site plan. The applicant needs to show the PUD Development Proffers: Found on Sheet 1. The applicant needs to show a certificate of appropriateness was granted from the BAR. Found on Sheet 1. Page 4 of 5 D. Compliance with the City’s Erosion and Sediment Control ordinance, City Code, Chapter 10: City Code §34-828(d)(6)(g) requires information, details, calculations, plans and other documents or data required by Chapter 10 City Code for an erosion and sediment control plan. These materials have been received and are under review by the City’s VESCP staff. Per City Code §10-36(5) no land disturbing activity will be authorized to be commenced unless and until a property owner obtains approval of a (final) site plan. E. Compliance with Additional Standards for Specific Uses (Site Plan Ordinance §§34- 930 - 34-938) City Code §34-828(d)(6)(f) requires information, details, calculations, construction plans and other materials required by City Code Chapter 10 for a final SWM Plan to be included with a proposed final site plan. The applicant has submitted the required components for a proposed final SWM Plan, and that’s currently under review by the City’s VSMP staff. In accordance with City Code §10-9(c) , no authorization or permit for any construction, land use or development involving any land disturbing activity, including any grading / building / foundation / demolition or other development permit, will be issued until a final SWM Plan has been approved. Public Comments Received A Site Plan Review Conference was held on October 4, 2017 and was attended by one (1) member of the public. The attendee raised a concern related to the neighborhood not being able to attend the meeting due to the time and location. Staff agreed to present the site plan at the Fifeville Neighborhood Association meeting. The developer and staff attended the Fifeville Neighborhood Association meeting on October 12, 2017. People were concerned with traffic and that the units would not be affordable. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the final site plan with the following condition(s):  Remaining comments from the March 16, 2018 Comment Letter are addressed.  All bonds are posted Attachments  Final Site Plan With a Revision Date of February 14, 2018  City Council Ordinance Dated July 20, 2015  PUD Development Plan.  Comment Letter Dated March 16, 2018 Page 5 of 5 ZMl4-00002 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A REQUEST TO AMEND THE PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICABLE TO PRO PERTLY LOCATED WITHIN THE WILLIAM TAYLOR PLAZA PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ("PUD") WHEREAS, Cherry Avenue Investments, LLC ("Applicant"), by its agent Southern Development Company has filed application number ZM 14-00002, seeking a rezoning of property located at 529 Cherry Avenue and 512-529 Ridge Street (City Tax Map 29, Parcels 145, 146, 147, 149, 150, 151 and 157), consisting, of approximately 125,321.5 square feet of land (2.90 acres) (together, the "Subject Prope11y"), in order to amend the zoning regulations applicable to the Subject Property as a result of the PUD zoning district classification, PUD development plan and proffered development conditions previously approved by City Council for the Subject Property on November 2, 2009; and WHEREAS, a joint public hearing on the Proposed Rezoning was held before the City Council and Planning Commission on May 12, 2015, following notice to the public and to adjacent prope1ty owners as required by law; and WHEREAS, legal notice of the public hearing held on May 12, 2015 was advertised in accordance with Va. Code Sec. 15.2-2204; and WHEREAS, as part of its Proposed Rezoning also submitted a Preliminary Amended Proffer Statement, as required by City Code Section 34-64( a), and presented the Preliminary Proffer Statement to the Planning Commission on May 12, 2015; and WHEREAS, on May 12, 2015, the Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the Proposed Rezoning to the City Council, based on their finding that the rezoning is not required by the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's various application materials reviewed by the Planning Commission for the Proposed Rezoning have been compiled into a complete updated plan of development, consisting of (i) a proposed PUD Development Plan, dated July 13, 2015, and (ii) a Final Proffer Statement dated July 13, 2015, signed by an individual authorized to bind the LLC to the provisions therein stated, as required by City Code Section 34-64(c) (together, the materials included within (i) and (ii) constitute the "Proposed Amended PUD"); and WHEREAS, this Council finds and determines that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice requires the Proposed Rezoning/ Amended PUD; that the existing PUD zoning classification (inclusive of the 2009 Final Proffer Statement) as well as the Proposed Amended PUD are both reasonable; that the Proposed Amended PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; 110\V, therefore, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia THAT: the zoning regulations applicable to the William Taylor Plaza PUD shall be and hereby are amended and reenacted as follows: the zoning regulations applicable to the use and development of the William Taylor Plaza PUD shall be (i) those generally applicable within Chapter 34 of the City Code, and (ii) those matters set forth within the PUD plan dated July 13, 2015 and the Final Proffer Statement dated July 13, 2015, which, together, are hereby approved and established as the approved PUD development plan for the William Taylor Plaza PUD, for purposes of Chapter 34, Attic le V of the City Code. Approved by City Council July 20, 2015 Jh(}M--MA-- cj( C< ~ Barbara K. Ronan ' Acting Clerk of Council C I TY O F CHA R LO T TE S V I LLE “A World Class City” Neighborhood Development Services 610 East Market Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 Telephone 434-970-3182 Fax 434-970-3359 www.charlottesville.org March 16, 2018 Michael Myers, P.E., C.F.M. Dominion Engineering 172 South Pantops Drive Charlottesville, VA 22911 RE: William Taylor Plaza Phase II FINAL SITE PLAN Dear Mike, The above referenced site plan was submitted to the office for an initial round of review on September 13, 2017 and a additional rounds of review on December 11, 2017, and February 16, 2018. Please find below a list of revisions that are necessary for this plan to proceed in the approval process. If you wish to pursue final site plan approval, please address the following comments. The revisions must be received on or before May 3, 2018 in order for this process to proceed. Revisions not submitted by this date will be considered a new submittal and new fees will be assessed. If you are unable to re-submit by this date, you can request an extension on the project per §34- 823(e) of the City Code. Based on the level of comments remaining, the site plan will be placed on the April 10, 2018 Planning Commission for review. 1. Comments from Hugh Blake, Engineer, are attached. 2. Comments from Matt Alfele, City Planner, are attached. 3. Comments from Jason McIlwee, Public Utilities, are attached. Please revise the plan and resubmit 3 hard copies and a digital file for additional review. If you have questions, please contact me at 434-970-3636 or alfelem@charlottesville.org Sincerely, Matt Alfele Page 1 of 4 C: Dominion Engineering, Attn: Mike Myers, P.E., C.F.M., mmyers@dominioneng.com Management Services Corporation, Attn: Trey Steigman, tsteigman@msc-rents.com Cherry Avenue Investments, Attn: Charlie Armstrong, charlesa@southern- development.com Missy Creasy Hugh Blake Mandy Brown Tom Elliott Zack Lofton Jason McIlwee Christian Chirico W.J. Sclafani Stephen Walton Michael Ronayne Juwhan Lee Page 2 of 4 City Staff have made a good faith effort to identify all deficiencies within the September 13, 2017, December 11, 2017, and February 16, 2018 submissions; however, in the event that there remains any other deficiency which, if left uncorrected, would violate local, state or federal law, regulations, or mandatory engineering and safety requirements, such other deficiency shall not be considered, treated or deemed as having been approved. These comments are based on the current submission; future submissions may generate additional comments. The following items need to be addressed in the revised site plan: Be advised that major changes to the site plan may result in new comments not reflected in this review Engineering City Engineer – Hugh Blake 1. Provide calculations that demonstrate adequate storage volume is available in the sediment trap. (If already provided, state where the calculations can be found.) 2. David Frazier is currently reviewing the SWPPP and will provide comments if needed. Planning City Planner – Matt Alfele 1. The note on sheet SP3 is too detailed. The City is not getting involved in the details of who is responsible for which actions. That is a private matter between the two parties. The City is looking for a simple statement showing Management Services Corporation is taking responsible for the conversion of stormwater facilities to bioretention filters. The below language would be acceptable to the City: The conversion of the Phase 1 stormwater facilities (facilities X, X, and X as shown on page X of the approved VSMP Plan) to bioretention filters (BF-1, BF-2, and ST-2 as shown on page X of the approved Site Plan) will be the responsibility of the Phase 2 developer. Seen and agreed Cherry Avenue Investments, LLC (Phase 1 Previous Owner) Date Virginia Hotel Partners, LP (Phase 1 Developer) Date Management Services Corporation (Phase 2 Developer) Date Page 3 of 4 It would also be helpful to pull the approved sheets referenced above and add them to the end of the plan set so everything is in one place. Public Utilities Utilities Engineer – Jason McIlwee 1. Please add a note to the plans that Dominion Engineering shall provide a PE sealed document for review by the Department of Utilities calculating the required peak flow for sizing the water meter before the building permit is released. Peak flow shall be calculated using the AWWA fixture count method from Manual M22. 2. Since the sleeve will be installed for the water service, please label the size of the sleeve and provide details (how ends will be sealed, material, etc.). Page 4 of 4 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT APPLICATION FOR A REZONING OF PROPERTY JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF HEARING: April 10, 2018 APPLICATION NUMBER: ZM18-00001 Project Planner: Matt Alfele Date of Staff Report: March 26, 2018 Applicant: Justin Shimp and Charles Hurt Applicants Representative: Justin Shimp with Shimp Engineering, P.C. Current Property Owner: Justin Shimp and Charles Hurt Application Information Property Street Address: 918 Nassau Street (three unaddressed lots and a portion of one unaddressed lot) Tax Map/Parcels #: Tax Map 61, Parcels 79.17, 79.18, 79.19, & 79.201 and a portion of Tax Map 61, Parcel 79 Total Square Footage/ Acreage Site: Approx. 0.8 acres (34,848 square feet) Comprehensive Plan (General Land Use Plan): Low Density Residential Current Zoning Classification: R-2 Tax Status: Parcels is up to date on payment of taxes Completeness: The application generally contains all of the information required by Zoning Ordinance (Z.O.) Sec. 34-41. Applicant’s Request (Summary) Justin Shimp has submitted a rezoning application to rezone 918 Nassau Street, a portion of tax map 61, parcel 79, and tax map 61 parcels 79.17 ,79.18, 79.19, & 79.201 (Subject Properties) from the existing residential use (R-2) to highway corridor (HW) with a preliminary proffer statement. The rezoning application is being requested (in conjunction Page 1 of 13 with SUP application SP18-00004) to accommodate the development of (18) one-bedroom and (12) two-bedroom units split between (2) three-story apartment buildings for a total of (30) dwelling units. The development is being proposed as an urban farm and will accommodate a 1,280 square foot greenhouse and an approximately 600 square foot retail farm store. Additional parking, farm sheds, and agricultural fields supporting the development are proposed on an adjacent 7.52 acre county parcel. The preliminary proffer statement (Attachment C) removes categories of uses (including auto, medical, office, and large scale retail) that would not facilitate the development of an urban farm on the subject properties. The preliminary proffer statement also limits building height on the subject properties to 35 feet above grade. Vicinity Map County portion of the development site. Page 2 of 13 Zoning Map County portion of the development site. Gray: County Land, Orange: (R-2) Residential Two-family, Yellow: (R-1S) Residential Single-Family, Purple: (HW) Highway Corridor, Green Stripped: Park 2016 Aerial Page 3 of 13 2013 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Yellow: Low Density Residential, Purple: Mixed Use, & Green: Park or Preserved Open Space, White: County Standard of Review City Council may grant an applicant a rezoning request, giving consideration to a number of factors set forth within Z.O. Sec. 34-41. The role of the Planning Commission is and make an advisory recommendation to the City Council, as to whether or not Council should approve a proposed rezoning based on the factors listed in Z.O. Sec. 34-41(a): (a) All proposed amendments shall be reviewed by the planning commission. The planning commission shall review and study each proposed amendment to determine: (1) Whether the proposed amendment conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the comprehensive plan; (2) Whether the proposed amendment will further the purposes of this chapter and the general welfare of the entire community; (3) Whether there is a need and justification for the change; and (4) When pertaining to a change in the zoning district classification of property, the effect of the proposed change, if any, on the property itself, on surrounding property, and on public services and facilities. In addition, the commission shall consider the appropriateness of the property for inclusion within the proposed Page 4 of 13 zoning district, relating to the purposes set forth at the beginning of the proposed district classification. Preliminary Analysis The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject properties from R-2 to HW and is congruently requesting a Special Use Permit for a density of 32 dwelling units per acre (DUA) to facilitate the development of an urban farm. The development will consist of thirty (30) dwelling units within two (2) buildings. The development will also contain a large greenhouse and a retail farm store. Additional parking, farm sheds, and agricultural fields supporting the development are proposed on an adjacent 7.52 acre county parcel (currently under review by the county for a rezoning from Light Industrial to Rural Areas). Under the current zoning the subject properties could accommodate five (2) two-family dwellings in the current configuration for a total of ten (10) units. If rezoned to HW the subject properties DUA would be:  By-right: zero (0) dwelling unit per lot= zero (0) units on the subject properties.  Special Use Permit (per Sec. 34-740) (maximum) forty-three (43) DUA = thirty-four (34) units on the subject properties. *These numbers reflect the acres of the rezoning application. The proposed development, as a whole, will include an additional 0.14 acres that is already zoned HW. The proposed development, as described in the SUP application (SP18-00004), will allow a maximum of thirty (30) dwelling units (0.94 acres X 32 = 30 units based on preliminary data). Zoning History of the Subject Property Year Zoning District 1949 B-2 Business 1958 R-2 Residential 1976 R-2 Residential 1991 R-2 Residential 2003 R-2 Residential Z.O. Sec. 34-42 1. Whether the proposed amendment conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the comprehensive plan; Page 5 of 13 a. Land Use 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 provided in the Background section of the proposed rezoning application (Attachment B). Staff Analysis The Subject Properties are currently zoned R-2 which is one of the most restrictive zoning categories in the City. All by-right, provisional, and special uses allowed within this zoning district are Residential and Related per Z.O. Sec. 34-420 and single-family attached and two-family are the most common of these uses. The 2013 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map indicates the Subject Properties remain low-density residential. The land use section of the comprehensive plan indicates all single or two-family type housing and a density less than fifteen (15) DUA is Low Density. High Density are locations with a DUA over fifteen (15) or locations with multi-family housing types (townhouses, apartment, condominiums). The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the Subject Properties to HW Highway Corridor in conjunction with an SUP application to accommodate a higher density development. Z.O. Sec. 34-541, Highway Corridor is considered Mixed Use. The 2013 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map describes Mixed Use as areas intended to be zones where the City encourages development of a moderate or high intensity, and where a large variety of uses will be permitted. The HW zoning district allows no residential density by-right, but allows up to forty-three (43) DUA with a special use. Unlike the R-2 district, the HW limits by-right residential uses to things such as residential treatment facilities and bed-and-breakfasts. Single-family attached and detached homes are not permitted within the HW zoning districts. The majority of by-right, provisional, and special uses allowed within the HW zoning districts (per Z.O. Sec. 34-796) are commercial and retail in nature. Some examples are; gas stations, health clinics, and shopping centers. In the narrative statement the applicant is proposing thirty (30) residential units within two (2) buildings consisting of one (1) and (2) two-bedroom units. The applicant is also proposing a row of greenhouses and an approximately six hundred (600) square foot retail farm store. The applicant’s preliminary proffer statement removes a lot of by-right and special uses associated with the HW zoning district. Many of these uses could be more intense such as; amusement center, health clinic, Movie Theater, restaurant, shopping center, Page 6 of 13 and automotive services (for a full list see Attachment C) than the proposed development. According to the Comprehensive General Land Use Plan Map, multifamily apartments with (30) units is considered High Density and a retail farm store (Z.O. Sec. 34-796 other retail stores (non-specified) up to 4,000 square feet) within the same development is considered Mixed Use. These uses are not consistent with the Comprehensive General Land Use Plan Map. The Subject Property is bordered by: Direction Zoning District Current Use East *7.52 acres of Vacant floodplain and floodway land that abuts county land Moores Creek South HW **Vacant parcel West R-1S Residential Homes and Rives Park North R-2 Residential Homes and Vacant parcels *The 7.52 acres of county land is part of the proposed development and would serve as farm land supporting the City’s portion of the development. The parcel of land is currently zoned Light Industrial and the applicant is seeking a rezoning to Rural Areas. **The vacant parcel to the south is part of the proposed development, but is already zoned HW. The lot is part of the accompanying SUP application (SP18-00004). Staff finds the proposed rezoning is not consistent with the City’s Comprehensive General Land Use Plan Map, but may contribute to other goals within the Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. As the subject properties are centrally located to single family, multi-family, and green spaces, a higher residential density on Nassau Street, at this location, could contribute to Goal 2.3 (Enhance pedestrian connections between residences, commercial centers, public facilities, amenities and green space.) in the Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. It should be noted that the rezoning, on its own, will lower the existing density to zero (0). Staff is making an analysis off the proposed development as presented within the application materials (Attachment A, B, & C). Planning Commission should consider the implications of the development as presented in the application materials, but also the implications of a rezoning “without” the SUP. Page 7 of 13 Staff is concerned about the potential intensity of future land uses encroaching down Linden Avenue into the fabric of the low density neighborhoods. In addition to the rezoning request, the applicant is also submitting an application for a SUP (SP18-00004) to build thirty (30) one and two-bedroom units on the subject properties. The proposed use in the SUP application (residential) is consistent with the current uses near the subject properties (three story residential buildings are located just south of the subject property at Linden and Nassau), but this residential use is part of a larger development that includes a farming component (located in the county). Although the “farming” for this development will be located outside the City, ingress and egress, a farm store, and a large greenhouse will all be located within the City. The Planning Commission should look at the development as a whole as activities on the county portion of the project will directly impact City lots and roads. b. Community Facilities 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 provided in the Background section of the proposed rezoning application (Attachment B). Staff Analysis Staff finds the location of the subject properties would be serviced by existing community facilities. A change in use from R-2 to HW should have no major impacts to existing community facilities. c. Economic Sustainability 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 provided in the Background section of the proposed rezoning application (Attachment B). Staff Analysis Staff finds no conflict with Chapter 3 (Economic Sustainability) of the Comprehensive Plan with a change of use from R-2 to HW. d. Environment 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 provided in the Background section of the proposed rezoning application (Attachment B). Page 8 of 13 Staff Analysis Current stormwater regulations will prevent the subject properties from discharging additional stormwater above current levels. The subject properties are undeveloped (with the exception of one existing single family home that will be demolished) which will require innovative design to keep stormwater at current levels. These concerns would be addressed at site plan review. Although the site is not directly adjacent to Moores Creek, the application materials indicate the county parcel that is adjacent to Moores Creek will be part of this development. e. Housing 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 provided in the Background section of the proposed rezoning application (Attachment B) and a letter to Stacy Pethia dated March 15, 2018 (Attachment D). Staff Analysis Staff finds the uses which could occur as part of a HW development, such as apartment buildings (with a SUP); on the subject properties could contribute to Goals 3.6, 8.1, & 8.2 in the Housing chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. According to Sec. 34-12 the applicant is not required to provide on or off site affordable housing or payment into the City’s Affordable Housing Fund. In the application, narrative, and letter to Stacy Pethia dated march 15, 2018 affordable housing is discussed as an element of the development. The applicant indicates they will be providing two (2) affordable units on site. One (1) unit will be placed within the development to meet the needs of a future off site SUP (1201 Druid Avenue) and the other unit will be placed within the development to help contribute to the City’s 2025 Affordable Housing Goal. It needs to be stated that although these units are part of the narrative, no affordable housing is part of the preliminary proffer statement submitted with this application. f. Transportation 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 provided in the Background section of the proposed rezoning application (Attachment B). Page 9 of 13 Staff Analysis Staff finds the uses which could occur as part of a HW development, such as an apartment building (with an SUP); on the subject properties could contribute to Goals 1.2 & 2.6 in the Transportation chapter of the Comprehensive Plan and section 4.1 of Streets that Work. Staff is concerned that “farming” activities could include a wide range of vehicular traffic that are not suitable for a Local road, as designated by Streets that Work typology. Small low impact farming could be compatible with a Local Street Typology if it does not include large tractor trailers continuously making deliveries and pickups. Larger scale farming could produce the type of traffic more suitable for an Industrial type Street Typology. g. Historic Preservation & Urban Design 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 provided in the Background section of the proposed rezoning application (Attachment B). Staff Analysis Staff finds the uses which could occur as part of a HW development, such as an apartment building, (with a SUP) on the subject properties could contribute to Goal 1.3 & 1.4 in the Historic Preservation & Urban Design chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Whether the proposed amendment will further the purposes of this chapter and the general welfare of the entire community; The applicant’s own analysis of the development’s furtherance of the general welfare of the entire community is provided in the Background section of the proposed rezoning application (Attachment B). Staff Analysis Staff finds that a land use change from R-2 to HW, with a SUP for density as noted in the applicant’s narrative statement, could benefit the surrounding community by providing additional residential housing options. The development, as noted in the applicant’s narrative statement, could also benefit the surrounding community by providing access to locally produced agricultural products. 3. Whether there is a need and justification for the change; The applicant has provided information on the factors that led to a request to rezone the subject properties from R-2 to HW in the Narrative section of their application (Attachment B). Page 10 of 13 Staff Analysis According to the City’s 2013 Land Use Map, this portion of the City should be Low Density Residential with a DUA under fifteen (15). The existing development pattern along Nassau Street is currently consistent with the current Land Use Map. Most of the parcels in this area are single, two-family homes, or vacant. Rezoning the subject properties from R-2 to HW could contribute to many of the goals in the City’s 2013 Comprehensive Plan, but would not be consistent with the existing pattern of development along Nassau Street. Rezoning to HW (without a SUP) would keep the DUA under fifteen (15) per the Land Use Map, but it should be noted that Sec. 34-796 indicates the residential dwelling type “Multifamily” is a by-right use in the HW districts, but Sec. 34-740 states any “density” requires a SUP. 4. When pertaining to a change in the zoning district classification of property, the effect of the proposed change, if any, on the property itself, on surrounding property, and on public services and facilities. In addition, the commission shall consider the appropriateness of the property for inclusion within the proposed zoning district, relating to the purposes set forth at the beginning of the proposed district classification. The location of the subject properties are currently served by existing public utilities and facilities. The applicant has provided a narrative statement on adverse effects and mitigation in their application materials (Attachment B). Staff Analysis Any development on the subject properties would be evaluated during site plan review and need to meet all current regulations related to public utilities and facilities. Due to the location of the subject properties, staff believes all public services and facilities would be adequate to support development. In relation to the purposes set forth at the beginning of the proposed district classification, staff finds the development would not meet the intent. The Highway Corridor district should facilitate development of a commercial nature that is auto oriented with very limited residential use (Z.O. Sec. 34-541(9). The proposed development (as stated in the application materials) would be mainly residential in nature with a small retail (farm store) and commercial (farm) component. Public Comments Received Community Meeting Required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(c)(2) Page 11 of 13 On September 11, 2017 the applicant held a community meeting at Clark Elementary. The applicant gave an overview of the project as it related to the need for a rezoning and a SUP. The community voiced the following concerns with the proposed development:  View from Linden Avenue could be blocked.  The development could have an adverse impact on Moores Creek.  What type of development could happen in the floodplain? Other comments included:  Appreciation for proposing an initiative “urban farm”.  Providing affordable units. As of the date of this report, staff has received one (1) email related to the rezoning or SUP application and two (2) phone calls. The following concerns were expressed:  No access to the development from the County side  30 units at this location could have an adverse impact on Moores Creek.  One of the buildings would be too close to the road. Staff Recommendation Staff finds the proposed development, as presented in the application materials could contribute to many goals of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds that the by-right uses for HW as outline in Z.O. Sec. 34-796, are a mix of appropriate and inappropriate uses for the subject properties. Staff finds the residential, retail, and most of the commercial uses to be appropriate. The preliminary proffer statement removes many of the inappropriate uses, but leaves some uses that could produce an unknown outcome. Any SUP would require additional review by staff, Planning Commission, and City Council. Should the development proceed as indicated in the application and narrative, staff finds the idea of an urban farm one that could greatly benefit this area of the City. Summarizing the Standard of Review, staff finds: (1) Whether the proposed amendment conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the comprehensive plan. Staff finds the proposed rezoning (as presented in the application materials) would not comply with the City’s Comprehensive General Land Use Plan Map, but would contribute to other chapters of the City’s 2013 Comprehensive Plan. (2) Whether the proposed amendment will further the purposes of this chapter and the general welfare of the entire community. Staff finds the proposed rezoning (as presented in the application materials) would further the purposes of this chapter and the general welfare of the entire community. (3) Whether there is a need and justification for the change. Staff finds no justification for the proposed rezoning. Page 12 of 13 (4) When pertaining to a change in the zoning district classification of property, the effect of the proposed change, if any, on the property itself, on surrounding property, and on public services and facilities. In addition, the commission shall consider the appropriateness of the property for inclusion within the proposed zoning district, relating to the purposes set forth at the beginning of the proposed district classification. Staff finds the proposed rezoning (as presented in the application materials) would have no impact on public services or facilities, but would not meet the intent of the Highway Corridor district as defined within the proposed district classification. Suggested Motions 1. I move to recommend approval of this application to rezone the subject properties from R-2, to HW, on the basis that the proposal would service the interests of the general public and good zoning practice. OR, 2. I move to recommend denial of this application to rezone the subject properties from R-2 to HW, on the basis that the proposal would not service the interests of the general public and good zoning practice. Attachments A. Rezoning Application Dated January 22, 2018 B. Applicant’s Narrative Statement and supporting documents dated March 16, 2018 C. Preliminary Proffer Statement Dated March 16, 2018 D. Letter on affordable housing to Stacy Pethia Dated March 15, 2018 Page 13 of 13 Attachment B Hogwaller Farm Rezoning & Special Use Permit Narrative March 16, 2018 RE: Rezoning and Special Use Permit Narrative, TMP 61-79 (portion), 61-79.16, 61-79.17, 61-79.18, 61-79.19, and 61-79.201 Shimp Engineering is applying concurrently for a rezoning on TMP 61-79 (portion), 61-79.17, 61-79.18, 61-79.19, and 61- 79.201, and a special use permit on TMP 61-79 (portion), 61-79.16, 61-79.17, 61-79.18, 61-79.19, and 61-79.201 to allow for 30 units in two multifamily structures on approximately .94 acres. In accordance with Sec. 34-41 of the Charlottesville Zoning Ordinance, Shimp Engineering is applying to rezone the aforementioned parcels from R-2 (Residential) to HW (Highway Corridor). In accordance with Sec. 34-158, Shimp Engineering is applying for a Special Use Permit to allow for residential units in a HW district. The proposed residential development on this site will be part of an innovative urban farm development comprised of City and County parcels, where the residential structures will be built on City parcels adjacent to a County parcel (TMP 77-20) that is intended to be utilized for agricultural production. It is the intent for the City parcels to also accommodate a greenhouse and a retail shop intended for farm sales, allowed by-right in a HW district. The proposed development does not trigger an FAR greater than 1.0; however, the project proposal includes two affordable units. One unit will be the required off-site affordable housing unit for the proposed multi-family development at 1201 Druid, pending approval of the requested special use permit on that site, and the additional unit will be provided to increase the supported affordable housing stock in Charlottesville. Project Outline: Parcels: 61-79 (portion), 61-79.16, 61-79.17, 61-79.18, 61-79.19, and 61-79.201 Current Zoning: HW: 61-79.16; R-2: 61-79 (portion), 61-79.17, 61-79.18, 61-79.19, and 61-79.201 Proposed Zoning: HW on all parcels Existing Use: Vacant and Residential Proposed Use: Residential with affordable units, greenhouse for agricultural production, farm stand for potential farm sales Current Conditions: TMP 61-79.201 has an existing single family dwelling and the remaining parcels are vacant. The parcels have a clearing towards the northwest boundaries fronting on Nassau St. and are lightly wooded towards the rear of the lots. A portion of TMP 61-79.16, 61-79.17, 61-79.18, and 61-79.19 are in the floodplain. Parcels 61-79.201 and 61-79 (portion) are entirely in the floodplain. There are a few steep slopes on the property and there are no critical slopes present on the property. Proposed Use: The development proposal for this property consists of two multi-family structures: one three story structure with 18 one- bedroom units and one three story structure with 12 two-bedroom units, for a total of 30 units. This multi-family housing development will be part of an innovative urban farm that will encompass both City and County parcels, where housing, including affordable units, will be provided on the City parcels and the County parcel will be dedicated to agricultural purposes. A greenhouse, allowed by right, in a Highway zoning district will be located on the City parcels. Additionally, a Attachment B farm stand of approximately 600 sq ft will be located on the city portion of the development and will house future farm sales. The building will not exceed 4000 sq ft, the maximum allowable square footage for retail use in a highway district. Affordable Housing Data: There are currently no supported affordable units on the property. No units are required to be designated as affordable in the proposed development because the FAR does not exceed 1.0. In the current proposal, the GFA of the project is 24,920 sq ft; the GFA of residential uses is 23,040 and the GFA of non-residential uses is 1,880. This development proposal includes the addition of two affordable units on the property. One unit will be the required affordable unit for the proposed development at 1201 Druid and the second affordable unit will be provided to contribute to the City’s 2025 Affordable Housing Goal. Surrounding Uses: The immediate surrounding is entirely residential. R-2 parcels with single family dwellings are northeast of the development. R-1S parcels with single family dwellings are across Nassau St. from the proposed development. Parcels zoned HW are south of the development. Southwest of the development along Linden Ave there are existing multi-family structures and townhomes. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan: The first goal of the Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan states, “enhance the sense of place throughout Charlottesville.” A unique development like Hogwaller Farm will inherently foster a sense of place by tying into the agricultural heritage of the area along Moore’s creek as the site of the livestock exchange and by serving as a unique residential model that has not been established in Charlottesville as of yet and will be undeniably Hogwaller. The second goal of the land use chapter is to, “establish a mix of uses within walking distance of residential neighborhoods that will enhance opportunities for small group interaction throughout Charlottesville.” The communal spaces within the residential development will facilitate resident interaction as well as allow for interaction between and among farm visitors. Goal 3 of the Housing Chapter is to, “grow the City’s housing stock for residents of all income levels.” Hogwaller Farm aligns with this goal because the proposed development offers a variety of housing options, in the form of one and two bedroom units in two multi-family structures. These units will be more affordable than the existing predominant housing stock in Belmont, the single family dwelling. The residential units proposed at Hogwaller Farm will directly contribute to achieving the City’s goal of “15% supported affordable housing by 2025,” by designating two units as affordable. Compliance with USBC Provisions The proposed development will be in compliance with all applicable USBC provisions. Impacts on Public Facilities and Public Infrastructure: The project will have a minimal environmental footprint, and seeks to mitigate any ill effects. Stormwater runoff will largely be mitigated on the site of the development (city and county parcels) through an undisturbed riparian buffer and proposed tree plantings. Attachment C March 16, 2018 RE: Preliminary Proffer Statement, TMP 61-79 (portion), 61-79.16, 61-79.17, 61-79.18, 61-79.19, and 61-79.201 Shimp Engineering is applying concurrently for a rezoning on TMP 61-79 (portion), 61-79.17, 61-79.18, 61-79.19, and 61- 79.201, and a special use permit on TMP 61-79 (portion), 61-79.16, 61-79.17, 61-79.18, 61-79.19, and 61-79.201 to allow for 30 residential units in two multifamily structures on approximately .94 acres in Charlottesville’s Belmont Neighborhood. In accordance with Sec. 34-41 of the Charlottesville Zoning Ordinance, Shimp Engineering is applying to rezone the aforementioned parcels excluding parcel 61-79.16 already zoned HW, from R-2 (Residential) to HW (Highway Corridor). In accordance with Sec. 34-158, Shimp Engineering is applying for a Special Use Permit to allow for residential units in a HW district. The applicant agrees to proffered conditions, per City Code Sec. 34-62, on the parcel in the HW zoning district (61-79.16) and the parcels requested to be in the HW zoning district (portion of 61-79, 61-79.17, 61-79.18, 61-79.19, and 61-79.201), if the property is rezoned. The property will be subject to the following proffered conditions: Use Limitations: The property will allow all uses, as stated in the mixed use corridor district use matrix in Sec. 34-796, within the Highway zoning district, except:  amusement center  other retail stores (non-specified) over 4,000 SF  any automobile uses including auto parts and  pharmaceutical laboratory less than 4,000 SF equipment sales, gas station, rental/leasing,  pharmacies repair/servicing business, sales, or tire sales and  restaurants: fast food, full service recapping  shopping centers  banks/financial institutions  taxi stands  clubs, private  technology based businesses  data center less than 4,000 SF  transit facility  data center over 4,000 SF  dry cleaning establishment  health clinic (up to 10,000 SF, GFA)  health clinic (up to 4,000 SF, GFA)  hotels/motels: up to 100 guest rooms, 100+ guest rooms  home improvement centers  laundromats  medical laboratory less than 4,000 SF  movie theater, cineplexes  music hall  offices: business and professional, medical Attachment C Physical Improvements: No building on the site shall exceed 35’ in height from grade. This is the maximum allowable height in the low density residential districts: R-1, R-1S, and R-2. The conditions outlined in this preliminary statement are contingent upon City Council’s approval of the requested rezoning from R-2 to HW. If approved, these conditions will be applied to TMP 61-79 (portion), 61-79.16, 61-79.17, 61- 79.18, 61-79.19, and 61-79.201. Attachment D Ms. Stacy Pethia City of Charlottesville City Hall 605 E. Main St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 March 15, 2018 RE: 1201 Druid/Hogwaller Farm Affordable Housing Units Dear Ms. Pethia, Shimp Engineering has submitted a special use permit application for a proposed residential development at 1201 Druid Avenue as well as a special use permit and rezoning application concurrently, for a proposed residential development on Nassau St. in the Belmont neighborhood. Given the current site designs, these developments will add 46 units with a total of 74 bedrooms to the current housing stock in Belmont; it is our intent to contribute to the City’s 2025 affordable housing goal by designating affordable units in these developments. In realizing a core Charlottesville community value: “quality housing opportunities for all,” the City should seek to take advantage of housing opportunities that diversify the housing stock within the City. In writing this letter it is our intent to inform you of our proposal for incorporating affordable units into the Hogwaller development in the hopes you can provide us with some insight into the extent to which our project meets the City’s affordable housing need and additionally, to provide any recommendations you may have concerning the allocation of affordable units in the development. With an FAR of 1.43, the proposed development at 1201 Druid requires one affordable unit. To meet City affordable housing requirements outlined in Sec.34-12, we will provide the required affordable housing unit off-site at the proposed Hogwaller multi-family housing development. The Hogwaller development has proposed 30 units and does not exceed an FAR of 1.0. In addition to the required one affordable unit, we plan to provide one additional affordable unit at the Hogwaller development. The proposed developments not only meet affordable housing goals outlined by the City, but the proposed developments align with housing recommendations outlined in the 2016 RLCO Report. The report identifies the “key market segments” as a barbell of demand, being millennials and baby boomers (RLCO Report 2016, 16). Given the national trend of home buying occurring later than in previous generations, multi-family housing is critical to attracting millennials (RLCO Report 2016, 26). According to the report, the lack of available multi-family rental product has “likely limited [young singles and couples] ability to obtain housing in the city. This market segment could be much larger if desirable housing was available” (RLCO Report 2016, 16). The affordable 1-BR units at the proposed Hogwaller Development will not exceed a total rent and utilities cost of $1,010.00, making these units affordable to individuals making between 51%-80% of the area’s AMI. Attachment D “In order to be a truly world class city, Charlottesville must provide sufficient housing options to ensure safe, appealing, environmentally sustainable and affordable housing for all population segments and income levels, including middle income” (Charlottesville Comprehensive Plan 2013, Housing 1). The proposed developments 1201 Druid and Hogwaller offer the opportunity to provide much needed middle-income and affordable housing in multi- family developments. This type of development is recommended in the RLCO report and will contribute to the realization of the City’s affordable housing goals outlined in the 2025 Affordable Housing Goals and the Comprehensive Plan. Thank you for your review of our proposal. Best, Kelsey Schlein kelsey@shimp-engineering.com 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: April 10, 2018 APPLICATION NUMBER: SP17-00008 Project Planner: Matthew Alfele Date of Staff Report: March 26, 2018 Applicant: Justin Shimp and Charles Hurt Applicant’s Representative: Justin Shimp with Shimp Engineering, P.C. Current Property Owner: Justin Shimp and Charles Hurt Application Information Property Street Address: 918 Nassau Street (four unaddressed lots and a portion of one unaddressed lot) Tax Map/Parcel #: Tax Map 61, Parcels 79.16, 79.17, 79.18, 79.19, & 79.201 and a portion of Tax Map 61, Parcel 79 Total Square Footage/ Acreage Site: Approx. 0.94 acres (40,946 square feet) Comprehensive Plan (General Land Use Plan): Low Density Residential Current Zoning Classification: R-2 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). Applicant’s Request (Summary) Justin Shimp has submitted a special use application (SUP) for 918 Nassau Street, a portion of tax map 61, parcel 79, and tax map 61 parcels 79.16, 79.17 ,79.18, 79.19, & 79.201 (Subject Properties) for residential density. The SUP application is being requested (in conjunction with rezoning application ZM18-00001) to accommodate the development of Page 1 of 15 (18) one-bedroom and (12) two-bedroom units split between (2) three-story apartment buildings for a total of (30) dwelling units. The development is being proposed as an urban farm and will accommodate a 1,280 square foot greenhouse and an approximately 600 square foot retail farm store. Additional parking, farm sheds, and agricultural fields supporting the development are proposed on an adjacent 7.52 acre county parcel. The applicant has submitted a rezoning petition (ZM1-00001) and a SUP application (SP18- 00004) in order to develop a specific project on the subject properties (Attachment C). Per the two applications the proposed development involves:  ZM18-00001 – A rezoning request of the subject properties from R-2 to HW (Highway Corridor).  SP18-00004 – A SUP request for a density of twenty-four (32) DUA. The applicant is proposing two (2) multi-family apartments on the subject properties. Vicinity Map County portion of the development site. Page 2 of 15 Zoning Map County portion of the development site. Gray: County Land, Orange: (R-2) Residential Two-family, Yellow: (R-1S) Residential Single-Family, Purple: (HW) Highway Corridor, Green Stripped: Park 2016 Aerial Page 3 of 15 2013 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Yellow: Low Density Residential, Purple: Mixed Use, & Green: Park or Preserved Open Space, White: County Standard of Review City Council may grant an applicant a special permit or special use permit, 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. Page 4 of 15 (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 Zoning District Current Use East *7.52 acres of Vacant floodplain and floodway land that abuts county land Moores Creek South HW **Vacant parcel West R-1S Residential Homes and Rives Park North R-2 Residential Homes and Vacant parcels *The 7.52 acres of county land is part of the proposed development and would serve as farm land supporting the City’s portion of the development. The parcel of land is currently zoned Light Industrial and the applicant is seeking a rezoning to Rural Areas. **The vacant parcel to the south is part of the proposed development, but is already zoned HW. The lot is part of the accompanying SUP application (SP18-00004). The uses surrounding the subject property are mostly single family, two-family, and vacant parcels. In addition, multi-family and commercial/industrial uses are in close proximity to the subject properties. Most buildings surrounding the subject property are one (1) or two (2) story in height, but within close proximity (at the corner of Nassau and Linden) are three (3) story condos and apartments. The buildings adjacent to the subject properties are two (2) single family homes. Directly across the street from the subject property is access to Rives Park. Commercial and industrial uses such as Van Yahres Tree Company, Albemarle Heating & Air, and JAUNT are all within 0.2 miles of the subject properties. Staff Analysis: The site plan (Attachment C) and application materials (Attachment A and B) propose two (2) three (3) story multi-family buildings with twelve (12) two- bedroom units in one and eighteen (18) one-bedroom units in the second for a total of thirty (30) dwelling units. The site plan also shows thirty-eight (38) parking spaces, a farm store (approximately 600 square feet), and a greenhouse (approximately 1,280 square feet). The county portion of the development shows eleven (11) additional parking spaces, sheds to house farming equipment, and over 7 acres of land for farming. The proposed uses are not consistent with the current uses along Nassau Street running north, but the proposed uses are consistent with the uses along Linden Avenue. The concept of an urban farm in this location is harmonious with the existing patterns of uses within the neighborhood. (2) Whether the proposed use or development and associated public facilities will substantially conform to the city's comprehensive plan. Page 5 of 15 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 (Attachment B) Below are specific areas of the Comprehensive Plan for which the development may be in compliance: a. Land Use 2.2: Encourage small businesses that enhance existing neighborhoods and employment centers. 2.3: Enhance pedestrian connections between residences, commercial centers, public facilities, amenities and green spaces. 2.4: Enhance the role of schools and parks by expanding the community use of these places. 3.2: Enhance existing neighborhood commercial centers and create opportunities for other in areas where they will enhance adjacent residential areas. Provide opportunities for nodes of activity to develop, particularly along mixed-use corridors. b. Economic Sustainability 3.6: Align zoning ordinances to facilitate economic activity in new areas of commercial opportunity identified in the updated future land use map. c. Housing 1.3: Evaluate the effects new developments have on transit, the environment, density, open space configuration, commuter costs and affordable housing. 3.6: Promote housing options to accommodate both renters and owners at all price points, including workforce housing. 8.1: Encourage mixed-use and mixed-income housing developments. 8.2: Link housing options and employment opportunities in City land use decisions. 8.5: Promote redevelopment and infill development that supports bicycle and pedestrian-oriented infrastructure and robust public transportation to better connect residents to jobs and commercial activity. d. Transportation 2.1: Provide convenient and safe bicycle and pedestrian connections between new and existing residential developments, employment areas and other activity centers to promote the option of walking and biking. 2.3: Improve walking and biking conditions by discouraging and/or minimizing curb cuts for driveways, parking garages, etc. in new development and redevelopment. 2.6: Promote urban design techniques, such as placing parking behind buildings, reducing setbacks and increasing network connectivity, to create a Page 6 of 15 more pedestrian friendly streetscape and to reduce speeds on high volume roadways. e. Historic Preservation & Urban Design 1.4: Develop pedestrian-friendly environments in Charlottesville that connect neighborhoods to community facilities, to commercial areas and employment centers, and that connect neighborhood to each other, to promote a healthier community. Below are specific areas of the Comprehensive Plan for which the development may not be in compliance: f. Land Use 2.1: When considering changes to land use regulations, respect nearby residential areas. 3.1: Respect natural resources and sensitive environmental areas, including designated flood plain areas, rivers and streams. g. Environment 1.4: Ensure that planning for future land and recreational uses along the Rivanna River adequately protects water quality. Comprehensive Plan The 2013 General Land Use Plan Map calls for the subject properties to be Low Density Residential. Low Density Residential, as described within the Land Use Map, includes all land occupied by single or two-family type housing. The density in these areas by- right should be no greater than 15 dwelling units per acre. Staff Analysis: As noted in 2(a) through 2(e) above, many of the City’s Comprehensive Plan goals could be achieved through a residential and commercial development of this type on the subject properties. The subject properties’ location could promote more pedestrian and cycling trips to Rives Park and some of the commercial uses along Linden Avenue. Several goals in the 2013 Comprehensive Plan speak to a desire to have density, as appropriate, in locations that will foster alternative transportation options to employment and parks. The proposed development is not consistent with existing development patterns along Nassau Street, but would be consistent with the existing development patterns along Linden Avenue. The development of an urban farm with supporting infrastructure (farm store and greenhouse) along with thirty (30) dwelling units (within 2 buildings) could create a unique opportunity in this part of the City. Streets that Work Plan The Streets that Work Plan (approved September 2016 as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan) labels Nassau Street as Local. The full plan can be viewed at: Page 7 of 15 http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and-services/departments-h- z/neighborhood-development-services/streets-that-work/streets-that-work-plan Local Streets are characterized as the majority of the street network and have no specific associated typology due to the variation of context and available space. The Streets that Work Plan notes design elements on Local Streets should not exceed the dimensions specified for Neighborhood B streets, and that techniques such as curb extensions are appropriate. A minimum of five (5) to six (6) feet of clear zone width for sidewalks is recommended for Neighborhood B streets. Sidewalks and on-street parking are noted as the highest priority street elements. Staff Analysis: Based on the application package and supporting documents (attachments, A, B, & C), staff concludes that the pedestrian network along the subject properties’ frontage is consistent with the Streets that Work Plan. Staff is concerned that “farming” activities could include a wide range of vehicular traffic that are not suitable for a Local road, as designated by Streets that Work typology. Small low impact farming could be compatible with a Local Street Typology if it does not include large tractor trailers continuously making deliveries and pickups. Larger scale farming could produce the type of traffic more suitable for an Industrial type Street Typology. (3) Whether proposed use or development of any buildings or structures will comply with all applicable building code regulations. Based on the information contained within the application (attachment A and C), the proposed development would likely comply with applicable building code regulations. However, final determinations cannot be made prior to having the details required for final site plan and building permit approvals. (4) Potential adverse impacts, including, but not necessarily limited to: a) Traffic or parking congestion Traffic, Parking, and Other Modes of Transportation The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the development plan and traffic Study (Attachment D) and finds a development of this type would not adversely affect traffic on Nassau, Linden or the surrounding street network. The development proposes one (1) of the buildings will create a street wall along Nassau Street which will screen the parking lot from view. Although the proposed development is not directly on a mass transit line, bus route 3 has a stop accessible through Rives Park (a 5 minute walk away). A four (4) foot sidewalk currently runs along the west side of Nassau Street across from the subject properties. The applicant will be required Page 8 of 15 to install a sidewalk on the east side of Nassau Street in front of the subject properties. This will add to the pedestrian network of the City. The development plan calls for thirty (30) dwelling units consisting of eighteen (18) one-bedroom and twelve (12) two-bedroom units in two (2) buildings and thirty- eight (38) parking spaces. This meets the requirements per Z.O. Sec. 34-984 of the City Zoning Code. Parking congestion may occur if residents have more than one (1) vehicle or have guests that visit by car. On street parking is currently not prohibited on Nassau Street. Staff Analysis: The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the development plan and traffic study and finds it will not have a major impact on the amount of traffic or parking on Nassau, Linden, or the surrounding street network. Vehicular Access One (1) point of vehicular access off a City maintained street is required for the proposed development per Z.O. Sec. 34-896(a). Current vehicular ingress and egress to the subject property includes one (1) access point on Nassau Street. Due to the location of the county parcel, it is likely ingress and egress to this parcel will also be through the subject properties. Staff Analysis: The vehicular ingress /egress and circulation pattern, as shown on the site plan (attachment C); is consistent with a residential development and will have no impact to the intersection of Nassau and Linden. Staff is concerned the site plan does not indicate a second point of ingress /egress for farm equipment. It appears that residential, commercial (farm store), and agricultural traffic will utilize one circulation pattern. Depending on the level of farming intensity or commercial activity, this could create conflict. Staff is also concerned with agricultural deliveries to the development. Depending on the level and type of farming to take place, large deliveries on tractor-trailers could be a constant activity. b) Noise, lights, dust, odor, fumes, vibration, and other factors which adversely affect the natural environment The proposed development could result in an increase in noise, odor, and vibration as the development proposes a farm use. It should be noted the farm use is on the county portion of the development and the City portion is residential and commercial. The development will be required to plant street trees and landscaping per Z.O. Sec. 34-867. No lighting plan was provided but will be required during final site plan review. Page 9 of 15 Staff Analysis: Two (2) multi-family buildings with a total of thirty (30) units at this location will have minimal impact and can be mitigated through existing site plan regulations. The farm store and greenhouse should also have minimal impact to the surrounding neighborhood and can be mitigated through existing site plan regulations. Although the “farming” portion of the development is located in the county and is not technically within the City’s jurisdiction, staff’s analysis includes the whole development as it cannot be fully reviewed without the farming aspect. Based on the application materials and narrative, the applicant is indicating the farming component (County) is directly connected to the residential and commercial aspect (City) of the development. Depending on the type of and intensity of farming, unwanted odors, noise, or vibration could affect the neighborhood. c) Displacement of existing residents or businesses The subject properties are currently vacant with the exception of 918 Nassau Street. No businesses will be displaced, but one (1) existing single-family home will be removed. d) Discouragement of economic development activities that may provide desirable employment or enlarge the tax base As noted above, the subject property is vacant and any use has the potential to add to the City’s 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’s proposal narrative (Attachment B) has not adequately discussed this issue within its comprehensive plan analysis required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(d)(3). Staff Analysis: Staff finds the development will have little impact on existing community facilities. The proposed development is on a City maintained street and can be served by existing fire, police, and emergency response services. The additional density of the site will also have limited impact on surrounding parks. Stormwater requirements will be reviewed with final site plan. All utilities, such as water and sewer will be reviewed with the final site plan. Page 10 of 15 f) Reduction in the availability of affordable housing in the neighborhood The subject properties are currently vacant with the exception of 918 Nassau Street. One single-family home will be removed, but it is unknown if it contains an affordable unit as defined by City code. g) Impact on school population and facilities The applicant’s project proposal narrative (Attachment A) does not specifically analyze this factor, as required by Z.O. Sec. 34-158(b). Staff Analysis: Because housing is open to all, there is a possibility that families with children could take residence here. Therefore, some impact could be created for school population and facilities. h) Destruction of or encroachment upon conservation or historic districts The subject property is not within any design control district. i) Conformity with federal, state and local laws, as demonstrated and certified by the applicant Based on the information contained within the application (Attachment A, B, and C), the proposed development 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; however, final determinations cannot be made prior to having the details required for final site plan and building permit approvals. Specific Z.O. requirements reviewed preliminarily at this stage include massing and scale (building height, setbacks, stepbacks, etc.) and general planned uses. In a preliminary review of the site plan, staff has found that the parking will need to conform to Z.O. Sec 34-873 for screening and interior landscaping. The site plan will also need to conform to Z.O. Sec. 34-1103 for lots with two or more principal buildings within the development unless the recommending conditions are approved. This is not intended to be a full list of site plan requirements and a full review at final site plan submission will generate additional comments. From this initial review, staff believes the proposed development can be accommodated on this site with a few adjustments during the final site plan review process. j) Massing and scale of project The application materials (Attachment A, B, and C) depict two (2) new multi-family buildings that are three (3) stories above the surface of the subject properties as viewed from Nassau Street. The site plan (Attachment C) indicates the maximum height of the building will be thirty-five (35) feet. The maximum height for districts Page 11 of 15 zoned HW is eighty (80) feet, but the accompanying rezoning application (ZM18- 00001) proposed a proffer statement that reduces the max height to thirty-five (35) feet. The massing of the residential units will be very similar to the existing multi- family units on Linden Avenue. No height is given for the farm store or greenhouse, but under the proffer statement they could not exceed thirty-five (35) feet. The application materials indicate the farm store will be approximately six hundred (600) square feet, but not more than a maximum of four thousand (4,000) square feet. Most commercial greenhouses are no more than twenty (20) feet tall. No architectural or elevations drawings were submitted with this application. Staff Analysis: The massing and footprint are consistent with HW requirements. Staff would recommend the height of the buildings not exceed thirty-five (35’) in order to maintain a scale that is consistent with the surrounding buildings to the southwest of the site. This height is reflected in the rezoning application preliminary proffer statement. Staff would also recommend that the height of the farm store not exceed twenty (20) feet. (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-2 Business. In 1958 the property was zoned R-2 Residential and has retained that zoning calcification. (Application ZM18-00001 is requesting the zoning return to HW). According to Z.O. Sec. 34-350(b)(1), R-2, consisting of quiet, low-density residential areas in which single-family attached and two-family dwellings are encouraged. According to Z.O. Sec. 34-541(9), HW, The intent of the Highway Corridor district is to facilitate development of a commercial nature that is more auto oriented than the mixed use and neighborhood commercial corridors. This district provides for intense commercial development with very limited residential use. Staff Analysis: If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the corresponding rezoning request (ZM18-00001), staff finds the proposed development could to be harmonious with the zoning district, but is too residential in nature to comply with Sec. 34-541(9). If Planning Commission recommends denial of the corresponding rezoning request, staff finds the proposed development not to be harmonious with the zoning district. (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 Page 12 of 15 Based on the information contained within the application and site plan (Attachment A, B, and C), the proposed development would likely comply with applicable local ordinances. However, final determinations cannot be made prior to having the details required for final site plan and building permit approvals. (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 not located in a design control district. Public Comments Received Community Meeting Required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(c)(2) On September 11, 2017 the applicant held a community meeting at Clark Elementary. The applicant gave an overview of the project as it related to the need for a rezoning and a SUP. The community voiced the following concerns with the proposed development:  View from Linden Avenue could be blocked.  The development could have an adverse impact on Moores Creek.  What type of development could happen in the floodplain? Other comments included:  Appreciation for proposing an initiative “urban farm”.  Providing affordable units. As of the date of this report, staff has received one (1) email related to the rezoning or SUP application and two (2) phone calls. The following concerns were expressed:  No access to the development from the County side  30 units at this location could have an adverse impact on Moores Creek.  One of the buildings would be too close to the road. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission focus on the following items during review:  Appropriate density  Impact to the surrounding neighborhood  Increased traffic and access.  How the “farming” aspect of the development could impact the surrounding neighborhood. Page 13 of 15 Recommended Conditions Staff recommends that a request for density could be approved with the following conditions: 1. Up to 32 dwelling units per acre (DUA) are permitted on the subject properties. 2. The design, height, setbacks and other characteristics of the development shall remain essentially the same, in all material aspects, as described within the application materials (Attachment C) dated January 23, 2018. Except as the design details of the development may subsequently be modified to comply with staff comments, or by any other provision(s) of these SUP Conditions, any change of the development that is inconsistent with the application shall require a modification of this SUP. Key elements of this design are: a. Two (2) multi-family residential buildings containing eighteen (18) one- bedroom and twelve (12) two-bedroom units for a total of thirty (30) dwelling units on the subject properties. b. Thirty-five (35’) feet maximum height of the multi-family residential buildings. c. Modification of front yard setback to no maximum to accommodate the layout of buildings as presented in the application materials. 3. Twenty (20’) feet maximum height on the farm store or any nonresidential building on the subject properties. 4. The greenhouse must be screened (Z.O. Sec. 34-871 S-2 Screening) from the adjacent R-2 parcels. 5. All outdoor lighting and light fixtures shall be full cut-off luminaires and shielded in a manner to direct all light down. 6. Conform to Z.O. Sec. 34-881(2)-Bicycle Storage Facilities or the most current Bicycle Storage Facilities code for multi-family dwellings at time of development. 7. Trash facility needs to be provided and needs to be screened per Z.O. Sec. 34- 872(b)(2). 8. An alternative ingress/egress point for farm equipment and large deliveries to the county portion of the development should be explored with direction from the City’s Traffic Engineer. If an alternative point cannot be accommodate: a. The applicant will work with the City’s Traffic Engineer during final site plan review to develop a comprehensive traffic plan that will keep residential and farm (farm equipment deliveries and pickups) traffic separated. 9. Work with the City’s Parks Department to implement any portion of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (as shown in the 2015 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Updates, adopted September 8, 2015) that abuts the development. Suggested Motions Page 14 of 15 1. I move to recommend approval of this application for a Special Use Permit for subject properties in the R-2 (application ZM18-00001 under review to rezone from R-2 to HW) zone to permit residential development with residential density with the following listed conditions. a. ________________________________________________________________ b. ________________________________________________________________ c. ________________________________________________________________ d. ________________________________________________________________ e. ________________________________________________________________ f. ________________________________________________________________ g. ________________________________________________________________ h. ________________________________________________________________ OR, 2. I move to recommend denial of this application for a Special Use Permit for the subject properties in the R-2 zone. Attachments A. Special Use Application Dated January 22, 2018 B. Special Use Permit Narrative and supporting documents Dated January 23, 2018 C. Site Plan Dated January 23, 2018 D. Traffic Study Dated January 23, 2018 Page 15 of 15 Hogwaller Farm Rezoning & Special Use Permit Narrative March 16, 2018 RE: Rezoning and Special Use Permit Narrative, TMP 61-79 (portion), 61-79.16, 61-79.17, 61-79.18, 61-79.19, and 61-79.201 Shimp Engineering is applying concurrently for a rezoning on TMP 61-79 (portion), 61-79.17, 61-79.18, 61-79.19, and 61- 79.201, and a special use permit on TMP 61-79 (portion), 61-79.16, 61-79.17, 61-79.18, 61-79.19, and 61-79.201 to allow for 30 units in two multifamily structures on approximately .94 acres. In accordance with Sec. 34-41 of the Charlottesville Zoning Ordinance, Shimp Engineering is applying to rezone the aforementioned parcels from R-2 (Residential) to HW (Highway Corridor). In accordance with Sec. 34-158, Shimp Engineering is applying for a Special Use Permit to allow for residential units in a HW district. The proposed residential development on this site will be part of an innovative urban farm development comprised of City and County parcels, where the residential structures will be built on City parcels adjacent to a County parcel (TMP 77-20) that is intended to be utilized for agricultural production. It is the intent for the City parcels to also accommodate a greenhouse and a retail shop intended for farm sales, allowed by-right in a HW district. The proposed development does not trigger an FAR greater than 1.0; however, the project proposal includes two affordable units. One unit will be the required off-site affordable housing unit for the proposed multi-family development at 1201 Druid, pending approval of the requested special use permit on that site, and the additional unit will be provided to increase the supported affordable housing stock in Charlottesville. Project Outline: Parcels: 61-79 (portion), 61-79.16, 61-79.17, 61-79.18, 61-79.19, and 61-79.201 Current Zoning: HW: 61-79.16; R-2: 61-79 (portion), 61-79.17, 61-79.18, 61-79.19, and 61-79.201 Proposed Zoning: HW on all parcels Existing Use: Vacant and Residential Proposed Use: Residential with affordable units, greenhouse for agricultural production, farm stand for potential farm sales Current Conditions: TMP 61-79.201 has an existing single family dwelling and the remaining parcels are vacant. The parcels have a clearing towards the northwest boundaries fronting on Nassau St. and are lightly wooded towards the rear of the lots. A portion of TMP 61-79.16, 61-79.17, 61-79.18, and 61-79.19 are in the floodplain. Parcels 61-79.201 and 61-79 (portion) are entirely in the floodplain. There are a few steep slopes on the property and there are no critical slopes present on the property. Proposed Use: The development proposal for this property consists of two multi-family structures: one three story structure with 18 one- bedroom units and one three story structure with 12 two-bedroom units, for a total of 30 units. This multi-family housing development will be part of an innovative urban farm that will encompass both City and County parcels, where housing, including affordable units, will be provided on the City parcels and the County parcel will be dedicated to agricultural purposes. A greenhouse, allowed by right, in a Highway zoning district will be located on the City parcels. Additionally, a farm stand of approximately 600 sq ft will be located on the city portion of the development and will house future farm sales. The building will not exceed 4000 sq ft, the maximum allowable square footage for retail use in a highway district. Affordable Housing Data: There are currently no supported affordable units on the property. No units are required to be designated as affordable in the proposed development because the FAR does not exceed 1.0. In the current proposal, the GFA of the project is 24,920 sq ft; the GFA of residential uses is 23,040 and the GFA of non-residential uses is 1,880. This development proposal includes the addition of two affordable units on the property. One unit will be the required affordable unit for the proposed development at 1201 Druid and the second affordable unit will be provided to contribute to the City’s 2025 Affordable Housing Goal. Surrounding Uses: The immediate surrounding is entirely residential. R-2 parcels with single family dwellings are northeast of the development. R-1S parcels with single family dwellings are across Nassau St. from the proposed development. Parcels zoned HW are south of the development. Southwest of the development along Linden Ave there are existing multi-family structures and townhomes. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan: The first goal of the Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan states, “enhance the sense of place throughout Charlottesville.” A unique development like Hogwaller Farm will inherently foster a sense of place by tying into the agricultural heritage of the area along Moore’s creek as the site of the livestock exchange and by serving as a unique residential model that has not been established in Charlottesville as of yet and will be undeniably Hogwaller. The second goal of the land use chapter is to, “establish a mix of uses within walking distance of residential neighborhoods that will enhance opportunities for small group interaction throughout Charlottesville.” The communal spaces within the residential development will facilitate resident interaction as well as allow for interaction between and among farm visitors. Goal 3 of the Housing Chapter is to, “grow the City’s housing stock for residents of all income levels.” Hogwaller Farm aligns with this goal because the proposed development offers a variety of housing options, in the form of one and two bedroom units in two multi-family structures. These units will be more affordable than the existing predominant housing stock in Belmont, the single family dwelling. The residential units proposed at Hogwaller Farm will directly contribute to achieving the City’s goal of “15% supported affordable housing by 2025,” by designating two units as affordable. Compliance with USBC Provisions The proposed development will be in compliance with all applicable USBC provisions. Impacts on Public Facilities and Public Infrastructure: The project will have a minimal environmental footprint, and seeks to mitigate any ill effects. Stormwater runoff will largely be mitigated on the site of the development (city and county parcels) through an undisturbed riparian buffer and proposed tree plantings. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR Hogwaller Farm FIRE MARSHAL'S NOTES LEGEND TAX MAP 61, PARCELS 79,79.16,79.17,79.18,79.19, 79.201 EXIST NEW DESCRIPTION 16 5 16 TC 5 x x 12 TC 12 5 5 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 5 5 16 TW x 12 TW 5 5 VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1"=1000' 16 BW x 12 BW RD RD OWNER/DEVELOPER S S 6''W 6''W GAS GAS T OHE OHE ZONING E W VI UGE UGE RE OHT OHT JUSTIN M. SHIMP Lic. No. 45183 LEGAL REFERENCE UGT UGT R FO SITE SOURCE OF BOUNDARY & TOPO BUILDING HEIGHT BUILDING SETBACKS FLOOD ZONE EXISTING USE SHEET INDEX ELECTRIC / TELEPHONE / CABLE TV SHEET C1 - COVER SHEET PROPOSED USE SHEET C2 - CONTEXT PLAN SHEET C3 - EXISTING CONDITIONS SHEET C4 - SITE PLAN PARKING SCHEDULE LAND USE SCHEDULE NOTES x x x x ITE TRIP GENERATION LAND DISTURBANCE CITY PERMITS SIGNS COMPACT PARKING CROSSWALK HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE AISLE CG-12 HANDICAP PARKING APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DATE Attachment C NASSAU STREET (45') CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE PAVED PARKING AREA SFA GREENHOUSE RESIDENTIAL FARM STORE APPROVED IN CITY OF SFA CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENTIAL COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APPROVED IN CITY OF CHARLOTT COUNTY OF ALBEM CITY OF WESTERN PROPERTY LINE IS TMP CHARLOTTESVILLE BOUNDARY BETWEEN CITY OF 07700-00-00-020A0 CHARLOTTESVILLE AND ALBEMARLE KEYSER, ARTHUR FARM FARM SHEDS COUNTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH B OR SUE C ENTRANCE RECORDED PLATS FOR CITY PARCELS 1.81 ACRES PARKING ZONED LI (LIGHT AREA INDUSTRY) EXISTING ESVILLE DRAINAGE DITCH ARLE TMP 07700-00-00-02000 TMP DR FRANKLIN STREET LAND TRUST II AIN 07700-00-00-021A0 A GE 7.52 ACRES FLOW ZONED LI (LIGHT INDUSTRY) FALLS, JOHN RA ZONING REQUESTED HARVEY OR VIRGINIA S 5 ACRES DRAINAGE FL FLOODWAY ZONED LI (LIGHT OW INDUSTRY) DRAINAGE FLOW EXISTING CRITICAL SLOPES ALONG WESTERN BANK OF MOORE'S CREEK TMP 07700-00-00-038B0 (UNDISTURBED) RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY 51.1 ACRES ZONED LI (LIGHT INDUSTRY) TMP 07700-00-00-038B0 MOORE RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER 'S CREEK AUTHORITY 51.1 ACRES ZONED LI (LIGHT INDUSTRY) Attachment C TO BE RELOCATED TO REMAIN EXISTING STEEP SLOPES Attachment C NASSAU STREET NEW SIDEWALK 3-STORY 6 UNITS PER FLOOR 4320 SF PER FLOOR TO BE RELOCATED TO REMAIN PAVED PARKING LOT 38 SPACES @ 8.5' x 18' 20' TRAVEL WAY 1280 SF 600 SF 1-STORY GREENHOUSE 3-STORY 1-STORY 4 UNITS PER FLOOR EXISTING 3360 SF PER FLOOR STEEP SLOPES FARM STORE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE CITY OF CHARLOTTES COUNTY OF ALBEMARL 1440 SF 1-STORY FARM SHEDS VILLE E GRAVEL SURFACE FARM PARKING 11 SPACES @ 9 x 18 Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D From: Rebecca C. Quinn [mailto:rcquinn@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 6:18 AM To: 'Alfele, Matthew' Cc: 'Edwards, Tony' Subject: Hogwaller Farms Matt, Thanks for taking the time to show me the plans for the Hogwaller Farms proposal. Please share my comments with the Planning Commissioners. The preliminary plans for the Hogwaller Farms development show a portion of the site will be filled. Most, if not all, of the proposal lies within the mapped Special Flood Hazard Area (partial shown below). The Flood Insurance Rate Map shows the Base Flood Elevation at the site is 330 ft above datum. Actual ground contours shown on drawing submitted to NDS show at least part of the site may be above the 330 ft contour. The adjacent panel 0289 shows the floodplain downstream, with the same BFE extending downstream to at least Sewage Road. I understand the applicant will be required to obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision from FEMA to demonstrate the impact, if any, of the placement of fill, as well as changing the SFHA boundary. Also shown below is an excerpt from the Flood Hazard Protection Overlay District, Sec. 34- 258(6). Please note the requirement that fill be “the minimum amount necessary to achieve the intended purpose” and, if intended to elevate buildings, must include an analysis of alternative elevation methods. The requirement for an alternative analysis should prompt examination of alternative methods to elevate buildings, including without any fill or limited fill. Please also note the Virginia building code includes requirements for buildings in SFHAs. Both the commercial code and the City’s Overlay District rules require lowest floors (very explicitly defined) to be at or above the BFE. Enclosed areas below elevated lowest floors are limited to use only for parking of vehicles, building access, and storage (see specifications in Sec. 34-258(3)). The building code refers to ASCE 24, Flood Resistant Design and Construction, for specific requirements, including design of structural fill to support buildings. One benefit of avoiding fill to achieve elevation of the lowest floor to or above the minimum required BFE + 1 ft, by columns, would be to allow parking under the buildings. This would reduce the significant impervious area shown on the preliminary plans (thus also reducing the amount of stormwater to be managed, and reducing the stormwater utility fee). Rebecca Quinn Charlottesville, VA 22902 Phone: 434-296-1349 Cell: 443-398-5005 City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services Staff Report CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT PUBLIC HEARING RE: Hydraulic Small Area Plan Project Planner: Alex Ikefuna, Director/Kimley Horn, Consultant Date of Staff Report: April 10, 2018 Background The City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County expressed interest in a joint Small Area Plan to address land use and transportation issues in the Hydraulic Road-Route 29 Intersection Area. Because of the inter-jurisdictional interests, the City, County and the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (TJMPO) in partnership with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), expressed a mutual interest in establishing an agreeable framework for coordinating and providing planning and engineering studies necessary to provide a Transportation and Land Use Development Plan for this geographic area. The main area of study includes the Route 29 & Hydraulic Road Intersection, the Route 250 By-pass & Hydraulic Road Intersection, and the Hydraulic Road & Hillsdale Drive intersection and surrounding areas that directly influence current and future traffic, bicycle and pedestrian travel patterns within this portion of the Route 29 Solutions Program encompassing approximately 600 acres; 300 acres in the City and 300 acres in the County. The area is bounded by Greenbrier Drive/Whitewood Road in the North, US Highway 250 in the South, Meadow Creek in the East and North Berkshire Road in the West. The Hydraulic –Route 29 Small Area Plan study area is experiencing steady growth, increased development intensity, and continuing pressure to grow in a more dense, mixed use development pattern that is unique to this portion of the County and the City. Therefore, it is important to understand the impact and interaction of new development on US Route 29 and the primary collector streets within the area in order to inform future land use plans, local codes and policy documents that would guide development in this area. The resulting Small Area Plan is intended to guide development in the area as well as inform goals and possible solutions for continued improvements to transportation facilities to support anticipated growth. The project has two phases. The first phase of the project consists of the development of a Small Area Plan addressing land use, and the second phase focused on preliminary engineering that will address transportation needs for the project area. Phase one report completion schedule is September 29, 2017. The Small Area Plan was presented to the Planning Commission on November 14, 2017. It has been updated. 1|Page Standard of Review All amendments to the Comprehensive Plan shall be recommended, approved and adopted, respectively, in accordance with the requirements set forth within Title 15.2, Chapter 22, Article 3 of the Code of Virginia as amended. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan The Small Area Plan complies with the following goals in the City’s 2013 Comprehensive Plan: Land Use • Goal 1-Sense of Place: Enhance the sense of place through Charlottesville. • Goal 2-Mixed Use: Establish a mix of uses within walking distance of residential neighborhoods that will enhance opportunities for small group interaction throughout Charlottesville. • Goal 4-Regional Cooperation: Facilitate the creation of new opportunities for regional cooperation on land use issues. Community Facilities • Goal 11-Parks & Recreation (Trails): Connect the park system to the community through the development of trails and through the effective and appropriate design of park and recreation facilities. Economic Sustainability • Goal 3-Partnerships: Build partnerships with private sector groups in order to maximize strategic capital investment in targeted areas in the City. Environment Goal 2-Urban Landscape & Habitat Enhancement: Promote practices throughout the City that contribute to robust urban forest. Housing • Goal 3-Grow the City’s Housing Stock: Grow the City’s housing stock for residents of all income levels. • Goal 5-Suppoort Partnerships: Support projects and public/private partnerships (i.e. private, nonprofits, private developers and governmental agencies) for affordable housing, including workforce and mixed-use and mixed-income developments. • Goal 8: Sustainability Principles: Ensure that the City’s housing portfolio offers a wide range of choices that are integrated and balanced across the City to meet multiple goals including: increased sustainability, walkability, bikeability, and use of public transit, augmented support for families with children, fewer pockets of poverty, sustained local commerce and decreased student vehicle use. Transportation • Goal 2-Land Use and Community Design: Improve transportation options and quality of life through land use and community design techniques. 2|Page • Goal 3-Arterial Roadway Network: Improve mobility and safety of the arterial roadway network. • Goal 4-Efficient Mobility: Maintain an efficient transportation system that provides the mobility and access that supports the economic development goals of the City. • Goal 6-Transit System: Create a transit system that increases local and regional mobility and provides a reliable and efficient alternative for Charlottesville’s residents. • Goal 7: Regional Transportation: Continue to work with appropriate governing bodies to create a robust regional transportation network. Proposed Action To guide development of the community and investment of public funds, the Hydraulic-29 Small Area Plan should be recommended to the City Council by the Planning Commission for approval as an amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The approval of the Hydraulic- 29 Small Area Plan includes a set of general goals, policies and projects that will implement the city’s vision for improved land use and transportation within the City. The Planning Commission is also requested to designate the portion of the study area in the City (map attached) as an Urban Development Area (UDA) in accordance with the Code of Virginia, section §15.2-223.1. The Small Area Plan supports designation of the area as an Urban Development Area (UDA). The goal of the UDA is to promote a mixed use form of development as a desirable choice for the area, a form of development that is designed to accommodate anticipated community growth in an urban environment. Further, the approach promotes an increase in the overall mixed use density in the UDA. It is believed that such an approach will enhance efficiency in providing community facilities. It will also provide an opportunity to address the multimodal transportation needs of the community, including enabling the creation of livable communities within the UDA that are diverse and vibrant, appealing and functional and promotes a sense of place. Public Input and Other Comments Received The Hydraulic Small Area Plan was crafted with the guidance of the twelve member Hydraulic Small Area Advisory Panel over the course of seven months and twelve meetings between March and September of 2017. The process was also informed by valuable public comment received during two public meetings and throughout the planning process via on-line project links through the Route 29 Solutions website. In addition, the TJPDC facilitated a series of neighborhood meetings during the process to target the specific needs and concerns of neighborhoods likely to be most affected by the plan. (Note: A full account of the public engagement process is available at www.route29solutions.org). • Advisory Panel o 12 member panel representation: City and County administration and elected officials, local business owners, development community 3|Page o 12 meetings and work sessions over 7 months • Public meetings and social media inputs o 2 public meetings o Open attendance for observation at each Advisory Panel meeting o Access to project website and link for on-line commentary for review and response by TJPDC and project team • Neighborhood meetings o 5 Meetings Facilitated by TJPDC o Open public meetings targeted to neighborhoods most impacted by the Small Area Plan • Joint City-Albemarle County Planning Commission Review meeting Project Vision Statement A project Vision Statement was developed with the Advisory Panel and public input to guide the planning process. The key elements of that Vision include the following: • Strong Sense of Place (Create great streets and connected public spaces; establish an authentic urban form) • Vibrant, Dynamic Economy (A vibrant mixed-use destination for business; integrate a variety of housing and affordability options) • Equitable. Environmentally Sustainable Community (Promote housing within the core area; Create a multi-modal development system; Plan for environmentally sustainable stormwater management practices) • Connected by an Efficient, Multi-Modal Transportation Network, enhanced transit service; safe options for crossing Route 29; (Improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities; better neighborhood connectivity to the core area.) Advisory Panel Charrette #1 | April 11, 2017 The consultant facilitated a half-day charrette to establish a long-term, sustainable vision for plan. Participants were tasked with clarifying their values and priorities for growth including discussion of land use relationships and transportation impacts on land use decisions and urban form. Key takeaways from this activity included some guiding principles and components of a project vision statement: • Improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities; make a more walkable environment • Create safe and convenient ways to cross US Route 29 • Create a smaller, urban block structure for better connectivity • Enhance transit opportunities • Placemaking: create great public spaces • Provide for more housing options, affordable and connected to the core area destinations • Create a plan to promote economic viability and a destination for business • Need for political will and cooperation to create a successful plan 4|Page Public Input Meeting #1 | April 26, 2017 The consultant facilitated a public input meeting at Jack Jouett Middle School. Attendees listened to a brief presentation regarding the scope of the study and existing characteristics of the study area. The attendees then engaged in an open discussion regarding challenges and opportunities to be addressed by the plan. Key takeaways from this event included commentary regarding specific concerns and opportunities: • Improve connectivity • Pedestrian – more walkable, safe crossings • Bicycles – enhance trails, bike lanes • Roads – better block structure and connectivity • Create more public green space • Improve Transit • Improve outreach into community to build credibility for the plan • Need to reduce overall traffic congestion. Public Input Meeting #2| August 23, 2017 The consultant facilitated a public input meeting at Charlottesville High School in the Martin Luther King Jr. Performing Arts Center. Attendees listened to a brief presentation of the draft land use plan exhibits and the project vision statement. The attendees then engaged in an open discussion regarding their response to the plan. Key takeaways from this event included commentary regarding specific concerns and opportunities: • Emphasis on accommodating bicycle and pedestrian crossings at Hydraulic and US Route 29 with a grade-separated option • Concern regarding impacts to access for commercial property owners • Support for minimizing traffic impacts to legacy residential areas • Interest in developing small neighborhood commercial areas to serve residential neighborhoods Advisory Panel Charrette #2 | August 24, 2017 The consultant facilitated a half-day charrette to review the draft plan documents and work in small groups to mark-up copies of the plans with specific changes or ideas for refinement. Each table of participants presented their ideas to all attendees and their comments captured by the consultant team for reference in continued refinement of the plans. Key takeaways from this activity included some specific ideas to improve the plans: • Explore more internal streets to reduce block structure size and make additional connections east and west to Commonwealth Road and Michie Drive. • Locate local transit hub in the core activity area associated with Zan Road • Accommodate potential bus rapid transit options along US Route 29 corridor • General support for Zan Road development with signature public spaces and strong bicycle / 5|Page pedestrian accommodations. • Continued emphasis on bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including more crossing options at US Route 29. • Concern regarding loss or reduction of access to existing business Joint Work Session of the Charlottesville Planning Commission and the Albemarle County Planning Commission | August 24, 2017 The draft Hydraulic Small Area Plan exhibits were presented at a joint work session for the Charlottesville and Albemarle County Planning Commissions. Key items of input received during this meeting included: • General support of the plan approach. • Emphasis on good transit options • Concern regarding the lack of proposed changes in land use or infrastructure in the legacy residential neighborhoods south of Hydraulic and west of US Route 29. Neighborhood Meeting Series |April-September 2017 The TJPDC and VDOT staff held open neighborhood meetings with residents of selected neighborhoods within the study area during the months of April through September 2017. The feedback was then provided to the consultant team to incorporate into their plans. Neighborhood meetings included: • April 12, 2017 Meadows Neighborhood Meeting at Holiday Inn • May 30, 2017 Greenbrier Neighborhood Meeting at Greenbrier Elementary • June 20, 2017 Meadows Neighborhood at Holiday Inn • August 16, 2017 Hydraulic Area Neighborhoods and Businesses Meeting • August 28, 2017 Charlottesville Housing Authority and Michie Drive Meeting Suggested Motions for Amendment of Comprehensive Plan Text and Map 1. I move to approve the Hydraulic Small Area Plan as recommended by the Hydraulic Planning Advisory Panel and to append the Hydraulic-29 Small Area Plan, dated April 10, 2018, along with the applicable goals, policies, projects, and maps, as an appendix to the 2013 Comprehensive Plan. I further move to designate the Area and related map as an Urban Development Area (UDA) in accordance with the Code of Virginia, section §15.2-223.1. 2. I move to deny the approval of the Hydraulic Small Area Plan and the designation of the area as an Urban Development Area (UDA) in accordance with the Code of Virginia, section §15.2- 223.1. Project Website http://www.route29solutions.org/panels_meetings/hydraulic_planning_advisory_panel_document s.asp 6|Page Hydraulic Small Area Plan: http://www.route29solutions.org/documents/hydraulic_small_area_plan_final_report_2018-apr- 03.pdf Attachments Resolution Proposed Urban Development Area (UDA) Map 7|Page RESOLUTION OF THE CHARLOTTESVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT OF THE CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO INCLUDE THE HYDRAULIC SMALL AREA PLAN WHEREAS, in joint cooperation with Albemarle County and the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, the City of Charlottesville has developed a proposed Small Area Plan referred to as the 2018 Hydraulic-29 Small Area Plan, which has been developed to serve as an Urban Development Area, as defined in Virginia Code §15.2-2223.1 (“Proposed Small Area Plan”); and WHEREAS, the Proposed Small Area Plan contains two elements: land use and transportation; WHEREAS, after notice given as required by law, the City’s Planning Commission and City Council on April 10, 2018, jointly conducted a public hearing on the Proposed Small Area Plan; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that it should adopt the 2018 Hydraulic-29 Small Area Plan, designate the territory within the boundaries of said plan as an Urban Development Area, and incorporate it as an amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The 2018 Hydraulic-29 Small Area Plan is hereby certified to the City Council for its consideration in accordance with City Code Section 34- 27 (b). Adopted by the Charlottesville Planning Commission, the 10th day of April 2018. Attest: ________________________ Secretary, Charlottesville Planning Commission Attachment: Hydraulic-29 Small Area Plan http://www.route29solutions.org/documents/hydraulic_small_area_plan_final_repo rt_2018-apr-03.pdf