Agenda PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DOCKET TUESDAY, May 8, 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 – March 13 & 14, 2018 – Pre- meeting and Regular meeting 4. Entrance Corridor Review - 1000 East High Street - Ready Kids 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. SP18-00006 - 227 Brookwood Drive – Landowner Diane Anderson has submitted an application pursuant to City Code 34-420, seeking approval of a Special Use Permit (SUP) for this property to authorize a Family Day Home for up to eight (8) children on the Subject Property. The Subject Property is further identified as Tax Map 25A, Parcel 27. The Subject Property has an area of approximately 0.28 acres and has a zoning designation of “R-1S (low-density residential, small-lot). The Subject Property contains a single-family dwelling used for residential occupancy by the Applicant. The City’s Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map for both call for the area to be used and developed for Low Density Residential purposes, at densities no greater than 15 units per acre. Information pertaining to this 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 SUP petition may contact Matt Alfele by email (alfelem@charlottesville.org) or by telephone (434-970-3636). 2. ZM18-00002- 1335, 1337 Carlton Avenue (Carlton Views PUD)- Hydro Falls, LLC, Carlton Views I, LLC, Carlton Views II, LLC, and ADC IV C’ville, LLC (landowners) have submitted an application pursuant to City Code 34-490 et seq., seeking a zoning map amendment to change the zoning district classifications of the following four (4) parcels of land: 1335 Carlton Avenue (Tax Map 56 Parcel 430), 1337 Carlton Avenue (Tax Map 56 Parcel 431), Tax Map 56 Parcel 432, and Tax Map 56 Parcel 433 (together, the “Subject Property”). The Subject Property has frontage on both Carlton Avenue and Franklin Street and are further identified on City Real Property Tax Map 56 Parcels 430, 431, 432, and 433. The entire development contains approximately 4.855 acres or 211,483 square feet. The application proposes to change the zoning classification of the Subject Property from “M-I” (Industrial) to “PUD” (Planned Unit Development) subject to proffered development conditions. The proffered development conditions include: (i) affordable housing: providing affordable and accessible housing units for no less than 20 years in the following ratios: minimum 30% affordable units for residents earning under 60% AMI, minimum 15% of all affordable units for residents earning under 40% AMI, (ii) building design elements: minimum 15% of all affordable units designed to meet UFAS guidelines for accessibility, and minimum 30% of all affordable units designed to meet VHDA guidelines for universal design; entrance feature on all buildings fronting Carlton Avenue; (iii) maximum height of buildings shall not exceed 65 feet; (iv) parking: no additional parking over required City minimums; (v) outdoor lighting: full cut-off lighting; (vi) bus stop or shelter if deemed feasible by CAT; (vii) environmental/ site design: retaining tree canopy on east side of property adjacent to Franklin Street; and pedestrian linkages between buildings, open space and the neighborhood. The PUD Development Plan for this proposed development includes the following key components: approximate location of existing buildings and building envelope for future buildings, a phasing sequence of the development (phase 1 the PACE Center, completed, Phase 2 Carlton Views Apartments, completed, Phase 3 Carlton Views II Apartments, , Phase 4 Carlton Views Apartments). According to the PUD Development Plan, the total proposed density of the project (all phases) will not exceed 32 DUA, for a total of 154 dwelling units. The PUD Development Plan contains details required by City Code, including: a use matrix for each phase, setback/ yard requirements for each phase, parking calculations for residential uses, open space, landscaping, architectural elements, and signage. The City’s Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map calls for the area to be used and developed for Business and Technology uses. The Comprehensive Plan contains no residential density range for the Subject Property. Information pertaining to this 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 SUP petition may contact Matt Alfele by email (alfelem@charlottesville.org) or by telephone (434-970-3636). DEFERRED BY APPLICANT 4/20/2018 3. SP18-00002 – 946 Grady Avenue (Dairy Central) – Landowner Dairy Holdings, LLC, by its agent, has submitted an application seeking approval of a Special Use Permit (SUP) to allow for a mixed use development that will contain multiple buildings (some mixed-use buildings, some single-use buildings). The purpose of the SUP is to authorize residential density up to 60 dwelling units per acre, per City Code Section 34-780(b) within the entire mixed use development site (approximately 4.35 acres), and to authorize an increase in the maximum permitted building height from 50 feet to 65 feet per City Code Section 34-777(2). The Subject Property is identified on City Real Property Tax Map 31 Parcel 60 and has an area of approximately 4.35 acres. The Subject Property has frontage on Grady Avenue, Preston Avenue, 10th Street NW and West Street. The Subject Property is zoned “CC” (Central City Corridor), contains an Individually Protected Property, and is within an Entrance Corridor Overlay District. If a residential density of 60 DUA is granted, that will allow a total of 261 dwelling units within the development site. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map calls for this area to be used and developed for mixed-uses. The Comprehensive Plan specifies that density of residential development should be greater than 15 DUA in this location. 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 special use permit petition may contact Brian Haluska by email (haluska@charlottesville.org) or by telephone (434-970-3186). DEFERRED BY APPLICANT 4/20/2018 IV. COMMISSION’S ACTION ITEMS Continuing: until all action items are concluded 1. Entrance Corridor Review Board a. 10th Street and East High Street: 2. Preliminary Discussion a. 167 Chancellor Street 3. Zoning Text Amendment – Mixed Use in Downtown Extended V. FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE/ADJOURN Tuesday, May 22, 2018 – 5:00 PM Work Session Comprehensive Plan Tuesday, June 12, 2018 – 4:30 PM Pre- Meeting Tuesday, June 12, 2018 – 5:30 PM Regular Special Permit –0 Carlton Meeting Critical Slope Waiver Request – 0 Carlton ZTA – Parking Modified Zone additions Minutes – April 10, 2018 - Pre- meeting and Regular meeting Minutes – April 24, 2018 – Work Session Entrance Corridor - Lexington Avenue and East High Street - Tarleton Oak Anticipated Items on Future Agendas Site Plan - Sunrise Park PUD Phase IV Zoning Text Amendments – Restaurant Drive through in Highway Corridor Entrance Corridor - 916, 920 East High Street & 325 10th Street NE (10th & High), ` Seminole Square shopping center SUP –MACAA (1021 Park Street) Rezoning and Special Permit - 918 Nassau Street (Hogwaller Farm Development) 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 4/1/2018 TO 4/30/2018 1. Preliminary Site Plans 2. Final Site Plans a. Nassau Street – VSPM, Utility, Sidewalk – April 27, 2018 3. Site Plan Amendments a. Longwood Drive (reduce townhomes from 8 to 7) – April 10, 2018 b. JAUNT (104 Keystone Place) – April 11, 2018 c. Preston Court Apartments (1600 Grady Ave) (TMP 5-110) – April 19, 2018 4. Subdivision a. BLA – 413 Ridge Street - April 24, 2018 Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DOCKET TUESDAY, March13, 2018 and Wednesday March 14, 2018 – 5:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS NDS Conference Room I. Commission Pre-Meeting (Agenda discussion(s)) Beginning: 4:30 p.m. Location: City Hall, 2nd Floor, NDS Conference Members Present: Chairman Lisa Green, Commissioners John Santoski, Genevieve Keller, Jody Lahendro, and Taneia Dowell Members Absent: Corey Clayborne Chair Green called the meeting to order at 5:00pm and Ms. Creasy provided an overview of the agenda. Commissioner Keller asked if a work session could be held to discuss the draft comp plan chapters prior to John and Kurt rotating off the Commission. It was determined that this discussion would be included on the April 24th work session and chapter champions would be asked to attend as well as Commissioners starting in June. Chair Green asked if there was any desire to remove any items from the consent agenda. It was noted not at this time. Ms. Creasy provided an explanation of the actions needed for the Comprehensive Plan amendment request. Commissioner Solla-Yates asked about the public process to determine Scenario one. Commissioner Keesecker, who was a member of the committee, provided background information. Questions were asked concerning the public hearing on Nassau Street including a request for information on the status of the County application. II. Commission Regular Meeting Beginning: 5:30 p.m. Location: City Hall, 2nd Floor, Council Chambers Members Present: Chairman Lisa Green, Commissioners Genevieve Keller, Jody Lahendro, Kurt Keesecker, John Santoski and Taneia Dowell Members Absent: Corey Clayborne A. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS Commissioner Lahendro: reported he attended the Housing Advisory Committee, 1/17 • Staff reported on progress to update the Consolidated Plan & Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice. This is a plan created and managed by the city and TJ HOME Consortium which includes representatives from the TJ Planning Commission region. HUD requires periodic updates to this plan that guides the use of Federal grants that assist low to moderate income persons. HAC, 2/21 • Mostly an organizational meeting to establish five committees which will be responsible for the bulk of HAC’s work. • Appointed committee members • Discussed vacancies and relevant organizations not currently represented Planning and Coordination Council Technical Committee (PACC/Tech), 1/18 • Reports by city, county and UVA representatives on current projects • Presentation on “Transportation and Transit Priorities” by TJ Planning District Commission. • Focused on Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Strategic Plan, completed in 2017and available on website. Tree Commission, 2/6 • Unable to attend Tree Commission, 3/6 • Arbor Day ceremony at Venable School, 4/27, 10:00 am. • Current CIP proposed to Council: 1) Downtown Mall cultural landscape report $50K; 2) Tree planting $50K; 3) Downtown Mall tree preservation $100K; 4) Tree maintenance in P&R operations $50K • Subcommittee planning neighborhood meeting. Commissioner Keller: reported she attended the monthly meeting of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission in which we renewed the director’s contact and we approved the annual resolution for the ride share program. The statistics say if people who commute would ride share once a week, we would reduce our single vehicle trips by 20%. She also attended the PLACE Task Force meeting this month, and she is sharing that there are several members of the task force who are very interest in helping the Planning Commission with its community engagement chapter. Commissioner Dowell: reported on Tuesday, January 16th she attended the CDBG Task Force meeting where they went through all of the applications for the grant, and decided based on a point metric system which should receive funding and how it should be allocated. She said we found as task members that those who are applying for grants should try to answer the questions as accurately as possible, in hopes that the scores are higher and would make it a little easier for the task force. She said we enjoy what we do and look forward to next year. Commissioner Keesecker: reported he attended two meetings. The first one was a series of meetings related to Hydraulic and 29 efforts for the Small Area Plan with TJPDC, VDOT and our County colleagues. There was an open house last Thursday, March 8th at CHS that took community comments and it was well attended. Some of the data is being compiled now and will be available on the Hydraulic and 29 website very soon. We as the Planning Commission will meet with City Council on March 22, 2018 to have a presentation and to discuss that plan in more detail. He said the open house last week presented three options that are being considered by the steering committee with two recommended for consideration and one less preferred but all three were presented and a lot of the comments that are coming back are either confirming or fine tuning the recommendations by the Advisory Council. When we meet with City Council, one thing we need to keep in mind is to help with the scoring of the funding of the project at Hydraulic and 29. The City will have to undertake an urban development area designation for that area. We have UDA’s in the city now but Hydraulic and 29 is not one of them. To be able to increase the possibility of that project being scored higher in the smart scale process, staff will be helping us understanding what designating a new UDA would mean. He met with the Master Planning Council that is a joint city, UVA and the County which met on March 7th. He said the last time we met there was a question about the softball field in the University Circle or Lambeth Field area which has now been taken off the table by the Board of Visitors. We were given a presentation by the Office of the Architect and staff on four capital programs that the University is presently pursuing. One of them is Brandon Ave which we are familiar with because it involves the street closing. The second is the Ivy corridor which is from Emmet Street to Alderman, and there are options that are being considered, but it is a considerable change in uses there by that big parking garage. The third one was the work at Ivy Mountain which is property a little further West on 250 for an orthopedics center extensively on some property up the side of the slope, and the last is a Master Plan for the Athletics District which includes a softball field that is currently being looked at on the corner of Massey and Copley. It is where the current practice soccer field is. He said other studies are ongoing at the University including an academic space study, an administrative space study and a parking and transit study that might play well and give us some information for our Comp Plan going forward. Commissioner Santoski: reported next Monday the Belmont Bridge Steering Committee is meeting from 6-8 at City Space and next Monday March 20th, a public meeting at TJPDC in the Water’s Street Center will be held for the City of Charlottesville and the Thomas Jefferson Home Consortium to make a new plan for its federal housing resources from 5-6:30 pm. B. UNIVERSITY REPORT, Brian Hogg: reported on the recent Board of Visitors meeting. They did vote to locate the new softball field at the corner of Massey. The design will be reviewed by the Board in June, and they hope to have that facility opened by the 2020 season. As part of the planning for the athletic complex, the Board has also approved the demolition of University Hall. He said they are working to document the building. There will be substantial abatement before it’s removed. The Board of Visitors did design Ivy Mountain and reviewed a design at their meeting a couple of weeks ago. We are also looking forward to discussions with the city staff on the smart scale plan for Emmet Street meeting; and there will be a meeting next Friday to kick that off. Gennie Keller: reported she recently had an opportunity to review the building committee minutes from the University and found them quite interesting and illuminating. She wonders if the planning commission could perhaps have an annual or semi-annual meeting with the City, County and the University to try to revive some of the spirit of the three party agreement to think about these very significant projects that are coming from the University that are going to affect the entire region particularly transportation, housing and other things. This could be something to think about as we are going through the Comp Plan process to try to make reference because the University is our major employer both in the City and in the region. She said what happens there really affect us and vice versus. She said maybe we should be more aware of what’s coming down the pipeline in the building committee. CHAIR'S REPORT, Lisa Green: She attended the Rivanna Steering Committee meeting to discuss the next steps to move forward based off the Technical Review Committee for the Rivanna River Corridor. They have done a lot of technical work on historical sites, environmental sites, critical resource map, and existing parks and trails. She said they will be looking at more connections, proposed boat launches and bridges. This was the initial meeting to try to go over what the Technical Committee had done and there is a web page. Open the TJPDC web page and look for Rivanna River Corridor web page. She reported the next day she went to an E. High Streetscape project meeting. It is a project related to part of E. High and 9th; and some of Market Street that is adjacent to the Belmont Bridge project. It was submitted for and received Smart Scale funding. It will cover from 9th and Market, up to 7th street and 9th down to Lexington in that intersection; and all the way down to 10th on E. High. There is a project website for this as well. On April 21st, there will be a neighborhood summit where you can come and give your ideas and look at where things are now, take a walking tour, and a streetscape summit (like an open house). There will be a metro- quest survey much like the Belmont Bridge survey but that won’t open up until mid-April around the 13th or 14th. The Citizens Transportation Advisory Commission meeting was cancelled in February due to weather, and the next meeting is Wednesday March 21, 2018 at the Water Street Center from 7-9 pm. On March 22nd, we will have a joint meeting with City Council. C. DEPARTMENT OF NDS Missy Creasy: said regarding the March 22nd meeting, we have not received any specific materials and if we do receive something we will let you guys know. In the ad, I did put the link to the project so that folks can peruse that for the information. She said you will get a preview tomorrow night of the Hydraulic 29 transportation portion and then have the joint session on the 22nd. At your April meeting materials will come forward for adoption as a UDA, and we could accept the entire city as a UDA because of the density allowance, so, we won’t have any problem complying and adopting the plan as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Regular work session for March 27th is the only meeting scheduled to brief/prepare for our May meetings. We are sorting through comments and trying to synthesize those. We received a number of comments on this process, and have incorporated those into one document. We will reserve the 27th for you to think about it and we’ll talk about it some tomorrow night. The May dates are scheduled and advertised and the first one is May 1st. D. MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE FORMAL AGENDA 1011 E Jefferson Street 1. Greg Jackson: 1121 Little High Street said The Little High Neighborhood Association’s position and complaint is simply the substantial changes that occurred after the Planning Commission (PC) meeting of 10/11/16 warranted a modification of the SUP and therefore should have gone back to Planning Commission rather than forward to the City Council (CC) meeting of 7/5/17. Can a project change substantially in an appeal process? If so, then the system/procedure is flawed and invalid. If so please provide the appropriate language that supports this process. Ms. Robertson briefly addressed this and cited Va. Code § 15.2-2285 as justification. Our interpretation of Va. Code § 15.2-2285. Is it only relates to the legislative process for building a zoning code or ordinance by –right. The Planning Commission of each locality’ does not address working within an existing code or ordinance for a specific project approval. Paragraph C has been cited to us by NDS (Ms. Robertson was not as specific) and states that: 'the governing body may make appropriate changes or corrections in the ordinance or proposed amendment.’ The applicant is not a governing body, the change in question is substantial and not appropriate, and it involves a SUP appeal and not an ordinance or proposed amendment. Please clarify how this applies or direct us to the correct code/language. The majority of the citizens (without connections to the project...) and the Planning Commission were alarmed by the substantial changes that occurred after the City Council called for it to go back to the Planning Commission. The neighborhood wanted the 11th street massing to come down but was shocked by the 10th Street massing going up to 5 stories. It is a misnomer to claim it was to address concerns that had been expressed regarding the massing and scale of the building. This change in height is in fact above the stated maximum height of 45’ of the B-1 zoning. The developer’s team used a loophole that is now, as noted by Ms. Robertson, no longer allowed by the city. 2. Kate Bennis – I.SINGLE WOMEN WITH SEVERLY DISABLED CHILDREN WHO LIVE IN POVERTY a. Some: Access to Services—houses, ambulance transportation to hospital for appointments, 1 month respite b. Others: Funding cut, back to work for 7.00/hour find nurse for 28.00/hour c. Read and learned rules and regulations d. Color of skin? Level of education? English as first language? KLARA Case Manager, an advocate II. Neighborhood Association faced with sudden growth and development asked learn from us WHAT HAPPENED? a. HOW DID WE END UP WITH i. 5 story building in an area where recommended height is half that—2 ½ floors. ii. 126 units in area zoned for 30 units. iii. NO promise of mixed use in B1 business district “established to provide service-type businesses and offices.” iv. NO promise of affordable units on site—put in cheaper building. v. EVEN THOUGH the MIXED USE and AFFORDABLE UNITS were the main issues cited by the 3 City Council members as the reason they APPROVED the SUP? b. WHAT HAPPENED? i. How is it that something so egregious, so out of proportion, and with hundreds of citizen voices opposing it, the Planning Commission opposing it, get the go-ahead from the City Council? ii. Who is supposed to be monitoring this process for the residents? Who is our Advocate? Who is our Klara? III. WHAT HAPPENED? a. I have learned that the rules and regulations, the zoning codes, terms such as “appropriate,” “transitional,” “harmonious,” “substantial,” and even how to measure height, are left largely up to interpretation. As we know, NDS, Planning Commission, and City Council are often unclear on the definitions. The developers and owners can spend their working hours and their money to hire brilliant legal representation—they can buy their own Klara. i. And of course, there is nothing ethically wrong with a business trying to maximize profit—that’s their job. ii. What is ethically wrong is a government system that does not balance the inherent power and persuasion that comes with money and maintains a process that favors business over the people. IV. We are asking for those who are listening to do the right thing by the city, to have clear boundaries with industry, and to bring back the SUP for 1011 East Jefferson Street for another public hearing at Planning Commission and then back to City Council for another vote. 3. Michael Payne: said he is speaking on participatory budgeting and the community engagement section of the Comprehensive Plan. The City Council has approved a pilot program for participatory budgeting this year and codifying it in the Comprehensive Plan could provide a great way to have it be more of a permanent part of community engagement in Charlottesville. Also exploring and really having the community land trust as part of the Comprehensive Plan and strategy for affordable housing. He said he is not sure of a public hearing, but he has some concerns regarding Hogwaller Farm development project that the changes in the Special Use Permit request does not fit with the plan right now in terms of transitioning low density residential to Highway Corridor and then transferring low density residential into more higher density into the Comprehensive plan allows for. Likewise there are some issues in Albemarle County where the Special Use Permits he has requested are not providing enough area for streams and that is just a major concern when that comes up later tonight. 4. Ms. Creasy presented the schedule for the public meetings occurring in May: Tuesday, May 1, 2018 6pm-8pm Buford Middle School, Cafeteria Thursday, May 10, 2018 12pm-2pm City Space, Main Meeting Room Saturday, May 12, 2018 10am-12pm Central Library, McIntire Room Tuesday, May 29, 2018 5:30-7:30pm Belmont Arts Collaborative 221 Carlton Rd Suite 3, Charlottesville, VA 22902 E. CONSENT AGENDA (Items removed from the consent agenda will be considered at the end of the regular agenda) 1. Minutes – January 9, 2018 – Pre- meeting and Regular meeting 2. Minutes – November 28, 2017 - Work Session 3. Minutes – January 3, 2018 - Work Session 4. Minutes –January23, 2018 – Work Session Commissioner Santoski moved to accept the Consent Agenda, Seconded by Commissioner Keesecker, motion passes 6-0. Vice Mayor Heather Hill gaveled in City Council. 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 Staff Report 1. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Funding—Report prepared by Tierra Howard, Grants Coordinator. As part of the CDBG public participation process, the Planning Commission must provide recommendations to City Council on all Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) funding recommendations. Attached you will find the proposed allocations for FY 18-19 CDBG and HOME programs. These recommendations are based on CDBG Task Force recommendations for Housing and Public Service activities, the Strategic Action Team for Economic Development activities, and the Belmont and Ridge Street Priority Neighborhood Task Force. Also attached you will find copies of meeting minutes where you can find the recommendations. We were expecting $388,000 in CDBG funds as well as HOME funds with the city required match. Recommendations came from Council to designate Belmont and Ridge Street to be priority neighborhoods and the action plan identifies how to allocate funds to these neighborhoods. For Economic Development, $45,000 is recommended in the first year of the action plan. Questions: Chair Green: asked what is the timing for the neighborhoods that are receiving the funding? How does Council want to divide the funds? Ms. Howard: said the budgeting process is similarly to the review of undertaken by the CDBG Task Force but with neighborhood representatives. Commissioner Santoski recused himself from the vote because the Arc of the Piedmont was one of the agencies that had applied for funding. He said he wanted to let folks know that this is a really good process to go through and CDBG/HOMEfunding has been a benefit to the Arc in the past. He said sometimes we forget the people with disabilities who live in our communities who are some of our lowest income and most vulnerable populations. The CDBG funding has been very beneficial to help maintain those folks in our community from day to day. We have all of these conversations about affordable housing and the disability community has not done as well to remind folk that often the disabled fall well below the poverty level in many categories. Open the Public Hearing There were no speakers. Closed the public Hearing Commissioner Keller thanked Ms. Dowell for being our representative.She was the representative for several years and it takes a lot of time but it is a very valuable program. She dittos what Commissioner Santoski said. Commissioner Dowell moved to approve the fiscal year 2018/2019 CDBG & HOME Budget Allocations as recommended by the CDBG Task Force and Strategic Action Team as outlined in the Planning Commission Packet for March 13, 2018, with the following conditions: That the City adjusts for actual CDBG entitlement amounts as received from HUD in which funding allocations will be increased/reduced at the same pro-rated percentage actual entitlement to be estimated and no agency will increase more than their initial funding request; seconded by Commissioner Keller, motion passes 5-0-1. (Commissioner Santoski recused from the vote) 2. SP18-00001 - 901 River Road SUP Request - Robert High Development, LLC, contract purchaser, and landowner River Road Plaza, LLC, have submitted an application seeking approval of a Special Use Permit (SUP) request for the property located at 901 River Road with road frontage on River Road and Belleview Avenue. Staff Report: Heather Newmyer said the item before you tonight is a request for a special use permit for a self- storage company at property addressed 901 River Road, Tax Map 49 Parcel 98 (“Subject Property”). The Subject Property is a little over 2 acres and is zoned Industrial Corridor. Throughout the City’s Zoning Ordinance, there are certain uses listed that require a special use permit in order to be permitted within a particular zoning district – where a special use permit allows for additional regulation beyond general requirements should the SUP be approved. In the Industrial Corridor District - a special use permit is required for a self-storage company according to Sec. 34-480. When reviewing special use permits for recommendation of approval or denial, Planning Commission is to look for: • Whether the proposed development will be harmonious with existing patterns of use and development • Whether the proposed use conforms to the city’s comprehensive plan • Whether the proposed use or development will be in harmony with the purposes of the specific zoning district in which it will be placed • Whether the proposed use of development will have potential adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood and, if so, whether there are reasonable conditions of approval that would mitigate such impacts. Applicants Justin Shimp, Valerie Long, Robert High gave a PowerPoint presentation. Valerie Long: representing the applicant: said she was not involved in the project from the beginning so she cannot take credit for all of the changes that they have made. All of the changes are 1) they went to the committee meetings and were very well received and incorporated much of the feedback from that meeting into their application; 2) they also incorporated the very specific feedback that they received from the commission at their prior meeting about the absence of uses. Staff found that to be a good addition and we agree. She said there have been some questions about mixed use and does this count as mixed use. Please keep in mind the zoning in this district is industrial corridor; it is not one of the cities mixed use zoning districts so the applicant volunteered to include that and we do think it makes sense but she asks that you keep in mind not the analyze it in the context of a typical mixed use district because it is not one. It is a very industrial area. She said this area needs a face-lift. Open the Public Hearing There were no speakers. Closed the Public Hearing Discussion Commissioner Dowell: said we have a lengthy agenda tonight so we need to keep the applicant report to the 10 minutes allotted. She said this plan is much better than what came to us the first time. She noted that Ms. Long continued to state zoning and if we go off the definition of mixed use based on the zoning in the city then it should be residential and commercial not a mix of commercial uses. Commissioner Keesecker: said the zoning is industrial and the special use permit is for a use that is not allowed in industrial. He said there is no requirement in industrial zoning that a mix of uses is present but one of the criteria for the Comp Plan was a mix of uses. Ms. Creasy: said a mixed use and a mix of uses is a nuance of wording but can be different. Mixed use in the code has a specific definition which the notes a combination of residential and some other use whereas a mix of uses in the Comprehensive Plan is a bit broader. Commissioner Lahendro: said yes it is mostly an industrial neighborhood; a lot of activity going in and out, businesses conducting business, an underutilized area but it is still active. He then looks at this purposed use; 107,000 square feet. He does not see it comparable to the uses in this neighborhood. Commissioner Keller: agrees with Commissioner Lahendro regarding the lack of activity. It is a SUP and there are reasons why storage units would be only allowed by special use. This is an area that has potential to realize something more significant in the future then warehousing. She doesn’t think her opinion of this project has changed since the last time we reviewed it. Commissioner Santoski: said it is pretty well summed up; it is zoned for industrial use and he can see where self- storage units seem to fit in with the general area and looking at the facts, the general land use specifies business and technology. He said once it goes in there, it is in there for many years and the ability of that being transformed into something else is probably not going to be happening soon. That is why a special use permit is attached to storage units. He is not favoring the SUP. Commissioner Santoski moved to recommend denial of SP-1800001 seconded by Commissioner Lahendro, motion passes 6-0. 3. ZM17-00003 – 0 Monticello Road- Henningsen Kestner Architects, on behalf of Richard Spurzem, the owner of the property, has submitted a rezoning petition for 0 Monticello Road, which is also identified on City Real Property Tax Map 61 as Parcel 265.A (“Subject Property”). Staff Report: Carrie Rainey: The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the Subject Property to the R-1S single-family “small lot” district to better fit within the surrounding predominantly residential neighborhood and to accommodate the construction of a single family detached dwelling. The Subject Property is currently zoned M-I commercial district, which is a district established to allow for light industrial uses with minimum impacts to the environment. The 2013 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map indicates the Subject Property should be a high-density residential use. The small lot size and frontage makes the development of high density residential multi-family use difficult. Staff finds the proposed rezoning is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, but may contribute to other goals within the Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, including Goal 2.1: When considering changes to land use regulations, respect nearby residential areas. Open the Public Hearing Deborah Jackson: said she is representing the Belmont Carlton Neighborhood Association. She said we have no objection to this but we would like more interactive community engagement with all developments that go on within Belmont Carlton. This particular one was 9:00 in the morning on a week day and it’s difficult for residents and the community to be engaged in discussion in a meeting at that time. We have asked in our letter for the PLACE Design Task Force take a look at what the protocols are around involving the community. Councilor Bellamy: asked why did you choose to have a community meeting at 9:00 a.m. on a week day? Mr. Henningsen: said we knew they had meeting on the second Monday of the month. We had a conflict and we didn’t want to wait until the next one. We tried to schedule a meeting at the very beginning of the day or the very end of the day so it would not be inconvenience for someone to be out of town. Councilor Bellamy: Did you have any participants? Mr. Henningsen: yes, we had the property owners who were supportive of our request. We had the President and Vice-president of the neighborhood association who we presented the project to and they didn’t seem to have any objections or questions. Later we gave them the materials that we presented so they could present it at the neighborhood meeting. We told them if there were any questions or anything we would be happy to answer. That wasn’t intentional. Councilor Bellamy: said it is important that as we move forward with development that we try to fit the schedules of the residents and the people in the community as opposed to have them fit your schedule because you are actually coming into their space. Closed the Public Hearing Commissioner Keller: said it seems reasonable other than the loss of the critical slope waiver but that is something inherent in our code and we can’t address that. It is a very small lot and doesn’t seem that the neighborhood has great objections and the objections they have would probably apply to almost any other lot on that street were it to re- develop under its current zoning to its maximum allowable limits. Chair Green: said this looks like it makes sense but it does not conform to our Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Dowell: said what he is proposing is harmonious with the neighborhood but also knowing that we need housing; would there be any way to get higher density on such a small lot. Ms. Creasy: said maybe we could get an explanation to why it is zoned the way it is. This parcel is a residue of the larger M-I parcel that is beside it. It has been zoned M-I for a very long time. She is not sure when that piece was chopped off, but has had the same zoning and classification since 1958, though the majority of that time it was a part of that larger M-I parcel. Ms. Rainey: said while the application is not part of the general land use plan; in the Comprehensive Plan, staff noted several areas of the Comprehensive Plan which the rezoning maybe in line with the goals within the land use, housing and transportation, and historical and designs chapters. Commissioner Lahendro move to recommend approval of this application to rezone the subject property (Tax Map 61, Parcel 265.A) from M‐I zoning district to R‐1S zoning district, on the basis that the proposal would serve the interests of the general public and good zoning practice; Seconded by Commissioner Dowell, motions passes 6-0 4. SP17-00003 – 0 Carlton Road – Stony Point Design/Build, LLC, as the owner of the Subject Property, has submitted an application seeking approval of a Special Use Permit (SUP) request to allow for multi-family residential use up to 21 dwelling units per acre per City Code Section 34-480 and a reduction of the minimum required front yard setback from 20-feet to 0-feet per City Code Section 34-162(a) at 0 Carlton Road, also identified on City Real Property Tax Map 57 Parcels 123.69, 123.701, 123.71 and Tax Map 61 Parcel 2.2 (“Subject Property”). The Subject Property has frontage on Carlton Road and Monticello Road. The site is zoned M-I Industrial. The property is approximately 0.623 acres or 27,138 square feet. A residential density of 19.26 units per acre is proposed (up to 21 DUA by SUP can be requested) for a total of 12 units. The Land Use Plan calls for High-Density Residential. The Comprehensive Plan specifies density greater than 15 units per acre Chair Green: said on your application plan, you show that the bulbout is across the street. Is that your plan? Applicant: said that one exists and was put in by the city 3 years ago. Chair Green: questioned have you experienced that street about 8:00 am or 4:30-5:00 pm? Applicant: yes. Commissioner Keesecker: asked them to talk about the mix of housing types that were mentioned and about the townhomes. Applicant: On top of the commercial space we have 8 one bedroom apartments; they are small (about 800 sq. ft.). Subject to approval of the project, his concept was to have 4 townhouses and single family housing. Due to constraints of the site, we will need to condo the units. They are referred to in the staff report as condominium essentially selling them as townhouses. Open the Public Hearing Morgan Butler, Southern Environmental Law Center: We came tonight primarily to learn more about the proposal but also feel compelled to raise some environmental concerns based on our review of the application packet available online. I first want to point out that we’re not opposed to higher-density residential or mixed-use development on this site. Indeed, we feel it would offer some nice advantages compared to many of the uses allowed by-right on these parcels. However, this is a challenging site to develop from an environmental standpoint and an even more challenging site to develop intensely and we have pretty serious concerns about the impact to critical slopes shown in the applicant’s plans. Even with pushing the building site right up to the property line as requested in the application, one of the site plan sheets indicates that over 70% of the critical slopes on the site – or roughly 10,000 of the 14,000 square feet of slopes – would be disturbed. As a result, we questioned whether this site is an appropriate one for this much land disturbance. With no critical slope waiver having been submitted, it’s difficult at this point to weigh the different factors articulated in the critical slopes waiver provisions, or to assess mitigation strategies that could potentially help justify a waiver though it does seem clear from the applicant’s low-impact development worksheet and the staff report that no LID stormwater measures are being considered. So even though we’re not opposed to the proposed uses, we do think it’s important for the Commission to have a good sense of whether you could recommend the critical slopes waiver needed for this project before you recommend approval of the special use permit, and we don’t see how there is enough information available at this point to make that call in an informed way. Deborah Jackson: from the Belmont Carlton Neighborhood Association, referencing again from the same letter, said we would like to recognize and applaud Mr. Shimp for how often he has been to our neighborhood association and come back and engaged us and has been a terrific model and I wanted to make sure he was recognized here. She said she was interested in hearing about the community gathering space and she is interested in what that would be because there is a need from time to time for a place that people can meet for neighborhood meetings and for things that need discussion. She said it is not appropriate to use Belmont Carlton logo on your presentation. Closed the Public Hearing Commissioner Keller: expressed how we previously had some discussion in pre-meeting about the critical slope waiver application and why that was not part of this submission. It seems to me in the past generally paired, and that does concern her. She would like for staff to shed some more light on that. Ms. Creasy: said it is a timing issue. The applicant has three different things that need to take place in order to fully move forward with their application. They have chosen to come forward and see what the response would be on the SUP for moving forward with the other pieces of the application, but it does create a conundrum that the information isn’t present and maybe used in this information for the SUP. Staff has set up the report in such a way that there are a number of conditions that would be recommended if Planning Commission recommended move forward with the SUP and those would include successfully obtaining of both the right of way and the critical slope waiver. If those were not obtained then the special use permit would not be able to move forward because they would not have the land and that is a potential option. Chair Green: asked if the approval of the SUP offers the opportunity to tear down all of the trees prior to getting a critical slop waiver. Ms. Creasy: said no because you would have to have the critical slope waiver and the right of way acquisition in order to have a complete site plan and in order to get a land disturbance permit you would have a complete site plan and an E&S plan. The rules and the laws are different than in the circumstance that you are noting which is good overall for a lot of factors. Commissioner Keller: said she would like to know moving into the motion stage could there be a SUP depending on success completion of a critical slope waiver. Chair Green: said if the critical slope waiver did not happen then this approval would be recommending approval based on these conditions. Ms. Creasy: said those conditions are completely outlined for consideration and recommending approval based on these conditions. If you can’t meet these criteria then you don’t have an SUP and you cannot have an approved site plan unless you have the critical slope waiver or you have the acquisition because you won’t have an approval. Ms. Rainey said the applicant has requested if the 10 feet setback is being considered they would be allowed to defer regarding that issue. Chris Henry said thanks for your consideration. The things they are bringing to this corner for this project as proposed right now with a Special Use Permit as opposed to any other case or project that we would conceive of that was on the list is public improvements to the already busy intersection, wider sidewalks, street trees, eyes on the street, creating a safer intersection, creating a neighborhood gathering place. Those are the things on the table right now that wouldn’t otherwise be. It is an unpleasant place to be right now because of the existing state of that site. He would argue that we are trying to make some pretty dramatic improvement to it. Our major concern with the conditions imposed in this report with the setback specifically is with that every foot of setback is pushing this building away from the street going into critical slope and in our opinion we are decreasing the vibrancy of that public space so we ask the Commission to consider that carefully. That is one of the main reasons we are proposing that this project be located as proposed. We think the critical slope waiver is appropriate at the site plan phase, asking to do that first and then go to this process. We need to know where the building is going to go because it impacts where the critical slopes are. Commissioner Keller moved to defer this application, for a Special Use Permit at 0 Carlton Road to permit multi- family development; Seconded by Commissioner Lahendro, motioned passes 4-2. (Opposed: Commissioner Keesecker and Commissioner Santoski) 5. ZM-17-00004 - 1206 Carlton Avenue – Justin Shimp (Shimp Engineering) on behalf of Chris Hulett (owners of 1206 Carlton Ave) has submitted a rezoning petition for 1206 Carlton Avenue (Subject Property). The rezoning petition proposes a change in zoning from the existing R-2 Two- family Residential to R-3 Multi-family with no proffered development conditions. The Subject Property is further identified on City Real Property Tax Map 57 Parcels 127. The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject property from R-2 to R-3 and is congruently requesting a Special Use Permit for increased density and modified setbacks to facilitate the development of an apartment building with six (6) two-bedroom units and supporting parking. Under the current zoning the subject property could accommodate one (1) two-family dwelling. If rezoned to R-3 the subject property DUA would be: By-right: twenty-one (21) DUA = five (5) units on the subject property Special Use Permit (maximum) eighty-seven (87) DUA = twenty-two (22) units on the subject property. The proposed development, as described in the SUP application (SP17-00008), will allow a maximum of six (6) dwelling units (0.26 acres X 24 = 6 units based on preliminary data). There is a rezoning and a SUP for this site. If the rezoning does not move forward with a positive recommendation, the SUP cannot have a positive recommendation. Mr. Shimp: said I think we need more housing like this in the city, because when you look at what’s around, you’ve got big projects like City Walk, and they’re nice, I suppose, and they’re expensive, and it doesn’t cater to all the housing needs we have in the community. Commissioner Lahendro: said this is the kind of housing we’ve been talking about in our Comprehensive Plan process of the city needing that small complexes can help increase the overall housing supply. Open the Public Hearing 1. Peter Krebs: said there has been discussion about this piece and how it fits within the building contract. He is here not to support the applicant, but he points out that the social context of the street without doing intense research, he is guessing that it’s market affordable which is pretty rare multi-family. So when talking about the building topology being consistent, he thinks it also directs the building to be used in a way that is socially consistent too. There is a school maybe 100 meters away from there, until Kathy’s Produce closed, there would have been a grocery store within 75 meters from there.Hopefully we will have that again. When we think about what we could do for affordability for the market this seems like from where he sits, a pretty good idea. It seems like it could be pretty cool. 2. Deborah Jackson: said she is not speaking about this specifically, we don’t object to it, but we would like to bring attention to it. She said that these projects while filled with good intentions are being built in our neighborhoods with narrow streets, limited and narrow sidewalks and in some cases a scarce on-street parking. We feel that for these and future projects to be successfully integrated into our neighborhood, a strong financial commitment from the city is necessary to improve the pedestrian and vehicle infrastructure to support them thereby easing the burden on the existing neighborhood fabric. These little pockets are being developed without the overall intention being paid to the infrastructure, and somehow attention to the entire fabric is what we would like to have attention paid to. We are also delighted for the discussion of the Community Development Block Grants because all 4 of these projects are located within designated low to moderate percentage income block grants. Three of them are in block grants with the 2nd highest to lowest medium income percentages and again this area of the city is often overlooked, and has great potential and deserves your attention and funding. Close the Public Hearing Discussion Commissioner Keesecker said Mr. Krebs makes some good points in the long term. He referenced the Jason Pearson teeter totter diagram which gives us threw some sticky things, the Comp Plans things are put in place in 2003 – 2013 intended for this area, weighing that to what is on the ground. Commissioner Keller: asked what the rent would be? Mr. Shimp explained that while affordable housing was not required on the property, the intention was affordability. The proposed residential density is not enough to trigger the city’s requirements. He said he had been working with the housing folks, and the affordable rate for two bedrooms must be $1,100 a month, referring to federal guidelines on affordability. As I see this project, it’s right in that range. Commissioner Dowell: said maybe that’s affordable to some people, but for most people who are needing this housing, $1,100 for a small two-bedroom is not affordable, Commissioner Santoski said he agrees with Ms. Keller. Creating unusual spots, it is the same issue where neighbors say approving the project with parking a block away. Push people toward mass transit, and walking places faster than taking the bus. Where are you going to put the cars? Honestly that is not happening, parking along Carlton creates more animosity with Belmont. Please take into consideration about the parking. Chair Green: said she lives near the project site and asked were there any considerations based off of the entire community of children that walk to Clark Elementary School from there, since there is only sidewalk on one side of Carlton Avenue, and you have to cross the street there in order to gain access to the school? Ms. Creasy said that the traffic engineer who had looked at the project for the city was not concerned about the location. This is a very small site with very low traffic impacts, reading from the traffic engineer’s statement. Commissioners were focused on potential traffic issues within the project on Carlton Avenue. The development would have seven parking spaces, with an entrance from the street, and an exit on a private alley. Commissioner Lahendro: said this is not the only street like this in the city. I live on a street that is supposedly a two- lane street, but parking on one side blocked it down to one lane. People go too fast and there are no sidewalks. He thought offering fewer parking spaces would push residents to walk, bike, or ride a bus to work. I don’t know that I want to see a city that has apartments surrounded by asphalt all over the place. Commissioner Santoski said that perspective was not realistic. He said if you have two people living in an apartment,in most casesboth people have an automobile. Most people are not going to give up their cars right away. He said that he had heard about parking concerns from many residents in downtown Belmont after the establishment of The Local, Mas Tapas, and other restaurants. Residents say that customers park in front of their houses, leaving homeowners to park elsewhere. Something like this actually has less parking than it needs and you’re putting it on a narrow street and you’re pushing everybody else into the surrounding neighborhoods. Commissioner Santoski moved to recommend denial of this application to rezone the subject property from R-2 to R- 3, on the basis that the proposal would not service the interests of the general public and good zoning practice. Seconded by Commissioner Dowell, motion passes 4-2. (Commissioners Jody Lahendro and Kurt Keesecker voted no) SP17-00008 - 1206 Carlton Avenue – Justin Shimp (Shimp Engineering) on behalf of Chris Hulett (owners of 1206 Carlton Ave) has submitted an application seeking approval of a Special Use permit (SUP) for 1206 Carlton Avenue (Subject Property). The SUP application proposes increasing the density from a By-Right 21 Dwelling Units per Acres (DUA) to 24 DUA (per City Code Section 34-420) and adjusting the southeastern side setback from 10’ to 8’ (per City Code Section 34-162(a)). The applicant is requesting a rezoning (see petition ZM-17- 00004) and a SUP to build a 6 unit apartment. The Subject Properties are further identified on City Real Property Tax Map 57 Parcels 127. The Subject approximately 0.26 acres. The Land Use Plan calls for Low Density Residential. The applicant is proposing an apartment building with six (6) two-bedroom units and seven (7) parking spaces. The modification to the side yard requirement is to accommodate a one-way driveway to the north of the apartment building. Commissioner Keller move to recommend denial of this application for a Special Use Permit in the R-2 to R3, on the basis that the first motion failed. Seconded by Commissioner Santoski, motion passes 6-0. Planning Commission is in recess at 9:50 pm. to return tomorrow night March 14th at 5:00 pm PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DOCKET Continued WEDNESDAY, March 14, 2018 at 5:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Commission Pre-Meeting (Agenda discussion(s)) Beginning: 5:00 p.m. Location: City Hall, 2nd Floor, NDS Conference IV. COMMISSION’S ACTION ITEMS Continuing: until all action items are concluded – beginning at 5:30 P.M. Matters By the Public - None 1. Site Plan – 1011 East Jefferson Street Site Plan Staff Report: Carrie Rainey Scott Collins of Collins Engineering, LLC, acting as agent for Jefferson Medical Building Limited Partnership and Great Eastern Management, is requesting approval of a preliminary site plan to construct a mixed‐use building with up to 127 residential units at 1011 E Jefferson (TMP 54‐ 127). City Council approved a Special Use Permit (SP16‐00001) with conditions for additional residential density on July 5, 2017. Chair Green: stated we have a conceptual plan and we have a preliminary site plan and our charge tonight is to determine whether this preliminary site plan is in substantial accord with what was submitted. Ms. Creasy: said staff provides you with a standard of review and approval of a site plan is a ministerial function over which the Planning Commission has little or no discretion. Commissioner Keller: said she had voted against the permit, and she expected the neighborhood would be disappointed. However, city staff had convinced her that the commission’s choices were limited. She noted that after a conversation with our City Attorney, and those of Ms. Rainey earlier this evening have convinced her that this is in compliance sufficiently with what council approved against our recommendations. She said we really have no choice rather than to vote on this tonight. Commissioner Keller: asked could you summarize any changes of other members of staff, review the site plan for consistency with Council. Ms. Rainey: said the driveway or private driveway additional plantscape has been added point to point to the property shown in the driveway that is the only difference. Commissioner Lahendro moved to recommend approval of a preliminary site plan to construct a mixed‐use building with up to 127 residential units at 1011 E Jefferson (TMP 54‐ 127). on the basis that the proposal would service the interests of the general public and good zoning practice, Seconded by Commissioner Keller, recognizing the considerable effort by the neighborhood in the gray areas when ordinances changes, motion passes 5-0. 1. Entrance Corridor Review Board (ERB) – 912 East High Street The applicant: Justin Shimp – wants to provide the following changes to the office building: a. Paint the building white; using an appropriate paint b. replace with a new awning over the north entrance c. hard brick, fire brick, unlike boulder brick d. a lime paint permeable Commissioner Lahendro made a motion to accept as presented, seconded by Commissioner Keesecker, to include an appropriate paint, better paint allows moisture vapor line base paint, hard brick, fire brick, unlike boulder brick, stopping moisture behind it and damage the brick take a lot of abuse, a lime paint permeable; motion passes 3-2. (Commissioner Keller and Chair Green voting no) 2. Dairy Central - 946 Grady Avenue: Ashley Davies of Williams Mullen; acting as agent for Dairy Holdings, LLC-Dairy Central] Reported by Brian Haluska, Principal Planner Applicant has also asked for a recommendation from EC on SUP request. The SUP permits a maximum building height 55 feet and request 25 feet, the maximum is 43 dwelling per acre, application 60 dwelling per acre. Stony Point Design Build is pursuing an adaptive re-use of the 81 year old building. According to Chris Henry and Mr. Lee Quill the development plan is to convert the retail space on the ground floor into a food hall space for vendor- occupied food stalls. An additional floor of office space will be on top of the Monticello Dairy Building with an underground garage. Under the plans for the first phase, the ground floor retail level would be converted into a food hall that will be known as the Dairy Market. This hall would be in the center of the structure and would have several stalls for food vendors. Space for two restaurants would be included on either end of the building. Two new retail spaces would front Grady Avenue. The existing second-floor office space will be restored and expanded with new contemporary steel and glass additions to the east, west and south. One addition would be a one-story office building that would encroach on the protected part of the building. A three- story office building would be built to the rear of the structure and would include limited parking in a basement level. This basement level would also include community space as well as two places for nonprofits to rent. Commissioner Keller: said she met with the applicant and requested a tour of the building as part of an assignment she gave to a class she is teaching at UVA. She and her students toured the building while speaking with the applicant was to understand the BAR process as part of the assignment. She was not aware that it was going to come to the Planning Commission for a special use permit or for entrance corridor review. She was approaching it solely as a historic preservation project and so she does have some detailed information about it but that doesn’t not affect how she may or may not vote tonight and was not her intent at that time to meet with an applicant because she wasn’t aware of his future plans. Commissioner Dowell: said she is glad they are providing affordable housing; if you are not granted the SUP are you still going to provide onsite affordable housing? Mr. Henry said no. Mr. Henry: said we plan to set up a street network off 10th and West Street. Commissioner Keesecker: said he thought it was a well presented presentation Commissioner Green: said the access is right off Grady. Applicant: said there is an extension off here, and a large parking area and then the parking has an entrance off to West Street. Chair Green: asked you are not proposing that be one way in and one way out. Applicant: said it is a two way. Commissioner Keesecker: asked to describe what is going on in the courtyard you have created off of West Street. Applicant: said the massing and breaking down of scale and stepback of the 10 feet puts a massive wall against residential which is normally something we do not do. It is important to break-down the scale and the massing and the articulation of these buildings up against a residential character and residential buildings. Even though part of this is still commercial right here on the corner. He said this is intended to be open space which would allow more breathing for bringing light and air into the project of these units. We can see entrances to the ground floor units along a number places even along 10th Street. We are putting units that have entrances to the exterior exits of projects having a door, and putting eyes on the street where people can interact. When walking along West Street, it is 4 stories and the 5th story here is a lower scale and you see the open space which has a much more which should be appropriate and is appropriate for a residential scale as opposed to a street wall. We will have small lawns which will make a very nice streetscape along 10th Street. Commissioner Santoski: Tell us about the space on the corner of West and 10TH and the space on the corner of West and Wood (the north south alley). Mr. Henry: The community room is in phase one, actually it’s with an entrance onto Preston Avenue and that is to activate it as part of the retail and commercial experience. We want people using that space for as many hours of the day as possible. This corner of 1500 feet is broken out as retail space and that idea came out of a community meeting where people told us there used to be a corner store or corner market. The first floor of the building is designed with ceiling height of 12 or 13 feet. A retail use would fit perfectly on the corner of 10th and West. It would be low intensity neighborhood oriented. Commissioner Keller: asked would there be any entrances accessible to and from West Street. Mr. Henry: the corner would have an entrance. Through our community conversations over the past year, we learned that there is a lack of accessible, local, and affordable meeting space for community groups like the 10th and Page Neighborhood Association and City of Promise. The Dairy Central team has designed the first level of the historic Monticello Dairy building to satisfy this need. The plan as currently drawn includes a 1,902 square-foot community/event room with modern A/V equipment and with access to a kitchen and conference room. This space will be available free of charge for monthly 10th and Page Neighborhood Association meetings, and available at a low rental rate for other community groups as the need arises. Commissioner Keller: Would there be any entrances to any portion of this corner that would have an entrance on it? Mr. Henry: said careful attention has been paid to the location of entrances and exits from parking areas to encourage drivers into entering and exiting the project primarily along Grady Avenue and 10th Street rather than West Street. Traffic engineers have concluded that the existing infrastructure can handle the additional traffic with minimal impact to current levels of service. Commissioner Dowell: asked is there a reason why this huge project is only going to have affordable housing if you get the additional height and density especially considering the neighborhood you are building in? Mr. Henry: said it is extremely expensive from an investment standpoint to be bringing a project like this forward to provide this many housing units in a city that needs housing at all price points. The more units you can put into a project the more opportunity to actually bring the cost of all the units down that allows us to do that. Commissioner Dowell: said the SUP should be an additional count for affordable units, that is why she is having a hard time supporting the SUP. Ms. Davies: said Mr. Henry is very committed to being part of the solution to Charlottesville’s growing housing affordability problem under the formula prescribed by the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance in Section 34-12. The project would require 5 affordable dwelling units to be built (on or offsite), or some equivalent amount paid to the City’s affordable housing fund. Dairy Central has committed to building these 5 units plus an additional 15 units, for a total of 20 units, on-site, at 80% of AMI as a condition of SUP approval. This equates to 4 times the amount required by City ordinance and represents 30% of the additional units that would be provided as a result of this Special Use Permit request. Additionally, the team is proposing that the City partner with the us to further increase affordability of the on-site units by providing a 10-year real estate tax abatement of 50% per year. The reduction of the real estate tax burden on the project would allow some of the 20 on-site units to be offered for rents at 40-60% of AMI, providing affordability on a variety of levels. The 4.35 acre development does not have any existing residents, and therefore, there will be no displacement of residents from this site. Increasing real estate tax assessments reflect rising property values. Chair Green: said to take time to look at shared parking. Mr. Henry: said the project team is in discussion with the city Parking Manager to analyze the feasibility of dedicating some portion of these spaces for public use, allowing for a reduced parking burden on future development sites along Preston Avenue. Additionally, the Dairy Central project will be constructed in phases, allowing for adjustments to parking needs as the project develops. The Dairy Central team has also heard concerns about overflow parking competing with local residents for limited on-street parking spaces surrounding the building. The project team understands this concern and is willing to support the neighborhood in petitioning for additional permitted parking on neighborhood streets with adequate enforcement from the City traffic police. Gavel out of Planning Commissioner Gavel into Entrance Corridor ERB – Recommendation on SUP request: Discussion and Recommendations: Before City Council takes action to permit the proposed use; they must consider the ERB’s opinion whether there are any adverse impacts to the entrance corridor (EC) district that could be mitigated with conditions. A special use permit is an important zoning tool that allows City Council to impose reasonable conditions to make a use more acceptable in a specific location, and to “protect the welfare, safety and convenience of the public.” In staff opinion, the proposed SUP request for additional density and height will not have an adverse impact on the EC district. The added density does not impact the building visually; and the additional height will comply with the Entrance Corridor guidelines for Building Mass, Scale and Height; especially in light of the width of the adjacent public right-of-way. The required entrance corridor review will address visually important elements, including the landscape plan, building materials and type of windows. Commissioners Lahendro moved to find that the proposed special use permit to allow additional density and height at 946 Grady Avenue will not have an adverse impact on the Preston Avenue Entrance Corridor district Seconded by Commissioner Keesecker, motion passes 5-0. Gavel out of Entrance Corridor Gavel back to Planning Commissioner Recess 7:40 pm Return 7:50 pm Preliminary Discussion - 140 Emmet Street North The Subject Property is located within one of the City’s Entrance Corridors, is in close proximity to the University of Virginia as well as the 14 acre-site that will house the future redevelopment by UVA once their Ivy Corridor planning process is complete, and is an area that experiences high volumes of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Because of the factors mentioned, how the Subject Property’s redevelopment creates a sense of place and tailors its design to the pedestrian experience is important. In addition, the Subject Property’s location is of importance in the City’s Smart Scale Emmet Streetscape Project, a planning process that kicked off in February 2018. The Emmet Streetscape Project is for the design of streetscape improvements along Emmet Street from the intersection of University Avenue and Ivy Road to Arlington Boulevard. Heather Newmyer report: 1) Special Use Permit – The preliminary proposal calls for a 7-story building that will exceed the maximum height allowed by-right in the URB Zoning District. The maximum height allowed in the URB District is sixty (60) feet; however, per Sec. 34-757, up to eighty (80) feet is allowed in this zoning district via a special use permit. a. Per Sec. 34-157(7), the Entrance Corridor Review Board (ERB) is to provide a recommendation to City Council regarding if the SUP request would have an adverse impact to the district, and for recommendations as to reasonable conditions which, if imposed, that would mitigate such impacts. Mr. Vipul Patel, site owner said on May 4 afire burned the family-owned Excel Inn & suites. He expressed how this continues to be a difficult time for his family, but this is an opportunity for a new beginning. He said his family purchased the Inn in 1981. He said there were many offers for the property, but he decided to keep it and build something new. Patel’s proposal features the Gallery Court Hotel that has 72 rooms and 92 parking spaces with seven stories. As the site is located in an Urban Corridor Mixed Use District, the developers must petition City Council for a special use permit to build above 60 feet. The developers must also receive a certificate of appropriateness from the Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review that verifies the building fulfills certain design requirements. The submitted project description says the proposed name dates back to the 1950s, when the hotel on the property was known as the Gallery Court Motor Hotel. The background information for the project also says Martin Luther King Jr. stayed at the hotel on the property when he came to speak at the University in 1963. The maximum building height allowed by right in the zoning district is limited to 60 feet. The city is examining the area closely as part of the streetscape project that aims to improve landscaping and automobile, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in the area. Daniel Hyer: said the scale of this building should be appropriate given the context of what is happening on this corridor. We are aware of this coordination and integration of items and we are willing to play ball and make this corridor something that could be great. Neal Bott: Architect, said he calls this UVA contemporary. We are using limestone looking stone and the middle will be brick and aluminum glass windows and the top would be metal panel in a lighter color. The building is 7 stories and the first two levels will be the garage on Ivy Rd. The third level will be the public level of the hotel. The upper 4 stories will be the guest rooms. They want to makes the garage look part of the building so the windows are very similar to the hotel windows, the only difference is the grills in them. All of the hotel functions will be on the ground level. Eugene Young, said we are locating the sidewalk to appropriate the public space in order to activate the street edge. He said the landscape facing toward Emmet Street is a buffer strip to integrate the infrastructure engaged with Lambeth Apartments and grounds. He went on to give some history of Dr. Martin Luther King, who spoke at Cabell Hall on March 1963; a few weeks later he was arrested in Birmingham; May 30th the sit in at Buddy’s segregated restaurant across the street from the hotel occurred andabout a month after that the “I have dream speech” took place. He said all of this occurred in a span of about 3 months. He said they are considering not making an memorial but an illusion to what happenedhere. There is a possibility to put a quote in the arch sit wall as people can gather and sit. That is their intention for the sidewalk. Commissioner Keesecker: asked if you can tell us about the roof space. Mr. Young: said at the sky level the rooms are L-shaped and part of the garage roof top to 1) reduce the impervious area on the roof so we scale back the stormwater management requirement; 2) when you are viewing down on the roof you are not just looking at all of the infrastructure. Chair Green: asked is there an occupied roof designated as a terrace or the roof top bar? Mr. Young: said yes it is designated to serve guest as a terrace or a roof top bar. , Realizing parking is essential, we have a 1-1 ratio for guestsWe do what we call a hot breakfast, a conference room, and are not marketing the site as a bar. Commissioner Lahendro: said there is parking on the top level, and is this parking under the green roof. Mr. Patel : said the parking deck is not visible from anywhere else. Thecovered areas are all for the parking. The roof for the parking is on the back side and that is where the green roof would be located. Chair Green said when they are ready to come back on a formal agenda to us requesting a SUP on the consent agenda will be an item that says the SUP will not adversely affect the Entrance Corridor just as we just discussed. When they are ready considering whether we approve the SUP or with conditions or not; they will come back with an Entrance Corridor Review with materials, etc. At that time we will have a vote. 5. Hydraulic/29 Transportation Plan Presentation – Alex Ikefuna 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-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, Route 250 By- pass and Hillsdale highway intersections and surrounding 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 transportation plan will be presented to the Planning Commission in April, at its regular monthly meeting and will include a request to formally endorse the land use and transportation plans. This will subsequently go to the City Council for consideration. What scenario 1, 2 or 3 option 3 at that point. The City intends to partner with the Thomas Jefferson Metropolitan Planning Organization and Albemarle County in submitting application for Smart Scale funding to implement the intersection improvement this summer. All related information on the process can be accessed at: www.route 29 solutions.org. Motion by Commissioner Dowell to adjourn until the second Tuesday in April, Second by Commissioner Keesecker. Adjourn 9:10 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT TO THE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR REVIEW BOARD (ERB) ENTRANCE CORRIDOR (EC) CERTIFICATE OF APPROPROPRIATENESS DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: May 8, 2018 Project Name: ReadyKids Building Addition Planner: Jeff Werner, AICP Applicant: brw architects Applicant’s Representative: David Timmerman Applicant’s Relation to Owner: Architect Application Information Property Street Address: 1000 E. High Street Property Owner: Children, Youth and Family Services (ReadyKids) Tax Map/Parcel #: 540114000 Total Square Footage/Acreage Site: 0.5695 acres Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Plan) Designation: Current Zoning Classification: HS, High Street Corridor, with Entrance Corridor Overlay. Entrance Corridor Overlay District: §34-307(a)(10) East High Street/9th Street from Long Street to East Market Street Current Usage: Two-story, brick, medical office building used by local non-profit ReadyKids to provide for youth counseling services. Background The ERB reviews Entrance Corridor Certificate of Appropriateness applications when the proposal is for new construction. This proposal is to renovate an existing building and construct to two additions. Staff suggests this could be reviewed/approved as a Consent Agenda item. 1 1000 East High Street/ReadyKids (jw 4/30/2018) Applicant’s Request Partial demolition of portions of the existing building and construction of two-story additions at each end; 8,520 SF total new space, bringing the total space of the building to approximately 13,500 SF; providing much needed space for an important community organization. The two additions will transform the existing building from a 1960s, mid-century modern style to a more contemporary/modern design. New additions are designed to comply with guidelines, including fronting on High Street and a compact building arrangement. Existing Building: The existing building is a two-story, masonry office building, approximately 115’ long (along the frontage on High Street) and x 60’ deep (at the corner with 11th Street). Constructed in 1964, its low, linear design reflects the style of that period. It has a flat, overhanging roof with two, truncated mansard features. Exterior walls are red brick and cream- colored square concrete blocks (stone panels, as described by the architect; painted cream in a prior renovation). Punched, single-lite, sliding windows. Entry door are full-lite, storefront type. At the west end there is a drive-through/porte cochere with the support wall constructed of brick piers unfilled with perforated concrete block. This will be demolished and replaced with the West Side Addition. Exterior walls, roof, and windows will remain. Concrete block wall and cornice to be painted a more subtle color; grey tones more complementary to the brick. The existing roof is to remain in between the slightly higher roof lines of the new additions. West Side Addition: Footprint of 1,824 SF and 3,640 SF total new space. Remove existing drive- through/porte cochere and, with the lowering of the grade to sidewalk level, construct two-story brick and glass addition. (Lowering the grade and removing the drive-through will eliminate the driveway and access off of High Street, creating a more pedestrian-friendly street edge.) The Main Floor will hold the new Waiting/Activity Room and Conference Room. The Lower Floor will provide space for Education Rooms, and a Kitchenette and Break Room. A small garden terrace will be provided outside the Break Room. The South West Side will also become the new main entry with an accessible ramp and updated entry sequence. It will provide separate public entrances for both the waiting room as well as the Education Centers on the lower floor. West Addition roof slopes upward toward the Playground, providing clerestory windows for plenty of natural light in the Activity Room. East Side Addition: Footprint of 763 SF and 1,520 SF total new space. To comply with setback requirements, the addition includes removing/renovating SE corner of the existing building; the facade of the addition will align with 11th Street. The new space will provide additional Counseling Offices, a Family Counseling Room, a ReadyKids shared office, as well as a new, protected exit stair. The East Addition roof is mostly flat; its corner rising to address the High Street and 11th intersection. Landscaping: Trees and planting not impacted by construction will be protected. All of the mature trees along High Street are to remain. Areas of disturbance will be replaced with new landscaping designed to complement the building and will consist of native shade trees and 2 1000 East High Street/ReadyKids (jw 4/30/2018) groundcovers. A rain garden will be provided near the entry; an asset that could evolve into an educational tool for those visiting ReadyKids. Parking: Parking is entirely in the rear of the site. The new additions help shield the parking lot from the corridor. Signage: Relocate existing address signage from porte cochere wall to exterior wall facing High Street. Two pole signs located on High Street to remain. Lighting: Existing exterior lighting at north and south elevations to remain. Existing lighting at the parking area will remain. New wall sconces installed at egress exits at east and south elevations. At the new entrance from the parking lot, wall-mounted lighting will be installed on the stairs and ramp, with new bollard lights at the walkway. Standard of Review The Planning Commission serves as the entrance corridor review board (ERB) responsible for administering the design review process in entrance corridor overlay districts. This development project requires a site plan, and therefore also requires a certificate of appropriateness from the ERB, pursuant to the provisions of §34-309(a)(3) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The ERB shall act on an application within 60 days of the submittal date, and shall either approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. Appeal would be to City Council. Standards for considering certificates of appropriateness: In conducting review of an application, the ERB must consider certain features and factors in determining the appropriateness of proposed construction, alteration, etc. of buildings or structures located within an entrance corridor overlay district. Following is a list of the standards set forth within §34-310 of the City Code: §34-310(1): Overall architectural design, form, and style of the subject building or structure, including, but not limited to: the height, mass and scale; The project is sensitive to the existing structure in materiality and scale, while re-imagining the building within our current time and place. East and West Additions create variation to the existing flat, one-plane roofline. Overall the massing is in keeping with the other structures in the corridor vicinity. The additions will have a brick skin; tying them into the visible portions of the existing building. The overall scale of the new additions is compatible with the existing building and meant to go hand in hand with the idea that ReadyKids is a safe, protected environment. ReadyKids promotes a comfortable and healthy environment. At the additions, larger windows are used to bring in natural daylight and create a stronger connection with the outdoors. 3 1000 East High Street/ReadyKids (jw 4/30/2018) Staff Analysis: The proposed architectural design, form, and style--including height, mass and scale--are appropriate. e§34-310(2): Exterior architectural details and features of the subject building or structure; The facades of both additions are a mix of brick, new storefront and punched windows intended to be in scale with the existing building openings. Some of the larger glazing areas correspond to spaces in the new interiors that will benefit from natural light and connection to the outdoors. Staff Analysis: The proposed architectural details and features are appropriate. §34-310(3): Texture, materials and color of materials proposed for use on the subject building or structure; The predominantly brick exterior of the two additions will complement the brick of the existing building; providing consistency in color and avoiding incongruity between old and new. New accents and detailing will add variety and interest to the exterior. Large storefront windows add a new layer to the exterior palate. The proposed building materials/colors: Walls: Brick at existing building to remain, with brick at the additions to match. At existing building, concrete block sections to be painted grey. Painted cornice (new and existing): Painted grey to match/accent the brick and the painted cement block walls. Roof: Flat membrane roof at new and existing. Windows: Continuation of punched window scheme with sections of metal/glass storefront panels and clerestory. Stairs (at parking): Brick to match building. Staff Analysis: The proposed texture, materials, and colors of materials are appropriate. §34-310(4): Design and arrangement of buildings and structures on the subject site; While a very strong sense of place already exists on this site due to the strength of this organization, the new construction will only bolster the sense of place. This project provides room for growth without compromising the exterior assets of the site. The project improves vehicular circulation by removing the drive-in off of High Street. The remaining, existing parking lot entry is located off of 11th street, which is a safer and less 4 1000 East High Street/ReadyKids (jw 4/30/2018) trafficked area. While most of the existing parking remains untouched, this project does impact the parking at the western portion of the lot and improves the overall vehicular circulation in and out of this area. Further, it adds an improved entry sequence for the public. The new Site Plan, with new building entry sequence and revised parking layout, illustrates a safer, more pedestrian friendly site. Further, the new West Addition will create a direct connection between the new Waiting Room and Playground; currently children have to cross the entry drive. Staff Analysis: The design and arrangement of the building on site is appropriate. This is an auto-oriented use appropriately located on East High Street, but with the west addition--removal of the driveway, grading change, and sidewalk repair--it will also improve the pedestrian experience. §34-310(5): The extent to which the features and characteristics described within paragraphs (1)-(4),above, are architecturally compatible (or incompatible) with similar features and characteristics of other buildings and structures having frontage on the same EC street(s) as the subject property. The additions to the existing building maintain the general massing, scale and materiality seen with the general High Street context. The alterations improve upon the existing, transforming a somewhat dated building with an exciting, open new design that reflects the good work carried out inside. Removing the existing drive-thru and replacing it with landscape buffer will better define the street edge and improve safety in this area. Staff Analysis: The goals are to make the site function well for the users of this site and the entrance corridor, and to have an attractive development that is compatible with its surrounding context. The site design will function well. Compared to other buildings and structures having frontage on the same EC street, this site is comparable to many existing commercial uses along East High Street. Maintaining existing street trees and adding new will be a good improvement. §34-310(6): Provisions of the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines. Relevant sections of the guidelines include: Section 1 (Introduction) The Entrance Corridor design principles are expanded below: • Design for a Corridor Vision New building design should be compatible (in massing, scale, materials, colors) with 5 1000 East High Street/ReadyKids (jw 4/30/2018) those structures that contribute to the overall character and quality of the corridor. Existing developments should be encouraged to make upgrades consistent with the corridor vision. Site designs should contain some common elements to provide continuity along the corridor. New development, including franchise development, should complement the City’s character and respect those qualities that distinguish the City’s built environment. • Preserve History Preserve significant historic buildings as well as distinctive architecture from more recent periods. Encourage new contemporary design that integrates well with existing historic buildings to enhance the overall character and quality of the corridor. • Facilitate Pedestrian Access Encourage compact, walkable developments. Design pedestrian connections from sidewalk and car to buildings, between buildings, and between corridor properties and adjacent residential areas. • Maintain Human Scale in Buildings and Spaces Consider the building scale, especially height, mass, complexity of form, and architectural details, and the impact of spaces created, as it will be experienced by the people who will pass by, live, work, or shop there. The size, placement and number of doors, windows, portals and openings define human scale, as does the degree of ground- floor pedestrian access. • Preserve and Enhance Natural Character Daylight and improve streams, and retain mature trees and natural buffers. Work with topography to minimize grading and limit the introduction of impervious surfaces. Encourage plantings of diverse native species. • Create a Sense of Place In corridors where substantial pedestrian activity occurs or is encouraged, or where mixed use and multi-building projects are proposed, one goal will be creating a sense of place. Building arrangements, uses, natural features, and landscaping should contribute, where feasible, to create exterior space where people can interact. • Create an Inviting Public Realm Design inviting streetscapes and public spaces. Redevelopment of properties should enhance the existing streetscapes and create an engaging public realm. • Create Restrained Communications Private signage and advertising should be harmonious and in scale with building elements and landscaping features. • Screen Incompatible Uses and Appurtenances: Screen from adjacent properties and public view those uses and appurtenances whose visibility may be incompatible with the overall character and quality of the corridor, such 6 1000 East High Street/ReadyKids (jw 4/30/2018) as: parking lots, outdoor storage and loading areas, refuse areas, mechanical and communication equipment, Where feasible, relegate parking behind buildings. It is not the intent to require screening for utilitarian designs that are attractive, and/or purposeful. • Respect and Enhance Charlottesville’s Character Charlottesville seeks new construction that reflects the unique character, history, and cultural diversity of this place. Architectural transplants from other locales, or shallow imitations of historic architectural styles, for example, are neither appropriate nor desirable. Incompatible aspects of franchise design or corporate signature buildings must be modified to fit the character of this community. Section 2 (Streetscape) Removing the existing entrance drive off of High Street, the overall front facade and landscape of the new addition will improve the vehicular and pedestrian experience. All vehicular traffic will enter and park on the building's south side. This project provides an integral community organization with the space it needs to continue thriving; the additions create an exciting make- over for a building, giving it a more contemporary appearance while at the same time maintaining the general massing and overall feel compatible to its general surrounding. Staff Analysis: Retention of the existing street trees and the planting of new (at 11th Street) coupled with the removal of the driveway (on High Street), the grading change, and sidewalk repair will create a pedestrian-friendly frontage. Section 3 (Site): Staff Analysis: The proposed site features are appropriate. Section 4 (Buildings): Staff Analysis: The proposed renovations and additions to this existing building are appropriate within the context of this segment of the High Street EC. Section 5 (Individual Corridors): High Street Vision The southeast side of High Street from Long Street to the light at Meade Avenue shares similar characteristics with the Long Street corridor. Properties here have potential to be redeveloped at an urban scale with shallow setbacks, higher density, and mixed uses. The natural character of the river should be preserved, and riverfront properties may incorporate the river as a site amenity. Future infill and redevelopment on the northwest side of High Street from Riverdale Drive to Locust Avenue and on the southeast side of High Street from Meade Avenue to 10th Street should complement the smaller scale of the abutting residential neighborhoods on either side. The retail areas of this part of the corridor will continue to provide basic service-business functions until redeveloped into a mix of uses including residential. This area may be considered for nearby offsite or shared parking in the future, due to the small parcel sizes and convenience to transit and the downtown area. From Locust Avenue to Market Street there will be 7 1000 East High Street/ReadyKids (jw 4/30/2018) opportunities for denser development. The area surrounding Martha Jefferson Hospital is a potential historic district. A pedestrian environment should be encouraged along the entire corridor with sidewalks, landscaping and transit stops. Staff Analysis: The proposal is consistent with and appropriate to the Vision for the East High Street EC. Public Comments Received No public comments have been received to date. Staff Recommendations Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted. Suggested Motion “I move to approve the Entrance Corridor Certificate of Appropriateness application for the …..” Alternate Motion “I move to defer (or deny) the Entrance Corridor Certificate of Appropriateness application for the …….until the following concerns are addressed…..” Attachments: brw architects submittal dated April 16, 2018 (unless otherwise noted): Cover; Project Description & Design Guideline Compatibility; Elevations (3 sheets); Context; Perspectives (4 sheets); Lighting and Signage; A1.1 Floor Plan – Basement (dated 4/11/2018); A1.2 Floor Plan – First Floor (dated 4/1/2018); Site Plan Amendment Schematic Layout (dated 4/16/2018); Landscape Plan (dated 4/13/2018). 15 pages total. 8 1000 East High Street/ReadyKids (jw 4/30/2018) ReadyKids Building Addition 1000 High Street Application for Certificate of Appropriateness High Street Entrance Corridor Description of Proposed Work General Design Guidelines Design Principles for Building Design High St. Corridor Principles The project has been designed to embrace the City of The proposal is for additions (each 2 stories) to be built on Charlottesville's Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines. both the east and west sides of the existing ReadyKids Design for a Corridor Vision Upgrade existing retail / service parcels with better defined Architectural Compatibility building (c. 1966); providing much needed space for an The additions to the existing building maintain the parking, planting and signs. The project is both sensitive to the existing structure in important community organization. general massing, scale and materiality seen with the The project improves vehicular circulation by removing the materiality and scale while, at the same time, general High Street context. We see this project drive-in off of High Street. The remaining existing parking lot reimagines the building as one of our current time and The new West Side Addition (to replace the existing Drive improving upon the existing in the way it transforms a entry is located off of 11th street; which is a safer and less place. thru) has a footprint of 1824 sq ft. & a total area of 3648 somewhat dated building with an exciting, open new trafficked area. While most of the existing parking remains sq. ft.. The Main Floor will hold the new much larger design that reflects the good work carried out inside. untouched, this project does impact the parking at the Building Mass, Scale and Height Waiting/Activity Room and Conference Room. The Lower western portion of the lot and improves the overall vehicular The new additions create more variation to the existing Floor will provide space for break-out Education Rooms, Preserve History circulation in and out of this area. Further, it adds an flat, one plane roofline. Overall the massing is in as well as a new Kitchenette and Break Room. A small Part of the challenge in improving the current state of improved entry sequence for the public. keeping with the other structures in the corridor vicinity; garden terrace will be provided outside the Break Room. the building through new interventions involves a as illustrated in our Context sheet. The South West Side will also become the new main entry sensitivity in how it works with the original building. The Upgrade existing buildings as apportunities arise for ReadyKids with an accessible ramp and updated additions will have a brick skin; tying them into the The new additions will provide a facelift to somewhat dated Facade Organization and Storefronts entry sequence. It will provide separate public entrances visible portions of the existing building. 1966 existing building. Adding on to both the east and west The new addition's facades are a mix of brick and new for both the waiting room as well as the Education end reimagines the building in its entirety as a state-of-the- storefont. The punched windows are meant to be in Centers on the lower floor. Maintain Human Scale art complex that will be well suited to ReadyKid's future scale with the existing building openings while some of The oveall scale of the new additions is compatible with needs. In turn, the organizations presence can only the larger glazing areas correspond to spaces in the The East Side Addition has a footprint of 763 sq. ft. and a the existing building and meant to go hand in hand with enhance the public's impression of High Street. new interiors that will benefit from natural light and total area of 1520 sq.ft. The East addition will provide the the idea that ReadyKids is a safe, protected connection to the outdoors. space for additional Counseling Offices, a Family environment. ReadyKids has asked for a comfortable Make New streetscape improvements to better define street Counseling Room, a ReadyKids shared Office as well as a edge and healthy environment. At certain spaces, larger Materials, Texture, Color, and Detailing new protected exit stair. Removing the existing drive-thru and replacing it with The new addition's predominant brick exterior is meant windows are located to bring in natural daylight and create a stronger connection with the outdoors. landscape buffer will better define the street edge and to complement the existing brick; and avoid an Due to recent zoning revisions, the existing east side of improve safety in this area. incongruity between old and new. Maintaining a the building is non-compliant; in both the minimum and predominant brick brick facade will provide Preserve and Enhance Natural Character maximum setbacks (see diagram below). Our plan for Fortunately, much of the new construction does not consistency in color. At the same time, accents and the new East side addition 1. cuts off the corner of the existing building that is non-compliant and 2. locates the interfere with the mature trees on site. Site Design Principles detailing will add variety and interest to the new exterior. new facade running parallel to 11th street; between the Connectivity within site Create a sense of Place The new Site Plan - with new building entry sequence and 15' min and 30' max setback and puts the building back While a very strong sense of place already exists on this The new, larger storefront windows adds a new layer to into compliance. revised parking layout - illustrates a safer, more pedestrian site due to the strength of this organization, our hope is the exterior pallete. friendly site. Further, the new west addtion will create a that this new construction will only bolster the sense of ReadyKids hopes to keep all of the existing trees that are direct connection between the new Waiting Room and place. This project provides room for growth without Much of the out-dated detailing at the existing building not affected by the new construction. You will note on Playground; currently children have to cross the entry drive. compromising the exterior assets of the site. is removed with the new additons; including the the landscape plan that all of the mature trees along pointed, irregular-shaped roofline and old drive in brick High Street are to remain. Also, The West addition extents Building Placement Create an Inviting Public Realm New additions are designed to comply with guidelines, canopy. have been designed to keep an adequate buffer Additional planting will be added where possible to between the new building and the mature ginko tree including fronting on High Street and a compact building enhance the experiene of the site. In particular, a rain The design calls for addressing the existing cream located in the middle of the ReadyKids Playground. arrangement. The 2 story addition (vs a 3 story addition) garden will be provided near the front entry; an asset colored stone paneling on the north and south side.The works better for ReadyKids in that it provides more that could evolve into a educational tool for those paneling will be painted a more subtle color (grey With the new addition taking the place of the existing adjacency between departments. visiting ReadyKids. tones more complementary to the brick). drive off of High Street, we think the overall front facade and landscape of the new addition with be improved Parking Create restrained communications Parking is entirely in the rear of the site. The new additions Roof Form and Material from both a vehicular and pedestrian standpoint from The plan is to keep both existing pole signs located on The existing roof is to remain in between the slightly the corridor. All vehicular traffic will enter and park on the help shield the parking lot from the corridor. High Street. higher roof lines of the new additions. building's south side. The East End roof is mostly flat, its corner raises to Planting and Open Spaces While much of the landscape and mature street trees will address the High Street and 11th intersection. The West We see this project as a boon to High Street: not only end Roof - sloping upward toward the playground - does it provide an integral community organization the remain untouched, the areas of disturbance will be replaced with new landscaping designed to complement provides clerestory windows for plenty of Natural Light space it needs to continue thriving but the new additions in the new often busy ReadyKids Activity Room. will create an exciting make-over for a building; giving it the building and will consist of native shade trees and a more contemporary appearance while at the same groundcovers. Stormwater will be managed using a time maintaining the general massing and overall feel raingarden to be located in front of the entry ramp as well compatible to its general surrounding. as possiblly within the existing playground - for educational purposes. Lighting The existing Parking Lighting will remain. New step lights and walk ballards will be provided at the new Entry. Signs The 2 existing signs on High Street are to remain. Project Description & Design Guideline Compatibilty ReadyKids - High Street E.C. 4.16.18 ALL NEW BRICK TO MATCH EXISTING FACADE - BEFORE FACADE - AFTER, WITH NEW PAINT STOREFRONT AND INFILL PANELS WOOD EXTERIOR - STOREFRONT SYSTEM NEW BRICK TO METAL ROOF FASCIA PAINT EXISTING EXISTING WINDOWS METAL SCREENING METAL ROOF FASCIA NEW BRICK TO STOREFRONT SYSTEM MATCH BRICK W/ PRIVACY PANELS MATCH EXISTING PAINTED TO MATCH EXTERIOR WALL TILE TO REMAIN FOR ROOF HVAC, TO PAINT MATCH MATCH EXISTING W/ INFILL PANELS COLOR EXISTING COLOR MATCH EXISTING PAINTED TILE 19' - 6 3/4" EXISTING ROOF 9' - 1 1/4" 27' - 7 1/2" First Floor 0' - 0" 11' - 3" Basement -11' - 3" 29' - 4" 81' - 0 7/8" 31' - 0 3/4" NEW CONSTRUCTION EXISTING NEW CONSTRUCTION 1 NORTH ELEVATION ERB01 1" = 10'-0" ELEVATIONS ReadyKids - High Street E.C. 4.16.18 STOREFRONT SYSTEM NEW BRICK TO METAL ROOF FASCIA METAL SCREENING PAINT EXISTING METAL ROOF FASCIA NEW BRICK TO STOREFRONT SYSTEM WOOD EXTERIOR - MATCH EXISTING PAINT TO MATCH FOR ROOF HVAC EXTERIOR WALL TILE PAINTED TO MATCH MATCH EXISTING W/ INFILL PANELS MATCH BRICK EXISTING EXISTING COLOR EAST ADDITION ROOF 12' - 4 1/4" 19' - 6 3/4" EXISTING ROOF 9' - 1 1/4" 27' - 7 1/2" First Floor 0' - 0" Basement -11' - 3" 31' - 0 1/4" 72' - 10 1/4" 37' - 7 1/8" NEW CONSTRUCTION EXISTING NEW CONSTRUCTION 1 SOUTH ELEVATION ERB02 1" = 10'-0" ELEVATIONS ReadyKids - High Street E.C. 4.16.18 NEW BRICK TO ALTERNATE BRICK METAL ROOF FASCIA STOREFRONT WOOD EXTERIOR - MATCH EXISTING PATTERN PAINTED TO MATCH SYSTEM W/ MATCH BRICK EXISTING INFILL PANELS COLOR 3' - 11" EXISTING ROOF 9' - 1 1/4" 27' - 7 1/2" First Floor 0' - 0" Basement -11' - 3" 72' - 9 1/2" 1 EAST ELEVATION ERB03 1" = 10'-0" STOREFRONT NEW BRICK TO METAL ROOF FASCIA STOREFRONT SYSTEM SYSTEM W/ MATCH EXISTING PAINTED TO MATCH INFILL PANELS EXISTING 19' - 6 3/4" EXISTING ROOF 9' - 1 1/4" First Floor 0' - 0" 60' - 9 1/4" 2 WEST ELEVATION ERB03 1" = 10'-0" ELEVATIONS ReadyKids - High Street E.C. 4.16.18 CFA INSTITUTE CFAININSTITUTE THE BUILDING MANAGEMENT COMPANY CWC SHELTER 915 E HIGH ST 915 E HIGH ST 1007 E HIGH ST. 1100 E HIGH ST. NORTH NORTH SOUTH SOUTH FOOTHILLS CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER OLD DOMINION NATIONAL BANK READYKIDS WELLS FARGO BANK FOX & BRANTLEY INTERNAL MEDICINE 1106 E HIGH ST 1100 E HIGH ST 1000 E HIGH ST. 406 10TH ST NE 916 E HIGH ST CONTEXT ReadyKids -Hi gh Street E.C. 4.16.18 NORTH FACADE TO BE PAINTED EXISTING PORT COCHERE PLAYGROUND AREA TO REMAIN E HIGH ST 1 E TN HS S READYKID 11T 1 - NW CORNER PERSPECTIVES ReadyKids - High Street E.C. 4.16.18 EAST FACADE TO BE REPLACED EAST PATHWAY TO BE REMOVED NORTH FACADE TO BE PAINTED 2 E HIGH ST E TN HS S READYKID 11T 2 - NE CORNER PERSPECTIVES ReadyKids - High Street E.C. 4.16.18 SOUTH FACADE TO BE PAINTED SOUTH EAST CORNER TO BE SHEARED TO MATCH SETBACK EAST FACADE TO BE REPLACED E HIGH ST E TN HS S READYKID 11T 3 SE CORNER PERSPECTIVES ReadyKids - High Street E.C. 4.16.18 EXISTING PORT COCHERE TO BE REMOVED EXISTING PORT COCHERE TO BE REMOVED SOUTH FACADE TO BE PAINTED E HIGH ST E TN HS S READYKID 11T 4 4 - SW CORNER PERSPECTIVES ReadyKids - High Street E.C. 4.16.18 . . . WESTERN POLE SIGN - TO REMAIN RELOCATE STREET SIGNAGE TO FRONT EASTERN POLE SIGN - TO REMAIN . . NEW STEP LIGHTS AT PROPOSED RAMP AND STAIRS EXISTING EXTERIOR LIGHTING ALONG NORTH AND SOUTH WALLS TO REMAIN NEW BOLLARD LIGHTS AT PROPOSED SIDEWALK NEW WALL SCONCES AT PROPOSED EGRESS EXITS . . SITE PLAN - LIGHTING AND SIGNAGE LIGHTING AND SIGNAGE ReadyKids - High Street E.C. 4.16.18 1 2 1 / A1.4a 1 / A1.4b A3.1 A3.4 STAIR 2 Toilet STOR. A3.2 037 038 C.C.Q R. S. 2 Expansion (ex) project: (family) 5 storage 035 R.S. 1 (l1) 010 011 012 036 ReadyKids - High UP Street E.C. 4.16.18 Education Center II 039 100 EAST HIGH ST CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA SOUTH - 3 22902 Storage st. (l4) HALLWAY A3.2 (l5) 016 st. (l3) - - 029 030 009 - for: Toilet 3 Toilet 028 Mechanical IT Tech 033 A3.1 Owner C.C.Q. Ready C.C.Q. 031 032 017 Steps 4 015 shared - - - Education 008 - 1 Center I A2.1 040 4 Toilet A2.1 027 Play Play Real Dad Partners Partners H.F. stor. H.F. stor. 018 Storage 025 Volunteer job number: 17050 (l9) 026 - - (l6) (l7) 024 020 019 - WEST drawing: HALLWAY ST 014 FLOOR PLAN - 87 H. F. 4 Early BASEMENT H. F. 2 H. F. 3 (ex. (ex. expansion Learning Star Kids (ex. 1 super) shared) 6 (ex.) - - stor. (l8) UP Mang.) 022 - - A3.4 005 006 007 021 023 004 - revisions: H.F. (FSW Kitchenette Team Rm. Shared) 042 041 002 REF. 1 A3.2 C:\_Revit_Local\17050 ReadyKids Expansion SD central_dtimmerman.rvt 3 1 / A1.4a 1 / A1.4b A2.1 1 NEW WORK - BASEMENT A1.1 3/16" = 1'-0" 3/32" drawn by: checked by: Author Checker copyright: © 2017 brwarchitects, P.C. 4/17/2018 12:57:31 PM approval seal date sheet 4/11/18 A1.1 Author SCHEMATIC UP project: 2- 1 / A1.5a 1 / A1.5b A2.1 - ReadyKids - High Street E .C. 4.16.18 WEST STAIR DN 101 100 EAST HIGH ST CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 Admin 5 Admin 6 Y. C. 10 Y. C. 11 Y. C. 12 Admin 4 116 115 121 120 119 118 expansion 1 122 for: EXISTING STAIR 117 Owner CENTRAL HALLWAY 110 - Activity Kitch. - - 100 Y. C. 9 expansion 2 125 Toilet expansion 4 123 124 112 114 Reception 102 - job number: 17050 expansion 3 copy - - - 128 109 shared (x3) - 1- Toilet ERB03 A2.1 - 111 4- 2 drawing: Admin 7 ERB03 A2.1 - Y. C. 7 134 Y. C. 8 127 y.c. storage 126 Shared 113 Toilet 103 FLOOR PLAN - FIRST FLOOR revisions: Family Counseling Room EAST STAIR 135 Y. C. 6 Y. C. 5 Y. C. 3 Y.C. 2 Y. C. 1 Admin 1 (HR) Admin 2 Admin 3 136 Y. C. 4 133 132 130 129 108 107 106 105 131 DN 14' - 10 3/4" Meeting / Education C:\_Revit_Local\17050 ReadyKids Expansion SD central_dtimmerman.rvt 104 3- 1 29' - 7 1/4" ERB01 A2.1 - 1 / A1.5a 1 / A1.5b drawn by: checked by: Author Checker copyright: © 2017 brwarchitects, P.C. 1 NEW WORK -F IRST FLOOR A1.2 3/ 16" = 1'-0" 3/32" 4/17/2018 12:57:38 PM approval seal date sheet 4/11/18 A1.2 Author SCHEMATIC 2 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: May 8, 2018 APPLICATION NUMBER: SP18-00006 Project Planner: Matthew Alfele Date of Staff Report: April 23, 2018 Applicant: Diane Anderson Applicant’s Representative: Diane Anderson Current Property Owner: Diane Anderson Application Information Property Street Address: 227 Brookwood Drive Tax Map/Parcel #: Tax Map 25A, Parcels 27 Total Square Footage/ Acreage Site: Approx. 0.28 acres (12,356 square feet) Comprehensive Plan (General Land Use Plan): Low Density Residential Current Zoning Classification: R-1S 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). !pplicant’s Request (Summary) Landowner Diane Anderson has submitted an application pursuant to City Code Z.O. Sec. 34-420, seeking approval of a Special Use Permit (SUP) for this property to authorize a Family Day Home for up to eight (8) children. The Subject Property is further identified as Tax Map 25A, Parcel 27. The Subject Property has an area of approximately 0.28 acres and has a zoning designation of “R-1S (low-density residential, small-lot). The Subject Property contains a single-family dwelling used for residential occupancy by the Applicant. The Page 1 of 9 City’s Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map for both call for the area to be used and developed for Low Density Residential purposes, at densities no greater than 15 units per acre. Vicinity Map Zoning Map Yellow: (R-1S) Residential Single-Family, Brown: (MR) McIntire -5th Residential, Blue Stripe: Entrance Corridor Page 2 of 9 2016 Aerial 2013 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Yellow: Low Density Residential, Green: Park or Preserved Open Space, Orange: High Density Residential Page 3 of 9 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. (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 R-1S Residential Single Family Home South MR Residential Single Family Home West R-1S Residential Single Family Home North R-1S Residential Single Family Home The uses surrounding the subject property are all residential single family homes with a row of townhomes southwest of the subject property. All the homes surrounding the subject property are one (1) or two (2) story in height. The row of townhomes near the subject property are three (3) story in height. Staff Analysis: The application materials (Attachment A and B) propose running a Family Day Home out of an owner occupied single family detached dwelling. The Family Day Home would be in operation from 7am to 5:30pm and would allow for a maximum of eight children. The proposed use is not consistent with the current uses in the area, but a Family Day Home would be harmonious with the neighborhood. (2)Whether the proposed use or development and associated public facilities will substantially conform to the city's comprehensive plan. Page 4 of 9 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 A and 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. Comprehensive Plan The 2013 General Land Use Plan Map calls for the subject property 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) the operation of a small Family Day Home within an existing single family residential dwelling will contribute to the City’s Comprehensive Plan goal 2.2 in the Land Use Chapter. In addition to the stated Comprehensive Plan goal, a Family Day Home within a residential neighborhood provides a much needed service to the community. Access to childcare facilities is a challenge to many families in the City. Access is limited by cost, location, and availability. Although land use decisions may influence cost in a secondary manner, they have a direct impact on location and availability. By allowing small childcare facilities to operate within residential neighborhoods, access is greatly improved without creating adverse impacts. Streets that Work Plan The Streets that Work Plan (approved September 2016 as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan) labels Brookwood Drive as Local. The full plan can be viewed at: http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and-services/departments-h- z/neighborhood-development-services/streets-that-work/streets-that-work-plan 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. Page 5 of 9 Staff Analysis: A sidewalk currently exists in front of the subject property and extends south down Brookwood Drive. No site improvements are being proposed with this application. (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 B), the proposed use would likely comply with applicable building code regulations. However, building code regulations for this type of use is reviewed by Virginia Department of Social Services (see attachment B) per a memorandum of agreement with DHCD. (4)Potential adverse impacts, including, but not necessarily limited to: a) Traffic or parking congestion The subject property has off-street parking that can accommodate three (3) cars and additional street parking on Brookwood. As indicated in the application materials (attachment A and B) drop-off and pick-up is staggered between 7am to 9am and 3pm to 5:30pm. Staff Analysis: Staff believes a Family Day Home for eight (8) children on the subject property will have no impact on traffic or parking. b) Noise, lights, dust, odor, fumes, vibration, and other factors which adversely affect the natural environment The subject property has a large fenced front yard utilized by the children during operation hours. Staff Analysis: Staff believes the only environmental consideration from a Family Day Home on the subject property is the sound of eight (8) children playing outside. Children playing outside will have no impact on the surrounding neighborhood. c) Displacement of existing residents or businesses The subject property contains a single family detached dwelling that will continue to be used as an owner occupied residence. d) Discouragement of economic development activities that may provide desirable employment or enlarge the tax base The subject property is a single family dwelling that runs a licensed Family Day Home. An increase to eight (8) children will have minimal direct impact on the tax base. Page 6 of 9 e) Undue density of population or intensity of use in relation to the community facilities existing or available A Family Day Home of eight (8) children on the subject property will have no impact on community facilities. f) Reduction in the availability of affordable housing in the neighborhood The subject property will continue to be used as a residential dwelling and will have no impact on the availability of affordable housing in the neighborhood. g) Impact on school population and facilities A Family Day Home of eight (8) children on the subject property will have no impact on school population or 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 and B), the proposed use would likely comply with applicable federal and state laws. j) Massing and scale of project No site improvements are being proposed with this application. (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; The subject property has been zoned R-1 Residential since 1949. According to Z.O. Sec. 34-350(a)(2), R-1(S) ("small lot"), consisting of low-density residential areas characterized by small-lot development. According to Z.O. Sec. 34-1200, Family Day Home means a child care program serving one (1) to twelve (12) children under the age of thirteen (13) (exclusive of the provider's own children and any children who reside in the home), where such program is offered in the residence of the provider or the residence of any of the children in care. Any program serving more than twelve (12) children shall be considered a child daycare facility. Staff Analysis: Staff finds the proposed use to be harmonious with the zoning district. Page 7 of 9 (6)Whether the proposed use or development will meet applicable general and specific standards set forth within the zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, or other city ordinances or regulations; and Based on the information contained within the application (Attachment A and B), the proposed development would likely comply with applicable local ordinances. (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 March 5, 2018 the applicant held a community meeting in the NDS Conference Room. The applicant gave an overview of her Family Day Home and the reason she was perusing a SUP. Two (2) members of the public attended the meeting and they were very supportive of the SUP application. They live near the applicant and attended the meeting hoping to secure a spot for their expected newborn. The attendees spoke to the need of more accessible childcare in their neighborhood and the City as a whole. As of the date of this report, staff has not receive any communications related to this application. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approving the application for an eight (8) child Family Day Home on the subject property. Recommended Conditions Staff recommends that a request for density could be approved with the following conditions: 1. Limiting the number of children to a maximum of eight (8). 2. Limiting operation hours from 7:00am to 5:30pm. Suggested Motions Page 8 of 9 1. I move to recommend approval of this application for a Special Use Permit for the subject property in the R-1S zone to permit a Family Day Home with the following listed conditions. a. ________________________________________________________________ b. ________________________________________________________________ c. ________________________________________________________________ d. ________________________________________________________________ OR, 2. I move to recommend denial of this application for a Special Use Permit for the subject property in the R-1S zone. Attachments A. Special Use Application Dated January March 12, 2018 B. Special Use Permit Narrative and supporting documents Page 9 of 9 Attachment A ~OTTEsp City of Charlottesville ~~~~t . a· v:-~ •..tl -trt!N_IA .. ~ ~~ C\'1 Application for Special Use Permit Project Name: tGn,~l ba ~ ~~ [·~ Tlcr.r~;c·:ll N\ I \ t Address of Property: ill Bcocll ~~C)(){\ .b\·,~le J W::·ocJn\k~.,;,jk'-)lifj 2ru1_ Tax Map and Parcel Number(s): 2£A P2.-:f Current Zoning District Classification: R-/5 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: L.o\,.el v e_1;1 $) f'/ 1C LS1de 1/1 J.' ~ / Is this an amendment to an existing SUP?~~ I If "yes", provide the SUP#: Applicant: '"J)iOO£ ~r-c\-e~-~ D Address: ?:2._ J l>ecr~~ .bc·,\if': (' tv~.Ck~ \ \CS~· ~~~ ) \j ~ ?:Lqo L. Phone:LJ?h-?>..)2- f'~l2 Email: Cct c&:\ o.cx\cs(Qt>f>y~a CC£{\ Applicant's Role in the Development (check one}: % Owner 0 Owner's Agent 0 Designer D Contract Purchaser Owner of Record: J>V»'""x-f ~3f:'CS(~')'(~ Address: 72:1 ~~.-\~ \·~Q~\ Dr:I\Lf' C.hn£ bt-\cs,; '\\:: J \> f\ ? '2<}02 ' Phone: !..__\~~..- 2 C)7 - r~~L ~ Email: de\'\ 6.. ~ ('I,C\<:1r ~ fu '' ri t-x~n ... c I n{\'\ Reason for Special Use Permit: D Additional height: feet D Additional residential density: units, or _ _ units per acre ~ Authorize specific land use (identify) FAtttt'/y 7)&>.\.J I Ho.f'YI t.. D Other purpose(s) (specify City Code section): {1) Applicant's and (2) Owner's Signatures (1} Signature ~ ~~ Print J);L!"e Bodecs60 Date 3 I IZ I LX Applicant's (Circle One): LLC Member LLC Manager Corporate Officer (specify) Other (specify): {2} Signature Print Date Owner's (Circle One): LLC Member LLC Manager Corporate Officer (specify) Other (specify): 1 Attachment A City of Charlottesville Application Checklist I certify that the following documentation is ATTACHED to this application: 0 34-158~ site plan (ref. City Code 34-802(generally); 34-1083(communications facilities} D 34-158.(aMLow-impact development (LID) methods worksheet (required for developments that includ~~~residential uses, and developments proposing 3 or more SFDs or TFDs} 0 34-158~~ilding massing diagram, and building elevations (required for applications propoCing a~ation of a building height or footprint, or construction of any new building(s)) D - 2: affordable housing data. (i) how many (if any} existing dwelling units on e an "affordable dwelling unit" by the city's definitions? (ii) Will existing affordable units, or quiva nt affordable units, remain following the development? (iii) What is the GFA of the project? GFA f residential uses? GFA of non-residential uses? aterials that illustrate the context of the project, and a narrative statement as to compatib " · y "th existing patterns of use and development 34-157(a)(2) Narrative statement: applicant's analysis of conformity with the Comprehensive Plan 34-157(a)(3) Narra~ment: compliance with applicable USBC provisions 34-157(a)(4) Narrative statement identifying and discussing any potential adverse impacts, as well as any measures included within the development plan, to mitigate those impacts D 34-158(a)(6):other~nt information (narrative, illustrative, etc.) 0 All items noted~e-Application Meeting Verification. Applicant Date 3 ·12,. I~ By Its: (For entities, specify: Officer, Member, Manager, Trustee, etc.) 3 Attachment A City of Charlottesville Community Meeting Section 34-41(c)(2) of the Code of the City of Charlottesville (adopted 2015) requires applicants seeking rezonings and special use permits to hold a community meeting. The purpose of a community meeting is to provide citizens an opportunity to receive information about a proposed development, about applicable zoning procedures, about applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan, and to give citizens an opportunity to ask questions. No application for a rezoning shall be placed on any agenda for a public hearing, until the required community meeting has been held and the director of neighborhood development services determines that the application is ready for final review through the formal public hearing process. By signing this document, the applicant acknowledges that it is responsible for the following, in connection to the community meeting required for this project: 1. Following consultation with the city, the applicant will establish a date, time and location for the community meeting. The applicant is responsible for reserving the location, and for all related costs. 2. The applicant will mail, by U.S. mail, first-class, postage pre-paid, a notice of the community meeting to a list of addresses provided by the City. The notice will be mailed at least 14 calendar days prior to the date of the community meeting. The applicant is responsible for the cost of the mailing. At least 7 calendar days prior to the meeting, the applicant will provide the city with an affidavit confirming that the mailing was timely completed. 3. The applicant will attend the community meeting and present the details ofthe proposed application. If the applicant is a business or other legal entity (as opposed to an individual) then the meeting shall be attended by a corporate officer, an LLC member or manager, or another individual who can speak for the entity that is the applicant. Additionally, the meeting ·shall be attended by any design professional or consultant who has prepared plans or drawings submitted with the application. The applicant shall be prepared to explain all of the details of the proposed development, and to answer questions from citizens. 4. Depending on the nature and complexity of the application, the City may designate a planner to attend the community meeting. Regardless of whether a planner attends, the City will provide the applicant with guidelines, procedures, materials and recommended topics for the applicant's use in conducting the community meeting. 5. On the date of the meeting, the applicant shall make records of attendance and shall also document that the meeting occurred through photographs, video, or other evidence satisfactory to the City. Records of attendance may include using the mailing list referred to in #1 as a sign-in sheet (requesting attendees to check off their name(s)) and may include a supplemental attendance sheet. The City will provide a format acceptable for use as the supplemental attendance sheet. By: Signatureb~ ~~- Print 7J;fk't::: (}nde-r~otd Date 3 ·12 ·I J I t s : - - - - - - - - - - - ------..---- ------{Officer, Member, Trustee, etc.) 4 Attachment A City of Charlottesville Owner's .Authorizations (Not Required) Right of Entry- Property Owner Permission I, the undersigned, hereby grant the City of Charlottesville, its employees and officials, the right to enter the property that is the subject of this application, for the purpose of gathering information for the review of this Special Use Permit application. Owner: Diu;.:\C \\oc\-ec50('\ Date 3, /2 '/2 By (sign name): l"[;a;~ 'De. L.\v:,eb"=e)u',\~, \I-A '22. 7 ,l~ 'rloo cft ~v) (b- v~ . 1 Address ( u)c., <' L pR Name Address --------------------- ------------------------------------------ Name_____________________ Address__________________________________________ Attach additional sheets as needed. Note: The requirement of listing names of stockholders does not apply to a corporation whose stock is traded on a national or local stock exchange and which corporation has more than five hundred (500) shareholders. By: Signature cff;~ ~ Print 7)( &e /fnd:~.C"ie;,) Its: ------------------------------- (Officer, Member, Trustee, etc.) 6 Attachment A City of Charlottesville Fee Schedule Application Type Quantity Fee Subtotal Special Use Permit (Residential) ~ Special Use Permit (Mixed Use/Non-Residential) $ 1,800 Mailing Costs per letter $1 per letter Newspaper Notice Payment Due Upon Invoice TOTAL 1s-co Office Use Only Amount Received: Date Paid Received By: Amount Received: Date Paid Received By: Amount Received: Date Paid Received By: AmoMi"ilt Rsce!~v@!ld: Date P3md Received ~if: 7 Attachment A City of Charlottesville LID Checklist LID Measure LID Checklist Points Points :oll1tpe~c:ttotrv Plantings (see City buffer mitigation manual). 90% of restor­ 5 points or 1 point for each 18% of the total a~ea,;:e Pervious pavers for ng and driveways with stone reservoir for storage of 0.5 inches of rainfall pervious drainage area. Surface area must be of on-site parking required. 6% of parking surface elimi­ nated. Impervious Disconnection. Follow design manuals 8 points adequate capture of roof runoff (e.g. cisterns, dry Bioretention. Percent of site treated must exceed 8 points or 1 point for each ea must be~ 5% of impervious drainage area. 10% of site treated. Rain gardens. All lots, rain garden surface 8 points or 1 point for each 10% of lots treated. Designed/constructed swales. Perce site treated must exceed 80%, achieve non-erosive velocities, and to convey peak discharge from 10 year storm. Manufactured sand filters, vaults (must provide filtering rather than just hydrodynamic). of site treated must exceed 80%. Sizing and treatment based on manufacturer's criteria. 8 points TBD, not to exceed 8 points Off-site contribution to project in City's water quality management plan. 5 points This measure to be considered when on site constraints (space, environ­ mentally sensitive areas, hazards) limit application of LID measures. Re­ quires pre-approval by NDS Director. Total Points Applicant1 S Signature Signature~ ~- Print -D ,· i!.i\ e. If M r: C"i oq Date 3 · 12 ' ;'g 8 Attachment B Special Use Permit Application for Diane Anderson's Family Day Home 227 Brookwood Drive, Charlottesville, VA 22902 Description of Daycare: I run a home-based daycare in the city of Charlottesville accepting children from infants to 4 years of age. Diane's Family Day Home is my passion and a dream come true. On a typical day the children engage in sensory play, story time and music/movement activities. I lovingly validate the children's emotions and help them to learn conflict resolution strategies with their peers. I have a passion for early childhood education and strongly believe in the value of compassionate, engaging care for babies, toddlers and preschoolers. Credentials and Experience: I have over 30 years of experience in taking care of children. As a teenager, I watched children in my neighborhood. I also raised two of my own children and my niece. I began watching infants and toddlers in my home in 2010. Licensing: I am a licensed family day home and am inspected by the Virginia Department of Social Services. I currently care for four children between 16 months and 4 years of age and have watched two of them since they were infants. Hours of Operation: Monday- Friday 7:00AM to 5:30PM. Open year round with two, week long vacations during the year. What is the Need for my Childcare Services in Charlottesville? At this time, I have two children on my waiting list. This demonstrates the need for full time care environments for infants, toddlers and preschoolers in Charlottesville. I am located near UVA and am convenient for university and hospital professionals in search of quality childcare. Proposed Number of Children: I am proposing to increase the number of children to eight. I will have a separate room with cribs and mattresses for napping infants and preschool cots for the older children. Description of the Neighborhood: My home based daycare is located on a street that forms a T shape with two entrances to Brookwood Drive. My home is zoned R-2Ufor "low density residential areas in the vicinity of UVA in which single family attached and two family dwellings are encouraged " The neighborhood is used for residential use. There are many rentals and duplex houses as well as those with home owners in residence. Many homes are occupied by families/ professionals, as well as students. Traffic and Parking: Traffic will be increased during drop off and pick up times. However, families have varying pick up and drop off times, so there would likely not be a large number of cars arriving simultaneously. Presently, there is usually one parent arriving at a time. Parents typically drop I • Attachment B off in the morning between 7:00 and 9:00 and pick up between 3:00 and 5:30 in the afternoon. Currently four children are dropped off and picked up each weekday. That number would increase to a max of eight with the proposed changes. This will not mean eight cars arriving twice daily as siblings will ride together. There has always been ample street parking for parents to drop off and pick up their children. I also have a driveway for parents to use. I do not anticipate difficulties with the increased traffic or parking needs. Parents leaving the daycare can access 5th Street or Ridge Street from Brookwood Drive. From there they have access to the 250 bypass, 29S, I64 or JPA toward UVA and downtown. Thus cars will disperse in many differing directions. Because of this and because of the varying pick-up and drop off times, I do not believe that traffic will be a great concern. We have driveway parking for three cars. There has always been ample street parking during the day. Sec. 34-157.- General Standards for Issuance: This proposed use will be harmonious with the existing neighborhood use. This daycare is a calm, quiet presence in the neighborhood. When we are outside, we are in a fenced in area in the front of the house. We have never had any complaints from neighbors. In fact, in speaking with our close neighbors about the daycare expansion I found that they were all very supportive and stated that the daycare had never inconvenienced them in any way nor did they expect it to with the additional children. The proposed use supports the need for full time, quality childcare for working families in Charlottesville. In addition, the children in my care are getting educational experiences that will prepare them for excellence in school. Research has shown that language rich, play­ based environments in early childhood are extremely important for future success in school. We are not proposing any changes to the existing buildings or structures. a. Traffic and parking are addressed above. The only additional noise and fumes will be those created by the added car traffic. There will be no displacement of residents. There is no anticipated discouragement of economic development activities that may provide desirable employment or enlarge the tax base. There is no anticipated increase in the density of population or intensity of use in relation to the community facilities existing or available; The proposed project has no anticipated impact on the availability of affordable housing in the neighborhood; There should be no impact on school populations. There is no encroachment on conservation or historic districts. Attachment B I have a license to run a family day home from the Virginia Department of Social Services. The scale of the project is watching eight children in a family day home. The family day home is located on a residential street near 5th Street. Having childcare accessible to workplaces benefits the specific area in discussion. The proposed use will meet zoning requirements if a special use permit is granted. To the best of my knowledge, the property is not within a design control district. Attachment B ~IRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES DIVISION OF LICENSING PROGRAMS SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Facility Name/Number: Diane Anderson 3668 Inspection Date 09/21/2017 DBA: Inspection End Date 09/21/2017 Inspect. Type: A- SHSI Annual UNM-Unannounced Non-Mandated The following records were reviewed: child 1 Hayzin Tyler age 3 years 2 points child 2 Norah Andrezejewska age 2 years 2 points child 3 Charlie Groseclse age 8 months 4 points child 4 Peter Everton age 22 months drop in only total points today 8 vendor Diane Anderson members of household Frank Gray Fatia Gray The assessed class ratings are: VENDHOM-000-(2)-006-B: Class 1 (1 point) VENDHOM-000-(7)-029-B: Class 2 (5 point) Total Points: 6 The POS machine was observed. Information found on the Supplemental Information page is confidential and this document is not to be posted in the facility. Inspector Representative Signature Signature Ll·cenc;inn Rep~~~~;tative ILA-rg_e_n_b_ri_g_ht_,_M_ic_h_e_lle_w_._ _ _ _ _ ___,! r::,.riliht R;~~~~entative IDiane Anderson ~============~ Date 109/21/2017 l Date Llo_91_2_11_2_o_17_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___, 032-05-035 (11/99) Page 1 of 1 V!RGINIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES Attachment B DIVISION OF LICENSING PROGRAMS INSPECTION SUMMARY Facility Name /Number Diane Anderson 3668 Inspection Date 09/21/2017 DBA Inspection End Date 09/21/2017 Inspect. Type: A- SHSi Annual UNM-Unannounced Non-Mandated Areas of Standards Reviewed: 0 22VAC40-180-(2) PROVIDER REGISTRATION AND GENERI IZJ VENDHOM-000-(1) INTRODUCTION. 0 22VAC40-180-(3) HEALTH AND SAFETY CRITERIA AND Cl­ IZ! VENDHOM-000-(2) Administration 0 63.2-(1) General Provisions. ~ VENDHOM-000-(3) Caregiver Qualifications and Training 0 63.2-(15) Child Abuse and Neglect I8J VENDHOM-000-(4) Physical Plant 0 63.2-(17) Licensure and Registration Procedures !ZI VENDHOM-Q00-(5) Caregivers and Supervision 0 63.2-(18) Facilities and Programs.. IZJ VENDHOM-000-(6) Programs !ZI 22VAC40-191-(BC) Background Checks for Child Welfare 1ZJ VENDHOM-000-(7) Special Care Provisions & Emergencies IZJ VENDHOM-000-(8) Special Services Technical Assistance Provided: Comments/Discussion: This unannounced monitoring subsidy health and safety Inspection was conducted from 10:00 A.M. until12:tfP.M. At the time of the inspection three children were present with the vendor and one adult member ofthe household. The subsidy requirements were reviewed with the vendor. The sample size consisted of four children's record, the vendor's records and household member's records. The emergency plan was discussed. The children and the vendor were observed during free play, diapering, hand washing, transitions, and behavioral guidance. Violations can be found on the violation notice. If you have any questions or concerns contact the licensing inspector at (540) 292-5933 for further assistance. Violatioo Notice Issued: Yes By signature the facility representative acknowledges that the inspector reviewed all information found on the Inspection Summary, including areas of standards reviewed; date(s) and time(s) of inspection, technical assistance provided and the comments/discussion section. Inspector Representative Signature Signature ;:::::====:=::~~~~ licensing Facility /Diane Anderson Representative Representative ~========================~ ~======================~ Date ._lo_91_2_11_2_o1_7_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____jl Date 109/21/2017 032-05-035 (11/99) • VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES Attachment B DIVISION OF LICENSING PROGRAMS VIOLATION NOTICE Facility Name /Number: Diane Anderson 3668 Inspection Date: 09/21/2017 DBA: Inspect.Type: A- SHSI Annual UNM-Unannounced Non-Mandated STANDARD DATE TO BE DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION PLAN OF CORRECTION NUMBER CORRECTED Based on record review, the vendor failed to obtain all the required information for one out of four children's records reviewed. VENDHOM-OOQ- The parents of the child will be asked for Evidence: 09/25/2017 (2)-006-B the address. The record for child 2 did not contain the address for the emergency contact Based on a review of the emergency prepared­ ness plan, the vendor failed to include all the required procedural components. Evidence: 1. The evacuation and relocation plan did not include the following: Securing of essential doc­ uments (attendance record, ~arent contact information, etc.) and specia health care sup- VENOHOM-OOQ- plies to be carried off-site on immediate notice; The emergency plan will be updated to 09/26/2017 (7)-029-B and procedure to reunite children with a parent include all the missing components. or authorized person designated by the parent to pick up the child. 2. The emergency plan did not contain informa­ tlon regarding drill frequency, and plan review and update. 3. The emergency plan only contained proce­ dures for evacuation. 4. The vendor stated she does not have a writ­ ten plan for lockdown and shelter-in-place. Compliance with all applicable regulations and law shall be maintained and any areas of noncompliance must be corrected. Within 15 calendar days of your receipt of the inspection findings (inspection summary,violation notice,and supplemental information),you may request a review and discussion of these findings with the inspector's immediate supervisor. To make a request for review and discussion, you must contact the licensing supervisor at the regional licensing office that serves your geographical area. Regardless of whether a supervisory review has been requested, the resuits of the inspection will be posted to the DSS public website within 5 business days of your receipt of the Inspection Summary and/ or Violation Notice. The department's inspection findings are subject to public disclosure. Inspector Representative Signature Signature ;::::=::=::::=::::=::::=::::=::::=:::=:; Inspector Name Argenbright Michelle W. I Representative Facility/Program ,D. A d lane n erson / ~--------------------------~ L--------------------------~ Date ~.....lo_91_2_11_2_0_17_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____Jj Date l~.....o_91_2_11_2_0_17_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____, Page 1 of 1 VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES • Attachment B DIVISION OF UCENSING PROGRAMS VIOLATION NOTICE Facility Name /Number: Diane Anderson 3668 Inspection Date: 09/21/2017 DBA: Inspect. Type: A- SHSI Annual UNM-Unannounced Non-Mandated Compliance with all applicable regulations and law shall be maintained and any areas of noncompliance must be corrected. Within 15 calendar days of your receipi of the inspection findings (inspection summary,violation notice,and supplemental information),you may request a review and discussion of these findings with the inspector's immediate supervisor. To make a request for review and discussion, you must contact the licensing supervisor at the regional licensing office that serves your geographical area. Regardless of whether a supervisory review has been requested, the results of the inspection will be posted to the DSS public website within 5 business days of your receipt of the Inspection Summary and/ or Violation Notice. The department's inspection findings are subject to public disclosure. Inspector Signature Inspector Name Date Attachment B February 17, 2018 To Whom It May Concern, My name is Diane Anderson and I am expanding my Family Day Home. Currently, I am providing daycare services for four children. With the approval of a Family Day Home SUP, I plan on accommodating eight children in the near future. Should my Family Day Home reach my max desire of eight children, I will stagger drop off and pick up times by 30 minutes. I will hold a meeting on Mondey. March 5. 2018 from 5:00 p.m. - 6:00 LJ.m. at City Hall to address any questions or concerns. The East Market Street door locks automatically at Spm but the entrance off the Mall will be open. The address to City Hall is: Neighborhood Development Services Conference Room City Hall 610 East Market Street Charlottesville. Virginia 22902 Sincerely, Diane Anderson 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: May 8, 2018 APPLICATION NUMBER: ZM18-00002 Project Planner: Matt Alfele Date of Staff Report: April 27, 2018 Applicant: Scott Collins (Collins Engineering) Applicants Representative: Scott Collins (Collins Engineering) Current Property Owner: Carlton Views I LLC, Carlton Views II LLC, ADC IV ’ville , & Hydro Halls LLC Application Information Property Street Address: 1335 and 1337 Carlton Avenue and two adjacent unaddressed lots Tax Map/Parcels #: Tax Map 56, Parcels 430, 431, 432, & 433 Total Square Footage/ Acreage Site: Approx. 4.855 acres (211,483 square feet) Comprehensive Plan (General Land Use Plan): Business and Technology Current Zoning Classification: M-I with an SUP Tax Status: Parcels are 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 and (Z.O.) Sec. 34-490. !pplicant’s Request (Summary) Scott Collins (of Collins Engineering) on behalf of Hydro Falls, LLC, Carlton Views I, LLC, arlton Views , , and ! V ’ville,  (landowners) has submitted an application pursuant to City Code 34-490 et seq., seeking a zoning map amendment to change the Page 1 of 24 zoning district classifications of the following four (4) parcels of land: 1335 Carlton Avenue (Tax Map 56 Parcel 430), 1337 Carlton Avenue (Tax Map 56 Parcel 431), Tax Map 56 Parcel 432, and Tax ap 56 Parcel 433 (together, the “Subject Property”). The Subject Property has frontage on both Carlton Avenue and Franklin Street and are further identified on City Real Property Tax Map 56 Parcels 430, 431, 432, and 433. The entire development contains approximately 4.855 acres or 211,483 square feet. The application proposes to change the zoning classification of the Subject Property from “- ” ( ndustrial) to “PU” (Planned Unit evelopment) subject to proffered development conditions. The proffered development conditions include: (i) affordable housing: providing affordable and accessible housing units for no less than 20 years in the following ratios: minimum 30% affordable units for residents earning under 60% AMI, minimum 15% of all affordable units for residents earning under 40% AMI, (ii) building design elements: minimum 15% of all affordable units designed to meet UFAS guidelines for accessibility, and minimum 30% of all affordable units designed to meet VHDA guidelines for universal design; entrance feature on all buildings fronting Carlton Avenue; (iii) maximum height of buildings shall not exceed 65 feet; (iv) parking: no additional parking over required City minimums; (v) outdoor lighting: full cut-off lighting; (vi) bus stop or shelter if deemed feasible by CAT; (vii) environmental/ site design: retaining tree canopy on east side of property adjacent to Franklin Street; and pedestrian linkages between buildings, open space and the neighborhood. The PUD Development Plan for this proposed development includes the following key components: approximate location of existing buildings and building envelope for future buildings, a phasing sequence of the development (phase 1 the PACE Center, completed, Phase 2 Carlton Views Apartments, completed, Phase 3 Carlton Views II Apartments, Phase 4 Carlton Views Apartments). According to the PUD Development Plan, the total proposed density of the project (all phases) will not exceed 32 DUA, for a total of 154 dwelling units. The PUD Development Plan contains details required by City Code, including: a use matrix for each phase, setback/ yard requirements for each phase, parking calculations for residential uses, open space, landscaping, architectural elements, and signage. The ity’s omprehensive Plan and and Use ap calls for the area to be used and developed for Business and Technology uses. The Comprehensive Plan contains no residential density range for the Subject Property. Page 2 of 24 Vicinity Map Zoning Map Gray: (M-I) Industrial, Orange: (R-3) Residential Multifamily, Green: (PUD) Sunrise Page 3 of 24 Rezoning 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 zoning district, relating to the purposes set forth at the beginning of the proposed district classification. Planned Unit Development Standard of Review Sec. 34-490. - In reviewing an application for approval of a planned unit development (PUD) or an application seeking amendment of an approved PUD, in addition to the general considerations applicable to any rezoning the city council and planning commission shall consider whether the application satisfies the following objectives of a PUD district: 1. To encourage developments of equal or higher quality than otherwise required by the strict application of zoning district regulations that would otherwise govern; 2. To encourage innovative arrangements of buildings and open spaces to provide efficient, attractive, flexible and environmentally sensitive design. 3. To promote a variety of housing types, or, within a development containing only a single housing type, to promote the inclusion of houses of various sizes; 4. To encourage the clustering of single-family dwellings for more efficient use of land and preservation of open space; 5. To provide for developments designed to function as cohesive, unified projects; 6. To ensure that a development will be harmonious with the existing uses and character of adjacent property, and/or consistent with patterns of development noted with respect to such adjacent property; 7. To ensure preservation of cultural features, scenic assets and natural features such as trees, streams and topography; Page 5 of 24 8. To provide for coordination of architectural styles internally within the development as well as in relation to adjacent properties along the perimeter of the development; and 9. To provide for coordinated linkages among internal buildings and uses, and external connections, at a scale appropriate to the development and adjacent neighborhoods; 10. To facilitate access to the development by public transit services or other single- vehicle-alternative services, including, without limitation, public pedestrian systems. Preliminary Analysis The applicant is proposing to rezone the four (4) parcels near the intersection of Carlton Avenue and Franklin Street from the existing M-I to Planned Unit Development. The rezoning request is part of larger development plan that started back in 2012. The first phase of the development was the completion of the by-right Blue Ridge PACE Center located at 1335 Carlton Avenue. Completed in the summer of 2014, the PACE Center (Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly) offers healthcare and health related services designed to keep individuals living in their own homes and communities for as long as possible. The center is run as a partnership between Riverside Health System, The University of Virginia Medical Center, and the Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA) serving seniors who live in Charlottesville and surrounding counties. Services offered by PACE include medical care, nursing, physical therapy, occupational therapy, nutritional services, medical social work services, and home health care. Over the last four (4) years the PACE Center has provided a much needed service to the community. In 2013 phase II was started in order to create the residential aspect of the development. In May 2013 City Council passed a Special Use Permit (SUP) resolution (Attachment E) allowing the maximum residential density of 21 DUA for M-I zoned parcels. This laid the groundwork for a fifty-four (54) unit apartment building at 1337 Carlton Avenue (Carlton Views I). In July 2015 the final site plan for Carlton Views I was approved and construction was completed in early 2017. At the time of this report all fifty-four (54) units are rented out to residents making under 60% AMI. Phase III of the development started in summer of 2017 and a preliminary site plan for a forty-eight (48) unit apartment building (Carlton Views II) was approved by the Planning Commission on January 10, 2018. In early 2018 City Council awarded the developer 1.44 million dollar for acquisition of the site for affordable units. Once completed all forty-eight (48) units will be rented out to residents making under 60% AMI. Currently the final site plan for Carlton Views II is awaiting approval. Page 6 of 24 The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the Subject Properties to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to accommodate a higher density development than the current (21) DUA allowed by the SUP (Attachment E). The 2013 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map does not designate areas that would neatly conform to PUD type developments as they are a special zoning designation with criteria found in Z.O. Sec. 34 Article V. The closest Land Use description from the 2013 Plan would be Mixed Use. Mixed Use in the 2013 Land Use Plan is described 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, including many commercial uses, residential uses, and some limited research and manufacturing where appropriate. According the Development Plan Use Matrix (Attachment B) uses permitted within the PUD would be consistent with most of the current M-I uses, with some exclusions and additions. All of the Non-Residential Industrial uses have been removed as allowable uses. For a list of allowed uses within the PUD see attachment B. For a full comparison see attachment F. The main uses proposed in the Development Plan (Attachments B and C) are multifamily and non-residential. Table 1 (Attachment B page 20) indicates the total allowable unit count for the development to be (154) and a total non-residential buildout of (50,000) square feet. Currently the site is utilizing (20,000) square feet for the PACE Center and (102) residential units. This leaves a total of (30,000) square feet of non-residential and (52) residential units remaining for development. The table indicates residential units could be spread throughout the site, but the non-residential uses would be limited to; Phase I – (30,000) square feet maximum, Phase II – (7,500) square feet maximum, Phase III – (5,000) square feet maximum, and Phase IV – (7,500) square feet maximum. The use matrix provided in the Development Plan indicates non-residential uses as commercial, retail, and general. Should the rezoning be approved, the overall density for the site will increase from the SUP maximum of (21) DUA to a maximum of (32) DUA. Under the future land use map definition this density is considered High Density Residential. It should be noted that regardless of a rezoning, the subject properties are already “ igh ensity Residential” based on the (21) U! and the type of housing existing on site (apartments). Page 10 of 24 As with any rezoning, staff is concerned with future development not anticipated on the subject properties. The Development Plan and proffer statement outlines the parameters needed to complete the current development program. This includes the increase in density from (21) DUA to a maximum of 154 dwelling within the PUD. Building envelopes, building heights, and preservation of many SUP conditions are also in line with the existing program for the site. What is more ambiguous, and harder to analyze, is a full understanding of any future development based on the PUD use matrix. Although the PUD use matrix and the M-I use matrix correspond in many areas (retaining a lot of the commercial and residential uses), they do differ in a few key ways. The PUD use matrix removes all industrial uses currently allowed in the M-I district. With the residential aspect of the site this is a reasonable alteration to make, but one Planning Commission should focus on. The City has limited Industrial areas and a rezoning this size would remove close to (5) acres of potential industrial development. Residential treatment facilities, bank/financial institutions, and private clubs are uses within the PUD use matrix that are not permitted in the M-I district. Planning Commission should give some thought to these uses to insure they are appropriate for this location. 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 proposed rezoning application materials (Attachment C, page 13). Staff Analysis The ity’s omprehensive Plan identifies community facilities as fire protection, police enforcement, and emergency response services; public utilities and infrastructure; and public parks and recreation opportunities. Each of these departments reviewed the Development Plan and found no impacts to community facilities. Per Z.O. Sec. 34-517(a)(7), the ity’s Public Utilities Department has verified that water and sewer infrastructure has capacity for the proposed land uses. Per Z.O. Sec. 34-517(a)(8), the ity’s Fire Marshal verified that adequate fire flow service exist for the proposed land uses. 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 proposed rezoning application materials (Attachment C). Page 12 of 24 Staff Analysis Staff finds no direct conflict with Chapter 3 (Economic Sustainability) of the Comprehensive Plan with a change of use from M-I to PUD. Staff is concerned with the removal of all industrial uses from the proposed use matrix. 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 proposed rezoning application materials (Attachment C, page 15 and 16). Staff Analysis The evelopment Plan was reviewed by the ity’s nvironmental Department and provided the following analyses. The lighting plan is dark skies compliant, but does not specify high energy efficient fixtures (LED) lighting, as related to Chapter 4 goals 5 and 6. The Development Plan appears to support sustainable methods of transportation as outlined in Chapter 4 goal 6.3. The Development Plan does not commit to high performance green building standards, Chapter 4 goal 5, or indoor and/or outdoor energy efficient or water efficient features, Chapter 4, goals 6 and 7. Waste Reduction management practices, Chapter 4, goal 8, is also not supported. The Development Plan appears to protect the existing tree canopy and steep slope areas on the eastern side. Open space requirements are also achieved. 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 proposed rezoning application materials (Attachment C, page 17 and Attachment D). Staff Analysis Staff finds the existing, approved and proposed uses for the subject properties could contribute to Goals 3.1, 3.4, 4.1, 7.1, 8.1, & 8.7 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 ity’s !ffordable ousing und. In the application, narrative and proffer statement, affordable housing is discussed as an element of the development. The applicant indicates they Page 13 of 24 will be providing a minimum of 46 units, affordable to households with incomes less than 60% Area Median Income ($35,880/year for a single person household and $40,980/year for a 2 person household), on site. Of those 46 units, 7 units will be set aside for residents with household incomes less than 40% AMI ($23,920/year for a single person household and $27,320/year for a family of two). All of the affordable units will be designed to meet VHDA universal design principles or Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards for accessibility. It should be noted that with the completion of the 54 affordable units in Phase II (Carlton Views I), the applicant met and exceeded the affordable housing conditions of their proffer statement dated April 19, 2018. The recently approved Phase III (Carlton Views II) development will add an additional 48 units of affordable housing on site. The success of Carlton Views I, which was fully leased within 45 days after project completion, demonstrates the high demand for affordable rental housing in the City. 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. 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 proposed rezoning application materials (Attachment C, page 13 - 15). Staff Analysis The evelopment Plan was reviewed by the ity’s Traffic epartment and found no impact to transportation. Streets that Work Plan The Streets that Work Plan (approved September 2016 as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan) labels Carlton Avenue as Industrial. The full plan can be viewed at: http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and- services/departments-h-z/neighborhood-development-services/streets- that-work/streets-that-work-plan Industrial Streets are characterized by one vehicular travel lane in each direction, sidewalks without buffers and some on-street parking. The streets provide access to commercial and industrial properties and must be able to Page 14 of 24 accommodate larger truck traffic. Many of the buildings along these streets are significantly set back from the road. The Streets that Work Plan notes the highest priority design elements for Industrial Streets are sidewalks with a minimum of five (5) to six (6) feet of clear zone and curbside buffer zones of three (3) to six (6) feet with trees. Limited on-street parking, a design speed of 25mph, and limited bicycle facilities are priorities for Industrial Street. Independent of the rezoning application, improvements to the subject properties frontage has been completed along Carlton Avenue. Carlton Avenue currently has a five (5) foot sidewalk with a four (4) foot buffer zone. The buffer zone is not planted, but new trees do exist on the development side of the sidewalk. On-street parking is currently allowed on both sides of Carlton Avenue. Any development with frontage on Franklin Street will require upgrading the sidewalk and providing street trees. Due to the existing development and proposed future development, Industrial Street Typology might not be the appropriate designation for this location. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Vision Network indicates Carlton Avenue to be an on-road corridor local at this location. The plan also calls for Bike Lane/ Buffered Bike Lane at this location. The Franklin Street tunnel under the railroad tracks is indicated as needing intersection improvements according to the Master Plan. The proposed PUD will reduce parking by 35% for the residential portions of the development. As part of the review and approval of Carlton Views II (Phase III), the Director of NDS approved a cooperative parking arrangement per Z.O. Sec. 34-974. If the PUD is approved, the cooperative parking arrangement will be replace by the standards within the Development Plan (Attachment C, page 24 and 25). It should be noted the 35% reduction in parking only applies to residential use. Should other types of development happen on the subject properties (per the proposed use matrix), they will be required to meet City parking standards or amend the PUD. 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 proposed rezoning application materials (Attachment C). Page 15 of 24 Staff Analysis Staff finds the uses which could occur as part of the PUD development on the subject properties could contribute to Goal 1.3 Historic Preservation & Urban Design chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. The subject properties are not in an Architect Controlled district, but the Woolen Mills Conservation District is in close proximity. 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 C). Staff Analysis Staff finds that a land use change from M-I to PUD, with proffers, as described in the application materials, could benefit the surrounding community by providing additional residential housing options. An increase in density from (21) DUA to 154 units has the potential of added (52) affordable units to this area of the City. 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 M-I to PUD in their Development Plan (Attachment C). Staff Analysis !ccording to the ity’s 2013 Future Land Use Map, this portion of the City should be Business and Technology and permit small scale offices and technological development. Recent development on the subject properties have already changed the development pattern from Industrial to Mixed-Use. The proposed PUD would not be consistent with the 2013 Future Land Use Map, but it would be consistent with the current pattern of development. Even without the rezoning, future development on the subject property would be more in line with the Comprehensive Plan’s definition for Mixed-Use then that of Business and Technology. Based on the M-I use matrix allowances and the PUD it is possible that future development on the site could be consistent with Business and Technology. It is the introduction of residential uses that shift the land use to Mixed-Use. Staff finds the only substantial and realistic change the rezoning to PUD will achieve is an increase in residential density. Page 16 of 24 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 (Attachments C and D). 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, see the analysis below based on Z.O. Sec. 34-490. Planned Unit Development Standard of Review Sec. 34-490. - In reviewing an application for approval of a planned unit development (PUD) or an application seeking amendment of an approved PUD, in addition to the general considerations applicable to any rezoning the city council and planning commission shall consider whether the application satisfies the following objectives of a PUD district: 1. To encourage developments of equal or higher quality than otherwise required by the strict application of zoning district regulations that would otherwise govern; The applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the standard of review is found in the Development Plan (Attachment C, page 18). Staff Analysis Staff finds the development would be equal to the current regulations in place. Many of the requirements of the subject properties SUP would be preserved in the PUD development. The proffered affordable unit requirements are of a higher quality than that required by the strict application of the zoning regulations. Additional density could also not be achieved under the current district regulations. 2. To encourage innovative arrangements of buildings and open spaces to provide efficient, attractive, flexible and environmentally sensitive design. Page 17 of 24 The applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the standard of review is found in the Development Plan (Attachment C, page 18). Staff Analysis Staff finds the arrangements of buildings as proposed is not that innovative, but they do engage the street frontage along Carlton Avenue. Open spaces with pedestrian connectivity are provided and environmentally stormwater features are included. Phase IV of the development still offers an opportunity for innovative design. 3. To promote a variety of housing types, or, within a development containing only a single housing type, to promote the inclusion of houses of various sizes; The applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the standard of review is found in the Development Plan (Attachment C, page 18). Staff Analysis Staff finds the PUD, as presented in the application materials, only provides one housing type (apartment). Within that housing type, one and two-bedroom units are available. The PUD use matrix does leave the possibility for future housing types within the development that include; single-family attached, single-family detached, townhouse, and two-family. 4. To encourage the clustering of single-family dwellings for more efficient use of land and preservation of open space; The applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the standard of review is found in the Development Plan (Attachment C, page 18). Staff Analysis Staff finds the PUD, as presented in the application materials, is intended to be a high density multifamily development. No single-family dwellings are proposed under the current building program, but the use matrix leaves open the possibility of future single-family homes clustered around 0.25 of required open space. 5. To provide for developments designed to function as cohesive, unified projects; The applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the standard of review is found in the Development Plan (Attachment C, page 18 and 19). Page 18 of 24 Staff Analysis Although the development did not start out as a cohesive project in 2012, Phase I, II, and III are all interconnected. When fully built out the PACE Center and residential units will functions as a cohesive unified project. 6. To ensure that a development will be harmonious with the existing uses and character of adjacent property, and/or consistent with patterns of development noted with respect to such adjacent property; The applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the standard of review is found in the Development Plan (Attachment C, page 19). Staff Analysis The development will be harmonious with existing uses on the subject properties. The development will also be harmonious with the existing residential uses south of Carlton Avenue. The development will be harmonious with the adjacent industrial uses to the east and west of the subject properties, but not the character. Due to the completion of the PACE Center and Carlton View I, the establishment of a PUD would be consistent with the most recent development patterns. 7. To ensure preservation of cultural features, scenic assets and natural features such as trees, streams and topography; The applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the standard of review is found in the Development Plan (Attachment C, page 19). Staff Analysis The proposed PUD will retain the steep slope and tree canopy on the eastern end of the development. It should be noted that even without a rezoning to PUD the SUP requires preservation of these features. 8. To provide for coordination of architectural styles internally within the development as well as in relation to adjacent properties along the perimeter of the development; The applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the standard of review is found in the Development Plan (Attachment C, page 19). Staff Analysis The application materials indicate an architectural style to match the existing buildings, but not detail drawings of future buildings were provided. The only architectural style adjacent to the subject properties is a large warehouse building that sits back from Carlton Avenue. Page 19 of 24 9. To provide for coordinated linkages among internal buildings and uses, and external connections, at a scale appropriate to the development and adjacent neighborhoods; The applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the standard of review is found in the Development Plan (Attachment C, page 19). Staff Analysis Coordinated linkages among internal buildings and external connections to the adjacent neighborhood is provided. As noted under (7), even without a rezoning the existing SUP requires this linkage. 10.To facilitate access to the development by public transit services or other single-vehicle-alternative services, including, without limitation, public pedestrian systems. The applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the standard of review is found in the Development Plan (Attachment C, page 20). Staff Analysis Both CAT and Jaunt provide transit service to the site. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Vision Network indicates Carlton Avenue to be an on-road corridor local at this location. The plan also calls for Bike Lane/ Buffered Bike Lane at this location. The Franklin Street tunnel under the railroad tracks is indicated as needing intersection improvements according to the Master Plan. Public Comments Received Community Meeting Required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(c)(2) On March 15, 2018 the applicant held a community meeting at the Blue Ridge PACE Center. The applicant gave an overview of the project as it related to the need for a rezoning. Two members of the public attended the meeting and voiced the following concerns:  How will Phase IV (Carlton Views III) be screened from the adjacent Woolen Mills neighborhood?  What will the architectural style of the future buildings be?  Would any of the future phase include a small grocery store or other neighborhood amenity?  Lighting from the development is a big concern.  Retaining all the SUP conditions from the original development is a priority. Page 20 of 24 area median income, shall be included on plan. Units will be set aside for low income the site. residents earning under sixty-percent (60%) of the area median income (AMI) and extremely low income residents earning under forty percent (40%) of the area median income. In addition, a specified number of affordable units will meet UFAS requirements for accessibility and VHDA requirements for universal design. Specific use requirements will include:  a minimum of 30% affordable housing, defined as residents earning under 60% AMI.  a minimum of 15% of all affordable units set aside for residents earning under 40% AMI.  a minimum of 15% of all affordable units designed to meet UFAS guidelines for accessibility.  a minimum of 30% of all affordable units designed to meet VHDA guidelines for universal design. Each of these requirements will remain in place for no less than 20 years from the time an affordable unit is first placed in service. The affordability period shall be codified through an Extended Use Agreement or other deed restriction recorded in the land records at the Circuit Court in Charlottesville. In addition, Section 8 voucher holders will have first priority for any available units that have been designated affordable across the properties. 3. The number of bedrooms in any No Proffer dwelling unit on the site shall not exceed 3 bedrooms. 4. An entrance feature shall be 3. There will be a provision of an entrance incorporated into all buildings that front feature to all buildings that front on on Carlton Avenue. Carlton Avenue. Page 22 of 24 5. Parking provided shall not exceed the 4. No additional parking over the required minimum required by City Code. The parking by the City code. excess number of spaces shown on the plan submitted to the Planning Commission on May, 14 2013 shall be converted to the same amount of open space. 6. Full cutoff luminaires shall be used and 5. Full cutoff luminaires shall be used and shall be equipped with devices for shall be equipped with devices for redirecting light such as shields, visors, or redirecting light such as shields, visors, or hoods to eliminate the luminaire glare and hoods to eliminate the luminaire glare and block direct illumination from neighboring block direct illumination from neighboring properties. The fixture shall completely properties. The fixture shall completely conceal and recess the light source from all conceal and recess the light source from all viewing positions except those positions viewing positions except those positions permitted to receive illumination. permitted to receive illumination. Directional luminaires such as floodlights, Directional luminaires such as floodlights, spotlights, and sign lights shall illuminate spotlights, and sign lights shall illuminate only the task and do not shine directly onto only the task and do not shine directly onto neighboring properties, roadways, or neighboring properties, roadways, or distribute excessive light skyward. distribute excessive light skyward. 7. Applicant shall work with 6. The developers will work with CAT for Charlottesville Area Transit to facilitate the inclusion of a bus stop/shelter if appropriate transit connections for deemed feasible or appropriate. residents. 8. xisting trees greater than 6” in caliper 7. The site design shall retain the tree in the open space area on the east side of canopy on the east side of the property the site shall be retained. adjacent to Franklin Street for open space area. 9. Pedestrian linkages shall be provided 8. The site design shall provide pedestrian between buildings, open space on site, and linkages between buildings and open space the neighborhood. on site and the neighborhood. 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. Page 23 of 24 (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 a justification for the change should Planning Commission determine additional density is suitable for this location. (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, and would meet the objectives of the PUD zoned districts. Suggested Motions 1. I move to recommend approval of this application to rezone the subject properties from M-I, to PUD, 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 M-I to PUD, on the basis that the proposal would not service the interests of the general public and good zoning practice. Attachments A. Rezoning Application Dated March 27, 2018 B. Development Application Plan Dated April 19, 2018 C. Development Plan Document Dated April 19, 2018 D. Proffer Statement Dated April 19, 2018 E. May 20, 2013 SUP Resolution for 1335 Carlton Avenue F. Use Matrix Comparison Page 24 of 24 Attachment C CARLTON VIEWS DEVELOPMENT PUD Application Plan City of Charlottesville, Virginia March 27, 2018 Revision #1: April 19, 2018 CARLTON VIEWS PUD APPLICATION Page 1 Attachment C Table of Contents 1. Purpose and Intent 2. Project History 3. Land Use a. Existing Conditions b. Adjacent Properties and Uses c. Comprehensive Plan 4. Public Facilities and Infrastructure a. Water and Sanitary Sewer b. Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements c. Transportation Improvements d. Stormwater Management Improvements 5. Environmental Features and Impacts 6. Affordable Housing 7. PUD Objectives 8. General Development Plan a. Development Plan b. Parking c. Open Space d. Landscaping e. Architectural Elements f. Signage g. Lighting List of Figures 1. Existing Subdivision Plat 2. Existing Zoning Map 3. Existing Conditions – Carlton Views Property 4. Existing Comprehensive Plan 5. Conceptual Updates to the Comprehensive Plan 6. City of Charlottesville GIS Map 7. Previous Use – Concrete Manufacturing Plant List of Tables 1. Overall Allowable Density 2. Land Use Matrix 3. Setbacks & Maximum Building Heights CARLTON VIEWS PUD APPLICATION Page 2 Attachment C Purpose and Intent Carlton Views Development is an existing mixed‐use development located adjacent to the CSX railroad at the eastern terminus of Carlton Avenue in downtown Charlottesville, Virginia. The owner/applicants, Fountainhead Properties and its affiliates, ADC IV Charlottesville, Carlton Views I LLC, Carlton Views II LLC and Hydro Falls LLC, are requesting approval for a PUD rezoning of the parcels making up the Carlton Views/PACE Center project. This project, on 4.855 acres at 1335 Carlton Avenue, was initially approved for a Special Use Permit dated May 20, 2013 to allow up to 21 dwelling units an acre on the property, which is currently zoned M‐1. The proposed PUD request would increase the allowable density on the property from 21 DUA to a maximum of 154 units (32 DUA) and increase the affordable housing requirements, while keeping similar allowable uses on the property for the M‐1 zoning and maintaining the Special Use Permit conditions on the property. The Carlton Views development is a mixed‐use project that has successfully blended the commercial and medical uses of the Blue Ridge Pace Center with affordable and accessible housing for the frail elderly and disabled residents in Charlottesville. With a Housing + Services approach, supportive services for the elderly and disabled are partnered with affordable and accessible housing options located in close proximity to these services. Building on the success of the current 54‐unit apartment building that is currently providing accessible and universally designed units for low‐income elderly and disabled residents, the developers for the Carlton Views property is seeking to allow additional density on the property through the PUD process to construct more affordable units. The additional density will meet the objectives set by the Charlottesville Housing Policy and Comprehensive plan by growing the affordable housing stock in Charlottesville, providing a minimum of 30% affordability for the residential units for a minimum of 20 years, accommodating the housing needs for low‐income seniors and those with disabilities, and increasing density in the areas near employment and transit services. Project History Beginning in 2012, Fountainhead Properties and its affiliates began purchasing and developing parcels along Carlton Avenue at the site of the old H.T. Ferron concrete plant. Fountainhead had plans to develop a mixed‐use project incorporating commercial and residential uses centered on the development of a PACE facility on the site. In November 2012, ADC IV Charlottesville purchased 2.032 acres at 1335 Carlton Avenue (TM 56‐43.2) and began the by‐right development of the Blue Ridge PACE Center. The project was successfully completed in the summer of 2014 and is now in its third year of operation. In May 2013, the City of Charlottesville approved a Special Use Permit permitting residential uses in the M‐1 zoning district and approved residential density of 21 DUA for the 4.855 acres CARLTON VIEWS PUD APPLICATION Page 3 Attachment C site. This set the stage for the phased development of multifamily buildings on the sites around the PACE Center. In August 2014, upon completion of the PACE facility and approval of the SUP, Hydro Falls LLC exercised its purchase option on the remaining acreage and began developing the first residential phase of the project at 1337 Carlton Avenue (TM 56‐43.3). This fifty‐four (54) unit apartment building, known as Carlton Views I, was completed and successfully leased‐up in early 2017. The second residential phase, including a forty‐eight unit building, is set to receive final site plan approval from the City and break ground in April 2018. This building, known as Carlton Views II, is expected to be completed in late 2019. Prior to development of Carlton Views I, Parcel C (TM 56‐43) was subdivided into two parcels. Carlton Views I was built on a new 1.262 acre parcel C (TM 56‐43.3). The subdivision left a 1.034 acre residual parcel D (the new TM 56–43) remaining and undeveloped. With this subdivision, Fountainhead Properties or its affiliates own and operate four contiguous properties along Carlton Avenue as follows: Tax Map Parcel Acres Project Building 56‐43.1 A 0.627 Carlton Views II 48 units 56‐43.2 B 1.925 PACE Commercial 56‐43.3 C 1.262 Carlton Views I 54 units 56‐43 D 1.034 Undeveloped None Figure 1 on sheet 5 shows the boundary line subdivision plats for a layout of the parcels as currently configured. Existing Blue Ridge Pace Center CARLTON VIEWS PUD APPLICATION Page 4 Attachment C Figure 4: Existing Comprehensive Plan Existing Carlton Views Apartment Building CARLTON VIEWS PUD APPLICATION Page 8 Attachment C Figure 6: City of Charlottesville GIS map Parcel Id: Tax Parcel # Owner: Address Zoning A 5600404A0 Woolen Mills Self 131 Franklin St MLTP Storage, LLC Charlottesville, VA 22902 B 560029200 Wright Brothers 1308 E Market St M‐I Holdings, LLC Charlottesville, VA 22902 C 560028000 Wright Brothers 1308 E Market St MLTP Holdings, LLC Charlottesville, VA 22902 D 560027000 Wright Brothers 1308 E Market St M‐I Holdings, LLC Charlottesville, VA 22902 E 560044000 One Carlton, LLC 12704 Crimson Ct, Ste 101 M‐I Henrico, VA 23233 F 560044A00 STC, LLC 1327 Carlton Ave, #A M‐I Charlottesville, VA 22902 G 560086000 My Properties, LLC 411 2nd St NE B‐2H Charlottesville, VA 22902 H 560085100 Sunrise Park, LLC 919 W Main St PUD Charlottesville, VA 22903 I 560085W00 Sunrise Park, LLC 919 W Main St PUD Charlottesville, VA 22903 J 560087100 Bolton, Constance, 1500 Carlton Ave, Box 67 R‐3 TR & Shirley W, TR Charlottesville, VA 22902 K 07700‐00‐00‐ Elemental Ecotech, 809 Bolling Ave, Unit C Light 040B0 LLC Charlottesville, VA 22902 Industry CARLTON VIEWS PUD APPLICATION Page 9 Attachment C L 07700‐00‐00‐ Jackrabbit Partners, 605 Cami Lane Light 040C2 LLC Charlottesville, VA 22902 Industry M 07700‐00‐00‐ 615 Cami Lane, LLC 615 Cami Lane Light 040C5 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Industry N 560114500 Morningstar 3101 Sugar Hill Lane R‐1SC Development, LLC Crozet, VA 22932 O 560114400 Franklin St, LLC 1845 James Monroe Pkwy R‐1SC Charlottesville, VA 22902 P 560114300 Franklin St, LLC 1845 James Monroe Pkwy R‐1SC Charlottesville, VA 22902 Q 560114200 Franklin St, LLC 1845 James Monroe Pkwy R‐1SC Charlottesville, VA 22902 R 560113000 Burgess, Lane PO Box 1054 R‐1SC Properties, LLC Charlottesville, VA 22902 S 560109000 Jaba Timberlake 674 Hillsdale Dr, Ste 9 PUD Place, LLC Charlottesville, VA 22901 T 560114000 Dominick, Betty Jo 1610 E Market St R‐1SC Charlottesville, VA 22902 U 560114100 Gelburd, Greg 1612 E Market St R‐1SC Charlottesville, VA 22902 V 56011500 Sam & Moose, LLC 1001 E Market St, Ste 202 R‐1SC Charlottesville, VA 22902 W 560112000 Goddin, Charles Burr 511 Moseley Dr R‐1SC Charlottesville, VA 22902 X 560110000 Emory, William 1604 E Market St R‐1SC Charlottesville, VA 22902 Y 560111000 Emory, William 1604 E Market St R‐1SC Charlottesville, VA 22902 Z 560108000 Syme, Preston Trigg, 1600 E Market St R‐1SC Etal, Trustees Charlottesville, VA 22902 AA 560107000 Childress, Connor J M 1516 E Market St R‐1SC & Mariel T Charlottesville, VA 22902 BB 560040400 Jaba Timberlake 674 Hillsdale Dr, Ste 9 PUD Place, LLC Charlottesville, VA 22901 CC 560082000 Lombardo, 313 Parkway St R‐2 Jacqueline & Joseph Charlottesville, VA 22902 DD 560081000 Redd, Bernice 1408 Midland St R‐2 Charlottesville, VA 22902 EE 560079000 Linke, Robin 1412 Midland St R‐2 Charlottesville, VA 22902 FF 560078000 Kitelinger, Luke 1410 Rialto St R‐2 Charlottesville, VA 22902 GG 560078100 Gibson, E Wayne & 1416 Midland St R‐2 Shelby Charlottesville, VA 22902 HH 560078200 Pugh, Paul & Joyce 1418 Midland St R‐2 Charlottesville, VA 22902 II 560088000 Chung, Jonathan 1500 Midland St R‐2 CARLTON VIEWS PUD APPLICATION Page 10 Attachment C Charlottesville, VA 22902 JJ 560088200 Newman, Lauren 1502 Midland St R‐2 Charlottesville, VA 22902 KK 560088300 Beach, Benjamin 1504 Midland St R‐2 Charlottesville, VA 22902 LL 560098000 Smith, Gary 1506 Midland St R‐2 Charlottesville, VA 22902 MM 560101B00 McDaniel, Donnie 1304 Carlton Ave, #1 R‐2 Charlottesville, VA 22902 NN 560101A00 Ryan, Edward & 708 Franklin St R‐2 Sherry Charlottesville, VA 22902 OO 560103000 Hammell, Adam & 718 Franklin St R‐2 Weesner, Jillian Charlottesville, VA 22902 PP 56010500 Local Oak, LLC PO Box 359 R‐2 Keene, VA 22964 QQ 560106000 Slezak, David & 722 Franklin St R‐2 Martha Loach Charlottesville, VA 22902 RR 560087000 White, John Jr 1012 Grove St R‐2 Charlottesville, VA 22903 IA 560085V00 Chhetri, Keshar & 509 Nassau St PUD Parbati Charlottesville, VA 22902 IB 560085U00 Amaya, Wendy 511 Nassau St PUD Charlottesville, VA 22902 IC 560085T00 Brown, Latoya 513 Nassau St PUD Charlottesville, VA 22902 ID 560085S00 Hammond, Verma 515 Nassau St PUD Towander Charlottesville, VA 22902 IE 560085R00 Ince, Alexander 1433 Midland St PUD Charlottesville, VA 22902 IF 560085Q00 Cunningham, 1431 Midland St PUD Timothy Charlottesville, VA 22902 IG 560085P00 Southern Property, 170 S Pantops Dr PUD LLC Charlottesville, VA 22911 IH 560085J00 Martinez‐Fuentes, 1420 Sunrise Park Ln PUD Jasmin Leticia Charlottesville, VA 22902 IJ 560085I00 Mayo, Rachel 1418 Sunrise Park Ln PUD Charlottesville, VA 22902 IK 560085H00 Martin, Danna 1414 Sunrise Park Ln PUD Katrice Charlottesville, VA 22902 IL 560085G00 Briggs, Lisa 1412 Sunrise Park Ln PUD Charlottesville, VA 22902 IM 560086B00 Candelario, Louisa 1406 Sunrise Park Ln PUD Charlottesville, VA 22902 IN 560086A00 Ayite, Kokou & Eya 1404 Sunrise Park Ln PUD Charlottesville, VA 22902 IO 560086C00 Ott, Joshua 506 Rives St PUD Charlottesville, VA 22902 CARLTON VIEWS PUD APPLICATION Page 11 Attachment C IP 560086D00 Yang, Steve 508 Rives St PUD Charlottesville, VA 22902 IQ 560086F00 Southern Property, 170 S Pantops Dr PUD LLC Charlottesville, VA 22902 IR 560086G00 Martin, John Nelson 514 Rives St PUD Charlottesville, VA 22902 IS 560086H00 Smith, Michael 516 Rives St PUD Anthony Charlottesville, VA 22902 IT 560085A00 Almafraji, Mohamad 1403 Midland St PUD & Sanaa Aldolemi Charlottesville, VA 22902 IU 560085B00 Viglietta, Evan & 1405 Midland St PUD Sally Charlottesville, VA 22902 IV 560085C00 Folley, Harold Jr & 1407 Midland St PUD Clarissa Charlottesville, VA 22902 IW 560085D00 Allah Mohammad, 1409 Midland St PUD Haji & Nasima Khuda Charlottesville, VA 22902 IX 560085E00 Anderson, Beverly J 1411 Midland St PUD Charlottesville, VA 22902 IY 560085F00 Guerra, Benjamin & 1413 Midland St PUD Maria Hernandez Charlottesville, VA 22902 IZ 5600851A0 Sunrise Park, LLC 919 W Main St PUD Charlottesville, VA 22903 CARLTON VIEWS PUD APPLICATION Page 12 Attachment C Public Facilities and Infrastructure Water and Sanitary Sewer The Carlton Views development extended sanitary sewer approximately 1,500 linear feet up Franklin Street and Carlton Street to serve the existing Pace Center and Phase I apartment building. This extension of the sanitary sewer also services the adjacent properties to the south and west of the development, extending sanitary sewer services to this area. The sanitary sewer was extended in 2013 and is currently operational and has the capacity for the proposed development and redevelopment of the adjacent properties. Also in 2013, the developers of the Pace Center worked together with the City of Charlottesville Utilities department to install a 12” waterline under the railroad tracks along Franklin Street. With the installation of this 12” waterline, the overall water pressure was increased within this portion of the neighborhood for overall fire protection. Prior to the installation of the 12” waterline, and existing waterline infrastructure in the neighborhood did not meet the current fire flow requirements. The improvements to the water infrastructure not only provided the necessary fire flows for the neighborhood, it provided adequate fire protection on the property for the Pace Center and the proposed apartment buildings. Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements With the current development of the Carlton Views property, the streetscape along Carlton Avenue has been improved with the development. Pedestrian sidewalks and street trees have been installed along Carlton Avenue with each of the phases of development. Upon completion of the overall development, sidewalks and street trees will extend along Carlton Avenue and Franklin Street, tying into the existing pedestrian improvements within this area. A grass utility strip has also been installed between the sidewalk and the roadway to provide additional buffering for the pedestrians from the roadway. In addition to the pedestrian improvements, Carlton Avenue has been widened along the frontage of the property. The widening of this section of Carlton Avenue is consistent with the current width of the remaining portions of Carlton Avenue, which accommodates (2) lanes of traffic, on‐street parking, and bike lanes. Carlton Avenue has extended the existing shared street bicycle route down Carlton Street to the intersection of Franklin Street. This extension of the shared bicycle route helps connect downtown Charlottesville with the redevelopment projects along Broadway, as well as connecting to more of the residential neighborhoods to the north and south of Carlton Avenue. Shared bike lane pavement markings shall be added to Carlton Avenue. CARLTON VIEWS PUD APPLICATION Page 13 Attachment C Picture of Carlton Avenue Streetscape Picture of Carlton Avenue Improvements CARLTON VIEWS PUD APPLICATION Page 14 Attachment C Transportation Improvements Carlton Views has improved the portion of Carlton Avenue from the intersection of Carlton Avenue and Nassau Street east to the intersection of Carlton Avenue and Franklin Street. The road improvements include widening, reconstruction, and overlay of Carlton Avenue along the road frontage of the property. With the widening of the roadway, both vehicular and bicycle traffic can be accommodated on this portion of the roadway, tying into the existing Carlton Avenue streets that also accommodate both vehicular and bicycle traffic. Shared bicycle lane striping shall be incorporated into the Carlton Avenue improvements. In addition, on‐street parking has been designed within the streetscape improvements along this portion of the roadway. A recent traffic study was completed in late 2016 for the proposed redevelopment of the Woolen Mills historic property located in Albemarle County. The traffic impact analysis included traffic studies along Carlton Avenue, including the Carlton Avenue/Franklin Street intersection and the Carlton Avenue/Carlton Road intersection. Both of these intersections currently operate at an acceptable level, and the additional residential units will have minimal impacts on these intersections. With the additional traffic from the Woolen Mills development project, all the main intersections around this portion of the neighborhood, including the Carlton Avenue/Carlton Road intersection and the Carlton Avenue/Franklin Street intersection still operate at the same level of services (between an A and C level of service) during the peak AM and peak PM traffic. Any additional non‐residential development on the Carlton Views properties, as allowed within the use matrix, will require additional traffic studies at the site plan level. Currently, the Carlton Views property is located on the CTS bus route, providing transit opportunities for the commercial services and residential units on the property. The transit system helps reduce the dependence on vehicular cars to access the residential units and commercial services on the property. In addition, Jaunt and other transit systems provide bus access to the Pace Center and the adjacent residential units. These transit facilities will continue to operate in this area, and ADA accessible access routes and sidewalks have been incorporated into the design of the Carlton Views development to provide access from the buildings to the transit stop locations. Stormwater Management Improvements Carlton Views has addressed stormwater run‐off with a series of different low impact designs, including rain gardens, bio‐filters, water quality swales, and underground storage tanks. These measures will continue to capture and treat the run‐off from the development in accordance with city and state stormwater requirements. Environmental Features and Impacts Prior to the current redevelopment, the existing property was a concrete manufacturing and supply plant, as shown in Figure 7 below. Most of the site was impervious area that drained directly to Carlton Avenue, without any water quality or detention measures. CARLTON VIEWS PUD APPLICATION Page 15 Attachment C Affordable Housing The residential properties at Carlton Views/PACE will incorporate affordable and accessible housing into the land use plan. Units will be set aside for low income residents earning under sixty‐percent (60%) of the area median income (AMI) and extremely low income residents earning under forty percent (40%) of the area median income. In addition, a specified number of affordable units will meet UFAS requirements for accessibility and VHDA requirements for universal design. Specific use requirements will include:  a minimum of 30% affordable housing, defined as residents earning under 60% AMI.  a minimum of 15% of all affordable units set aside for residents earning under 40% AMI.  a minimum of 15% of all affordable units designed to meet UFAS guidelines for accessibility.  a minimum of 30% of all affordable units designed to meet VHDA guidelines for universal design. Each of these requirements will remain in place for no less than 20 years from the time an affordable unit is first placed in service. The affordability period shall be codified through an Extended Use Agreement or other deed restriction recorded in the land records at the Circuit Court in Charlottesville. In addition, Section 8 voucher holders will have first priority for any available units that have been designated affordable across the properties. These conditions have also been incorporated in the proffers for the PUD application. By designing for affordability, accessibility and universal design, Carlton Views/PACE will provide much needed housing opportunity for frail elderly and disabled tenants. Residential buildings shall be comprised primarily of one and two‐bedroom units. The number of bedrooms in any residential building shall not exceed three‐bedrooms. In addition, with a majority of the housing available for elderly and disabled tenants, the impacts to the existing schools in the neighborhood should be minimal. And the design of the apartments as primarily one and two‐bedroom units will be self‐limiting to smaller families in the community CARLTON VIEWS PUD APPLICATION Page 17 Attachment C PUD Objectives 1) To encourage development of equal or higher quality than otherwise required by the strict application of zoning district regulations that would otherwise govern. As a successful mixed‐use, mixed‐income development, Carlton Views is a vibrant addition to the Carlton/Belmont neighborhood. It provides high quality housing opportunity in a climate in which affordable housing is increasing difficult to preserve and grow. A strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would not allow for the unit density necessary to develop additional housing on this site and would effectively prohibit the build‐out of the project as initially conceived. 2) To encourage innovative arrangements of buildings and open spaces to provide efficient, attractive, flexible and environmentally sensitive design. As an in‐fill project on an abandoned site, Carlton Views epitomizes efficient, attractive and sensitive design. Approving a PUD rezoning will ensure the completion of this innovative effort, provide an appropriate level of housing density, and increase affordable housing options in close proximity to community services. 3) To promote a variety of housing types, or within a development containing only a single housing type, to promote inclusion of houses of various sizes. Carlton Views is committed to providing affordable and accessible rental housing set aside for low‐income elderly and disabled residents. As such, the majority of the units in the project will be one and two‐bedroom units designed to meet UFAS accessibility requirements and/or VHDA universal design standards. There is a very limited supply of this housing type in the City of Charlottesville. 4) To encourage the clustering of single‐family dwellings for more efficient use of land and preservation of open space. Carlton Views is a multifamily development. Its higher level of density and relatively small unit size allows for land use efficiency and the preservation of landscaped and open space. The preponderance of elderly and disabled tenants without automobiles will allow for a cooperative parking arrangement, greatly reducing the number of parking spaces required to serve the residential development. 5) To provide for developments designed to function as cohesive, unified projects. CARLTON VIEWS PUD APPLICATION Page 18 Attachment C Carlton Views has been organized and designed around the Blue Ridge PACE Center. The design intent is to provide accessible housing in close proximity to requisite services and to accommodate easy access across the site. 6) To ensure that a development will be harmonious with the existing uses and character of adjacent property and/or consistent with the patterns of development noted with respect to such adjacent property. The Carlton Views/PACE project enhances the residential character along Carlton Avenue and, though higher in density than much of the neighborhood, serves to anchor the northeastern corner of the Belmont/Carlton neighborhood. It is bound to the north by the CSX railroad, to the east and west by warehouse and manufacturing uses and to the south, across Carlton Avenue, by a large trailer park. The neighboring property at its southwest corner, across Carlton Avenue, is Sunrise Park, a successful PUD redevelopment incorporating a variety of single and multi‐family housing types, including a three‐story apartment building. Carlton Views is consistent with this pattern of higher density development. 7) To ensure preservation of cultural features, scenic assets and natural features such as trees, streams and topography. The Carlton Views project is the redevelopment of an old concrete manufacturing plant for which natural topography and other features have been dramatically altered with retaining walls, storage bins and hoppers. While few natural features remain, the site and landscape design will address each buildings relationship to the street at Carlton Avenue and provide pedestrian connectivity to City sidewalks and streets. 8) To provide for coordination of architectural styles internally within the development as well as in relation to adjacent properties along the perimeter of the development. The buildings at Carlton Views have all been imagined and developed by the same design team and reflect a coordinated design across parcels and uses. Each building incorporates clean, modern lines with a mix of brick and hardiplank cladding, modern fenestration, storefront doors, and flat rooflines. 9) To provide for coordinated linkages among internal buildings and uses, and external connections at a scale appropriate to the development and adjacent neighborhoods. While the topography along Carlton Avenue presents challenges, the site design links sidewalks across parcels and provides for accessible crossings from each site to the PACE Center. CARLTON VIEWS PUD APPLICATION Page 19 Attachment C 10) To facilitate access to the development by public transit services or other single‐vehicle‐ alternative services, including public pedestrian systems. The PACE Center, in coordination with Jaunt, provides transportation to and from the center for its daycare clients. In addition, the buildings at Carlton Views are within a 1/4 mile of an existing bus stop, and the owner/applicants are eager to work with CAT to provide an additional stop centered on the new development. Overall connectivity to City sidewalks and streets has been addressed in each phase of development. General Development Plan Development Plan The Carlton Views/PACE Center project is a mixed‐use project combining commercial and residential uses. The development plan contemplates a mix of uses more in line with the residential character of the neighborhood and abandons many previously permitted industrial and manufacturing uses on the site. The development establishes medium‐density residential in buildings up to four stories as the dominant land use on three of the four parcels making up the Planned Use Development (PUD). With residential uses dominant across much of the site, many uses currently permitted under the M‐I zoning designation will no longer complement the residential character of the site or the surrounding neighborhood. To reflect this change in use, many of the industrial and manufacturing uses previously permitted under the M‐1 zoning have been removed in favor of general commercial and retail uses. Table 2 sets forth the allowable residential and non‐residential uses on the properties. Below in Table 1, the proposed maximum heights, density, and maximum non‐residential square footages are included for each property. Note, the allowable density is calculated cumulatively over all four (4) parcels. Table 3 on page 21 includes the allowable setbacks for each parcel. Table 1: Overall Allowable Densities Maximum Phase Project Acreage Dominant Non‐ Maximum Land Use Residential Residential 1 PACE 1.932 Commercial 30,000 Combined 2 Carlton I 1.262 Multi‐family 7,500 Total Units: 3 Carlton II 0.627 Multi‐family 5,000 154 across 4 Carlton III 1.034 Multi‐family 7,500 (4) parcels Total 4.855 50,000 154 max. CARLTON VIEWS PUD APPLICATION Page 20 Attachment C Table 2: Land Use Matrix Use Types Carlton Views PUD PH 1 PH2 PH3 PH4 PACE Carlton I Carlton II Carlton III RESIDENTIAL AND RELATED USES Accessory buildings, structures and uses B B B B Adult assisted living 1—8 residents B B B B Greater than 8 residents B B B B Adult day care B B B B Amateur radio antennas, to a height of 75 ft. B B B B Dwellings: Multifamily B B B B Single‐family attached B B B B Single‐family detached B B B B Townhouse B B B B Two‐family B B B B Nursing homes B S S S Occupancy, residential 3 unrelated persons B B B B 4 unrelated persons B B B B Residential density (developments) FOR DENSITY CALCULATIONS ‐ SEE TABLE 1: OVERALL ALLOWABLE DENSITIES Residential treatment facility 1—8 residents B B B B 8+ residents S S S S Shelter care facility S S S S Single room occupancy facility S S S S NON-RESIDENTIAL: GENERAL and MISC. COMMERCIAL Access to adjacent multifamily, commercial, B B B B industrial or mixed‐use development or use Accessory buildings, structures and uses B B B B Art gallery: GFA 4,000 SF or less B B B B GFA up to 10,000 SF B B B B Art studio, GFA 4,000 SF or less B B B B CARLTON VIEWS PUD APPLICATION Page 21 Attachment C Art workshop B B B B Auditoriums, theaters B Houses of worship B Bakery, wholesale GFA 4,000 SF or less B GFA up to 10,000 SF B Banks/ financial institutions B Clinics: Health clinic (no GFA limit) B Health clinic (up to 10,000 SF, GFA) B Health clinic (up to 4,000 SF, GFA) B Public health clinic B Veterinary (without outside pens/runs) S Clubs, private S Communications facilities: Attached facilities utilizing utility poles as the B B B B attachment structure Attached facilities not visible from any B B B B adjacent street or property Attached facilities visible from an adjacent B B B B street or property Carrier on wheels (COW) P Towers B Monopole tower B Data center >4,000 B <4,000 B Daycare facility B Libraries B B B B Museums: Up to 4,000 SF, GFA B Up to 10,000 SF, GFA B Offices: Business and professional B B B B Medical B B B B Philanthropic institutions/agencies B B B B Property management B B B B Other offices (non‐ specified) B B B B Photography studio B B B B CARLTON VIEWS PUD APPLICATION Page 22 Attachment C Photographic processing; blueprinting B Radio/television broadcast stations B Recreational facilities: Indoor: health/sports clubs; tennis club; B B B B swimming club; yoga studios; dance studios, skating rinks, recreation centers, etc. (on City‐ owned, City School Board‐owned, or other public property) GFA 4,000 SF or less B B B B GFA up to 10,000 SF B GFA more than 10,000 SF B Restaurants: Full service B Technology‐based businesses B Transit facility B Utility facilities S S S S Utility lines B B B B NON-RESIDENTIAL USES: RETAIL Accessory buildings, structures and uses B Consumer service businesses: Up to 4,000 SF, GFA B B B B Up to 10,000 SF, GFA B 10,001+ GFA B Farmer's market S Grocery stores: Convenience B B B B General, up to 10,000 SF, GFA B General, 10,001+ SF, GFA B Home improvement center B Pharmacies: 1—1,700 SF, GFA B 1,701—4,000 SF, GFA B 4,001+ SF, GFA B Other retail stores (non‐ specified): Up to 4,000 SF, GFA B B B B Up to 20,000 SF GFA B 20,000+ SF, GFA CARLTON VIEWS PUD APPLICATION Page 23 Attachment C Table 3 – Setbacks and Maximum Building Heights Front Side Yard Rear Yard Maximum Phase Project Acreage Setbacks Setbacks Setbacks Bldg Height 1 PACE 1.932 20’ min. 0 0 45 2 Carlton I 1.262 20’ min. 0 0 65 3 Carlton II 0.627 20’ min. 0 0 65 4 Carlton III 1.034 20’ min. 0 0 65 Total 4.855 Note: Building setbacks are based on the allowable M‐1 setbacks. The application plan illustrates the proposed building and parking envelopes for the Carlton II and Carlton III parcels. Development will occur within these proposed envelopes. Structured parking under the building may be allowed within the Carlton III building envelope to achieve additional parking. Parking The Carlton Views/PACE Center project is designed to meet the parking needs for the commercial and residential uses. A total of 161 spaces will be provided on site and another 31 spaces will be created along the existing street frontage along Carlton Avenue. Additional parking spaces may be created through cooperative agreement(s) with neighboring property owners. The PUD application is seeking a 35% reduction of the required residential parking. With many of the apartment units provided specifically for frail elderly and disabled residents, the parking spaces required for the overall development is much lower than an average apartment complex. In addition, the property is located on a transit loop with access to public transportation to the city. Other transportation services are also available with the Pace Center, which helps reduce the need and requirement of vehicular transportation. Bicycle parking will be provided with the overall development in accordance with City requirements. The combination of the type of apartments proposed with the development and the availability of transit reduces the overall parking demands for the development. The proposed 35% reduction is for the overall residential parking on the site. The total residential parking required by the city ordinance is 154 parking spaces, and 103 residential off‐street parking spaces are proposed with this development. An additional 31 on‐street parking spaces (not included in the parking reduction calculations) are available along Carlton Avenue for overflow parking needs for the development. These on‐street parking spaces were constructed with the overall improvements to Carlton CARLTON VIEWS PUD APPLICATION Page 24 Attachment C Avenue. The parking reduction does not include any reduction in parking for the Blue Ridge Pace Center. Open Space The proposed Carlton Views project shall incorporate a minimum of 15.6% open space in the proposed development plan. Currently, there is a minimum of 0.76 acres of open space proposed with the development plan, providing 15% open space over 4.855 acres. The open space areas are shown on the attached application plan. These open spaces include pocket parks, plazas, and other passive recreational areas. In addition, an open space preservation area of 0.12 acres is proposed along the eastern property line adjacent to Franklin Street. This open space area will protect the critically sensitive slopes on this side of the site, preserve the existing trees on the site, and provide a buffer between the development and the residential neighborhoods to the east and northeast of the property. Additional open space is provided through‐out the project site including landscaped buffers, stormwater management facilities, and other open landscaped areas. Picture of Greenspace area within existing Carlton Views I Apartments CARLTON VIEWS PUD APPLICATION Page 25 Attachment C Landscaping The landscaping in the Carlton Views development shall be concentrated between the proposed development and Carlton Avenue. Attractive trees and shrubs shall be planted to enhance the proposed streetscape. Large shade street trees shall be planted within the limits of the property along Carlton Avenue at a maximum distance of 35’ on center. These large street trees shall have an open planting space of 13’ x 13’ minimum to allow for the trees for fully develop and achieve maximum canopy size. The development plan shall include the required open space and landscaping of the front yards and lots as required per the City of Charlottesville Code of Ordinances, Chapter 34, Article VIII, Division 2 – Landscaping and Screening. In addition, an evergreen landscaping buffer shall be provided between the existing railroad and the proposed parking areas to help screen parking and lighting from the adjacent properties across the railroad tracks. All proposed landscaping shall be provided using materials permitted in the city code ordinance and the city’s list of approved plantings. Landscaping shall be designed to enhance the recreational and aesthetic value of the site and provide a continuous buffer of vegetation along the Carlton Avenue frontage. All landscaping within the public streetscape areas and open space shall be maintained by the Homeowners Association for the development. Picture of the proposed Streetscape Landscaping CARLTON VIEWS PUD APPLICATION Page 26 Attachment C The existing tree preservation area along Franklin Street shall be protected with tree protection fencing. These trees shall remain undisturbed, along with the existing critical slopes in this area. Architectural Elements The architectural standards and guidelines for the Carlton Views development will be consistent with the Pace Center and existing apartment building currently constructed on the property. Each building shall incorporate clean, modern lines with a mix of brick and hardiplank cladding, modern fenestration, storefront doors, and flat rooflines. Windows will be vinyl architectural windows. Shudders, if installed on the houses, will be operable shutters. Wood and metal railings will be used for the porches. Pictures of the exiting Pace Center and Carlton Views Apartments CARLTON VIEWS PUD APPLICATION Page 27 Attachment C Signage The signage regulations established in the City Zoning Ordinance shall govern all signage within the Carlton Views PUD. Lighting The lighting and dark sky regulations established in the City Zoning Ordinance shall govern all lighting within the Carlton Views PUD. In addition, the site lighting shall meet the conditions of the special use permit that are proffered conditions for the PUD. CARLTON VIEWS PUD APPLICATION Page 28 Attachment D Carlton Views Development PUD BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA IN RE: PETITION FOR REZONING (City Application No. __________) STATEMENT OF PRELIMINARY PROFFER CONDITIONS For the Carlton Views PUD Dated as of April 19, 2018 TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE: The undersigned individual is the owner of land subject to the above-referenced rezoning petition (“Subject Property”). The Owner/Applicant seeks to amend the current zoning of the property subject to certain voluntary development conditions set forth below. In connection with this rezoning application, the Owner/Applicant seeks approval of a PUD as set forth within a PUD Development Plan and Narrative dated April 19, 2018. The Owner/Applicant hereby proffers and agrees that if the Subject Property is rezoned as requested, the rezoning will be subject to, and the Owner will abide by, the approved PUD Development Plan as well as the following conditions: 1. The residential properties at Carlton Views/PACE will incorporate affordable and accessible housing into the land use plan. Units will be set aside for low income residents earning under sixty-percent (60%) of the area median income (AMI) and extremely low income residents earning under forty percent (40%) of the area median income. In addition, a specified number of affordable units will meet UFAS requirements for accessibility and VHDA requirements for universal design. Specific use requirements will include:  a minimum of 30% affordable housing, defined as residents earning under 60% AMI.  a minimum of 15% of all affordable units set aside for residents earning under 40% AMI.  a minimum of 15% of all affordable units designed to meet UFAS guidelines for accessibility.  a minimum of 30% of all affordable units designed to meet VHDA guidelines for universal design. Each of these requirements will remain in place for no less than 20 years from the time an affordable unit is first placed in service. The affordability period shall be codified through an Extended Use Agreement or other deed restriction recorded in the land records at the Circuit Court in Charlottesville. In addition, Section 8 voucher holders will have first priority for any available units that have been designated affordable across the properties. 2. The maximum height of the buildings on the property shall not exceed 65 feet. 3. There will be a provision of an entrance feature to all buildings that front on Carlton Avenue. 4. No additional parking over the required parking by the City code 5. Full cutoff luminaires shall be used and shall be equipped with devices for redirecting light such as shields, visors, or hoods to eliminate the luminaire glare and block direct illumination from neighboring properties. The fixture shall be completely concealed and recess the light source from all viewing positions except those positions permitted to receive illumination. Directional luminaires such as floodlights, spotlights, and sign lights shall illuminate only the task and do not shine directly onto neighboring properties, roadways, or distribute excessive light skyward. 6. The developers will work with CAT for the inclusion of a bus stop/shelter if deemed feasible or appropriate. 7. The site design shall retain the tree canopy on the east side of the property adjacent to Franklin Street in an open space area. Page 1|2 Attachment D 8. The site design shall provide pedestrian linkages between buildings and open space on site and the neighborhood. WHEREFORE, the undersigned Owner(s) stipulate and agree that the use and development of the Subject Property shall be in conformity with the conditions hereinabove stated, and requests that the Subject Property be rezoned as requested, in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charlottesville. Respectfully submitted this 19h day of April, 2018. Hydro Falls, LLC By: ________________________________ By: _____________________________ Owner Applicant Print Name:__________________________ Print Name: _______________________ Owner’s Address: _____________________ Applicant’s Address: ________________ ADC IV Charlottesville By: ________________________________ Owner Print Name: _______________________ Owner’s Address: _____________________ Carlton Views I, LLC By: ________________________________ Owner Print Name: _______________________ Owner’s Address: _____________________ Carlton Views II, LLC By: ________________________________ Owner Print Name: _______________________ Owner’s Address: _____________________ Page 2|2 Attachment E Attachment E CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT TO THE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR REVIEW BOARD (ERB) ENTRANCE CORRIDOR (EC) CERTIFICATE OF APPROPROPRIATENESS DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: May 8, 2018 Project Name: 10th & East High Street, Medical Office Building Planner: Jeff Werner, AICP Applicant: Collins Engineering Applicant’s Representative: Scott Collins Applicant’s Relation to Owner: Engineer Application Information Property Street Address: 916, 920 E High Street and 325 10th Street NE Property Owner: Martha Jefferson Hospital Tax Map/Parcel #: Tax Map 53, Parcels 273, 274 and 275 (Online Records: 530273000, 530274000, and 530275000) Total Square Footage/Acreage Site: 1.066 acres Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Plan) Designation: Mixed Use Current Zoning Classification: DN, Downtown North Corridor with Entrance Corridor (EC) Overlay Entrance Corridor Overlay District: §34-307(a)(10) East High Street/9th Street from Long Street to East Market Street Current Usage: Two one-story buildings formerly occupied by medical offices (buildings to be demolished) with surface parking Background The ERB reviews Entrance Corridor Certificate of Appropriateness applications when the proposal is for new construction. 2017: A preliminary Site Plan and ERB application were submitted. In September, staff sent Site Plan comments to the applicant. The ERB application was deferred by applicant. April 2018: Revised ERB application submitted, including an updated preliminary Site Plan (per staff’s Sept 2017 comments) to be used as information only. A final Site Plan must be submitted for approval. [Note: Additional right-of-way through dedication by the applicant is being discussed.] 1 10th & East High Street, Medical Office Building (jw 4/30/2018) Applicant’s Request The current request is for approval of a certificate of appropriateness to construct a two- and three-story medical office building and a two-story rear parking deck with 178 spaces. The irregularly shaped building is mainly three stories, with a two-story segment on High Street and a two-story height surround on the rear façade and 10th Street façade. There are two entrances: one fronting on High Street, the other from the upper parking deck. (Per staff suggestion, the pedestrian entrance at the 10th Street was relocated to High Street.) The NE corner building (at the 10th/High intersection) is notched to provide space for an existing large tree. Additional landscaping will include Red Maple street tress, and Glossy Abelia shrubs. Two two-way vehicular entrances are proposed. The East High Street access will ramp up to the upper parking deck; the 10th Street NE access will ramp down to the lower parking deck. The 10th Street access aligns with Little High Street (opposite). Building materials for the three-story main building consist of brick veneer with soldier course accent bands, and aluminum composite panels to match the precast concrete are located above the head of the punched windows and between the windows on the corners. The two-story sections (at High Street and the surround at the parking deck) consist of stone veneer and precast concrete lintels. The tall windows will have aluminum sunshades. The main building has a precast concrete accent band, parapets capped with an aluminum composite panel cornice, and aluminum storefront/curtain wall window systems with 1” insulated low-e glazing. On the main building is an appurtenance (8’-10” above the parapet) clad with aluminum composite panels. Signage is not shown. 2 10th & East High Street, Medical Office Building (jw 4/30/2018) The Lighting Plan on the updated preliminary Site Plan indicates four pole lights (two fixtures on each pole) at the upper parking deck and eight wall lights on the building—four at the rear (south) elevation at the upper parking deck, including two at the building entrance; two at the west elevation at the driveway to the upper parking deck; two located at the main building entrance at East High Street. Standard of Review The Planning Commission serves as the entrance corridor review board (ERB) responsible for administering the design review process in entrance corridor overlay districts. This development project requires a site plan, and therefore also requires a certificate of appropriateness from the ERB, pursuant to the provisions of §34-309(a)(3) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The ERB shall act on an application within 60 days of the submittal date, and shall either approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. Appeal would be to City Council. Standards for considering certificates of appropriateness: In conducting review of an application, the ERB must consider certain features and factors in determining the appropriateness of proposed construction, alteration, etc. of buildings or structures located within an entrance corridor overlay district. Following is a list of the standards set forth within §34-310 of the City Code: §34-310(1): Overall architectural design, form, and style of the subject building or structure, including, but not limited to: the height, mass and scale; The irregularly shaped building is approximately 120’ wide x 100’ deep. Measured from the NW corner, the two-story piece on East High Street and the surround at the parking deck are 32’-6” in height to top of cornice; the three-story main building is 48’-6” in height to top of cornice; the appurtenance is 57’-4” in height. The rear parking deck is 175’ in length along 10th Street NE and 145’ in width. Staff Analysis: A building of this height, mass and scale is appropriate in this location. The large parking deck at the rear is unfortunate in terms of massing, but permitted. e§34-310(2): Exterior architectural details and features of the subject building or structure; The brick veneer walls are articulated with brick soldier course banding. A precast concrete accent band encircles both the brick and stone veneer parts of the building. All facades have a generous amount of glazing; on the windows of the two-story sections have aluminum sunshades. The precast banding continues along the brick façade of the parking deck on all sides. There are two pedestrian entrances--from the parking structure and from High Street. 3 10th & East High Street, Medical Office Building (jw 4/30/2018) Signage is not shown. Staff Analysis: The building is well-articulated. The parking deck is articulated as well as it can be. Lighting Plan indicates that all lighting will comply with Dark Sky requirements and lamp type will create a “unified cool white lighting across the site.” Pole lights will be 20’ above the parking deck. Wall fixtures to be bronze in color; no height is indicated. Photometric analysis proposed fixtures and locations indicates little to no lateral light transmission. Signage requires separate permits, and must be mounted below the second floor window sill height. On a corner property three signs are permitted, with the aggregate area in an entrance corridor not to exceed 75 square feet total. If the signage is lit, it must be white. §34-310(3): Texture, materials and color of materials proposed for use on the subject building or structure; The proposed building materials consist of:  Walls: Brick veneer and stone veneer  Accent banding and lintels: precast concrete  Cornices and Appurtenance: Aluminum composite panels  Windows: Aluminum storefront/curtain wall window systems with 1” insulated low-e glazing. The tall windows at the two-story sections will have aluminum sunshades. Staff Analysis: The mix of building materials is appropriate, however material specifications are needed. All glass must be specified as clear, with minimum 70% visible light transmittance (VLT). §34-310(4): Design and arrangement of buildings and structures on the subject site; The building has been pulled as close to the intersection as possible. The area between the building and sidewalks is landscaped, with the main entrance fronting on High Street. The building is notched at the intersection to provide space for an existing tree. Additional landscaping will include Red Maple street tress, and Glossy Abelia shrubs. Two two-way vehicular entrances are proposed. The East High Street access will ramp up to the upper parking deck; the 10th Street NE access will ramp down to the lower parking deck. The 10th Street access aligns with Little High Street (opposite). Staff Analysis: The design and arrangement of the building on site is appropriate. §34-310(5): The extent to which the features and characteristics described within paragraphs (1)-(4),above, are architecturally compatible (or incompatible) with similar features and 4 10th & East High Street, Medical Office Building (jw 4/30/2018) characteristics of other buildings and structures having frontage on the same EC street(s) as the subject property. Staff Analysis: The goals are to make the site function well for the users of this site and the entrance corridor, and to have an attractive development that is compatible with its surrounding context. Compared to existing buildings and structures fronting this East High Street EC, this site is prominent and the proposed building scale and materials are appropriate for a corner building. The applicant has incorporated staff-suggested changes that make it more compatible with the corridor, but the ERB may have additional suggestions. §34-310(6): Provisions of the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines. Relevant sections of the guidelines include: Section 1 (Introduction) The Entrance Corridor design principles are expanded below: • Design for a Corridor Vision New building design should be compatible (in massing, scale, materials, colors) with those structures that contribute to the overall character and quality of the corridor. Existing developments should be encouraged to make upgrades consistent with the corridor vision. Site designs should contain some common elements to provide continuity along the corridor. New development, including franchise development, should complement the City’s character and respect those qualities that distinguish the City’s built environment. • Preserve History Preserve significant historic buildings as well as distinctive architecture from more recent periods. Encourage new contemporary design that integrates well with existing historic buildings to enhance the overall character and quality of the corridor. • Facilitate Pedestrian Access Encourage compact, walkable developments. Design pedestrian connections from sidewalk and car to buildings, between buildings, and between corridor properties and adjacent residential areas. • Maintain Human Scale in Buildings and Spaces Consider the building scale, especially height, mass, complexity of form, and architectural details, and the impact of spaces created, as it will be experienced by the people who will pass by, live, work, or shop there. The size, placement and number of doors, windows, portals and openings define human scale, as does the degree of ground- floor pedestrian access. 5 10th & East High Street, Medical Office Building (jw 4/30/2018) • Preserve and Enhance Natural Character Daylight and improve streams, and retain mature trees and natural buffers. Work with topography to minimize grading and limit the introduction of impervious surfaces. Encourage plantings of diverse native species. • Create a Sense of Place In corridors where substantial pedestrian activity occurs or is encouraged, or where mixed use and multi-building projects are proposed, one goal will be creating a sense of place. Building arrangements, uses, natural features, and landscaping should contribute, where feasible, to create exterior space where people can interact. • Create an Inviting Public Realm Design inviting streetscapes and public spaces. Redevelopment of properties should enhance the existing streetscapes and create an engaging public realm. • Create Restrained Communications Private signage and advertising should be harmonious and in scale with building elements and landscaping features. • Screen Incompatible Uses and Appurtenances: Screen from adjacent properties and public view those uses and appurtenances whose visibility may be incompatible with the overall character and quality of the corridor, such as: parking lots, outdoor storage and loading areas, refuse areas, mechanical and communication equipment, Where feasible, relegate parking behind buildings. It is not the intent to require screening for utilitarian designs that are attractive, and/or purposeful. • Respect and Enhance Charlottesville’s Character Charlottesville seeks new construction that reflects the unique character, history, and cultural diversity of this place. Architectural transplants from other locales, or shallow imitations of historic architectural styles, for example, are neither appropriate nor desirable. Incompatible aspects of franchise design or corporate signature buildings must be modified to fit the character of this community. Section 2 (Streetscape) Staff Analysis: The street trees and landscaping will create a nice frontage and a comfortable place to walk. Section 3 (Site): Staff Analysis: The site features are appropriate. Section 4 (Buildings): 6 10th & East High Street, Medical Office Building (jw 4/30/2018) Staff Analysis: The building design is appropriate. Section 5 (Individual Corridors): High Street Vision The southeast side of High Street from Long Street to the light at Meade Avenue shares similar characteristics with the Long Street corridor. Properties here have potential to be redeveloped at an urban scale with shallow setbacks, higher density, and mixed uses. The natural character of the river should be preserved, and riverfront properties may incorporate the river as a site amenity. Future infill and redevelopment on the northwest side of High Street from Riverdale Drive to Locust Avenue and on the southeast side of High Street from Meade Avenue to 10th Street should complement the smaller scale of the abutting residential neighborhoods on either side. The retail areas of this part of the corridor will continue to provide basic service-business functions until redeveloped into a mix of uses including residential. This area may be considered for nearby offsite or shared parking in the future, due to the small parcel sizes and convenience to transit and the downtown area. From Locust Avenue to Market Street there will be opportunities for denser development. The area surrounding Martha Jefferson Hospital is a potential historic district. A pedestrian environment should be encouraged along the entire corridor with sidewalks, landscaping and transit stops. Public Comments Received No public comments have been received to date. Staff Recommendations The ERB may have additional comments on the design, and may wish to ask the applicant to defer so that a revised design may be considered. The following conditions of approval are recommended if the ERB chooses to approve the design: 1. The ERB should view material samples. Cut sheets for materials should be submitted. 2. All glass must be specified as clear, with minimum 70% visible light transmittance (VLT). 3. Signage requires separate permits. All signage shall appear to be lit white at night. 4. Rooftop mechanical equipment will be screened within appurtenance. Suggested Motion 1. “I move to approve with staff’s recommended conditions the Entrance Corridor Certificate of Appropriateness application for the new medical office building and parking deck at 916, 920 East High Street and 325 10th Street NE.” Alternate Motion 7 10th & East High Street, Medical Office Building (jw 4/30/2018) 1. “I move to defer (or deny) the Entrance Corridor Certificate of Appropriateness application for the new medical office building and parking deck at 916, 920 East High Street and 325 10th Street NE until the following concerns are addressed…..” Attachments: Innovate Architecture-Interiors submittal dated April 17, 2018: Design narrative (2 pages) and proposed building elevations and renderings (17 pages). Collins Engineering, Preliminary Site Plan dated 4/17/2018: Sheets #1 (Cover); #2 (Existing Conditions and Demo); #3 (Site, Utility and Landscaping); #4 (Notes and Details); #5 (Stormwater Management Plan); and #6 (Lighting). 8 10th & East High Street, Medical Office Building (jw 4/30/2018) design narrative PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING 10th and High Street Charlottesville, Virginia The design for the proposed medical office building at the corner of 10th and High Streets in Charlottesville, Virginia is predicated on the relationship between the building and the site. The building mass is pulled toward the street and responds to the acute angle formed by the intersecting roads on this corner site. The three story building mass is broken down along the High Street façade by a two story element that helps to address the pedestrian scale at street level. Along High Street, the regular framework created by the stone façade and the generous glazing present a welcoming image for the building toward the street. At the corner of the site, a significant area for landscaping has been created to help soften the edge formed by the acute angle of the intersecting streets. The lush corner landscaping is framed by the rectilinear three-story brick mass that fronts 10th Street and the two-story stone and glass façade addressing High Street. The slope of the site provides an opportunity to enter the two-story parking behind the building at separate levels. From the north-east corner of the site, an entrance will be provided to the upper parking deck. As the site slopes down along High Street and continues down 10th Street, an entrance to the lower parking level will align with Little High Street. There will also be a pedestrian entrance on High Street toward the corner near the intersection with 10th Street. The building materials have been selected to blend into Charlottesville’s existing urban aesthetic and have been arranged and applied in such a manner to help reduce the massing of the building while providing visual interest. This is in direct response to the adjacent CFA Institute located across High Street. While attempting to respect the historic nature of the City of Charlottesville, it is also important for the building to project an image of the cutting edge health care services being provided on site. Many traditional details are interpreted with modern materials. A precast concrete accent band and taller windows at the base of the building help to separate the ground floor of the building from the upper stories. The second and third floors and punctuated with traditionally proportioned windows. At these levels, the brick mass is further articulated by a series of double soldier course brick accent bands. Aluminum panels finished to approximate the color of the precast accent band are used above the head of the punched windows as a modern take on a traditional stone lintel and between the windows on the ends of the building to help define the corners. The building uses a series of aluminum sunshades to create depth along the street facade. The flat roof and rooftop mechanical equipment will be hidden from view by an aluminum composite panel appurtenance. 2|P a g e PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING lOth and High Street Charlottesville, Virginia II'J'JC> ~ A rchitecture lntenors existing conditions/adjacent buifdings April 17, 2018 PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING lOth and High Street Charlottesville, Virginia II'J'JC> ~ A rchitecture lntenors street view April 17, 2018 PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING lOth and High Street Charlottesville, Virginia II'J'JC> ~ A rchitecture lntenors street view April 17, 2018 PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING lOth and High Street Charlottesville, Virginia II'J'JC> ~ A rchitecture lntenors building elevations April 17, 2018 ~ +32'-6" ~ +15'-4" SECOND FLOOR ~ +0'-0" PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING lOth and High Street Charlottesville, Virginia II'J'JC> ~ A rchitecture lntenors building elevations - height/seal€ April 17, 2018 STONE VENEER ------.. PRECAST CONCRETE Ll NTEL ---------.. ALUMINUM ALUMINUM ALUMINUM COMPOSITE PANEL COMPOSITE PANEL SUNSHADES --------..... CORNICE -~~~~~;:-=~===~A-;===;;;;,_==::..____:=;=~~~ ALUMINUM ALUMINUM COMPOSITE PANEL STOREFRONT/ CORNICE CURTAIN WALL WINDOW SYSTEMS W/ 1" INSULATED LOW-E GLAZING ----.c:-­ DOUBLE SOLDIER COURSE BRICK ACCENT BAND PRECAST CONCRETE ACCENT BAND BRICK VENEER (MATCH ADJACENT BUILDING ~Li-. PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING 10th and High Street Charlottesville, Virginia II'J'JC> ~ A rchitecture lntenors building elevations - materials April 17, 2018 PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING lOth and High Street Charlottesville, Virginia II'J'JC> ~ A rchitecture lntenors building elevations April 17, 2018 PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING lOth and High Street Charlottesville, Virginia II'J'JC> ~ A rchitecture lntenors building elevations April 17, 2018 PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING lOth and High Street Charlottesville, Virginia II'J'JC> ~ A rchitecture lntenors building elevations April 17, 2018 PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING lOth and High Street Charlottesville, Virginia II'J'JC> ~ A rchitecture lntenors concept images April 17, 2018 PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING lOth and High Street Charlottesville, Virginia II'J'JC> ~ A rchitecture lntenors concept images April 17, 2018 PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING lOth and High Street Charlottesville, Virginia II'J'JC> ~ A rchitecture lntenors concept images April 17, 2018 ---­ ~~-- -~ / ---­ -~_ . . . =-­ - - ­ ~-- / - -~ ---- / ---- --- PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING lOth and High Street Charlottesville, Virginia II'J'JC> ~ A rchitecture lntenors concept images April 17, 2018 PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING lOth and High Street Charlottesville, Virginia II'J'JC> ~ A rchitecture lntenors concept images April 17, 2018 PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING lOth and High Street Charlottesville, Virginia II'J'JC> ~ A rchitecture lntenors concept images April 17, 2018 PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING lOth and High Street Charlottesville, Virginia II'J'JC> ~ A rchitecture lntenors existing conditions/adjacent buifdings April 17, 2018 PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING lOth and High Street Charlottesville, Virginia II'J'JC> ~ A rchitecture lntenors existing conditions/adjacent buifdings April 17, 2018 GENERAL NOTES: OWNER: MARTHA JEFFERSON HOSPITAL 590 PETER JEFFERSON PARKWAY ENGINEER: COWNS ENGINEERING lOTH AND HIGH STREET MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING 200 GARRETT STREET, SUITE K CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 PROPERTY: TMP 530273000 916 EAST HIGH STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 LOCATION OF PROJECT: TMP 530274000 920 EAST HIGH STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 TELEPHONE: (434) 293-3719 TMP 530275000 320 10TH STREET NE CHARLOTIESVILLE, VA. 22902 TMP 530275100 311 10TH STREET NE CHARLOTIESVILLE, VA 22902 916 EAST HIGH STREET, 920 EAST HIGH STREET & 325 & 311 10TH STREET NE, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. 22902 INTERSECTION OF 1OTH STREET AND HIGH STREET PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN "'z '" w w z CITY OF CHARLOTIESVILLE, VIRGINIA 1----;---;-;--;--;--;-;--;--i~ TOTAL ACREAGE OF SITE: TOTAL ACREAGE: 1.23 ACRES EKISTING ZONING: DN (DOWNTOWN NORTH CORRIDOR) WITH ERB OVERLAY w EKISTINC USE: MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS AND PARKING VJ z PROPOSED USE: STORIMIWATER w.NAGEt.IENT MEDICAL OFFICE BUIWING WITH PARKING STRUCTURE (28,100 SF) EKISTING SITE IS PRIMARILY IMPERVIOUS. UNDERGROUND DETENTION AND YARD SWALES ARE PROPOSED FOR du STORl.-IWATER CUAUTY AND DETENTION FOR THE SITE m PROVIDE WATER QUAUlY ON mE SITE AND TO REDUCE mE POST DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF RATES, VOLUMES. AND VELOCmES FROt.l THE SITE. ADDmONAL WATER QUAUlY ~ c REQUIREl.-IENTS SHALL BE MmGATED Wm-1 NUTRIENT CREDITS. v SETBACKS: FRONT: NO MINIMUM, 15' MAXIMUM (PRIMARY STREET) & 10' ~INIMIM, 20' MAXIMUM (LINKING STREEl} ~- •c0 u SIDE: NONE REQUIRED (ADJACENT m EXISTING ON PROPERTY) / ./ ·· c v REAR: NONE REQUIRED (ADJACENT TO EXISTING ON PROPERTY) ./ :c ·c PROPOSED .3 STORY BUILDING {BUILDING I.IEETS mE MAXIMU~ HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH mE JAA>Cit.IUM HEIGHT: ON REGULATIONS - MAX BUILDING HEIGHT 3 STORIES FOR CORNER LOT) • GROSS FLOOR AREA: SITE PHASING: STEPBACKS ARE REQUIRED AFTER .3 STORIES (NO STEPBACKS ARE PROPOSED WITH THIS BUILDING) 36,000 +/- 5f PROJECT TO BE DEVELOPED IN (1) PHASE y> AFFORDABLE UNirn: NOT NJPLICABLE FLOODPLAIN: THERE ARE NO FLOODPLAIN LIMITS Wm-IIN mE SUBJECT PROPERTY PER FEMA. MAP#51 00.3C0289D, PANEL #02B9D ·\ . . . .· DATED fEBRUARY +, 2005. >NOTE: SEE SHEET2 FOR ... >.••..•..... USGS DATUM: NAD 83 SURI.£T: BOUNDARY OF Tl£ SITE AND TOPOGRAPHY WAS PROVIDED BY Cot.tUONWEALTH LAND SURVEYING, MARCH 2017. Ml55 UTUTY TICKET NUMBER: #01549 8219201116-00B .· ADJA CfNT .PROPERTY INFORMA TION ·. UTIUTIES: THE SITE WILL BE SERVED BY PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER. Sheet List Table .......... . . . . .. c CRmCAL SLDPES: NONE THAT MEET THE CONDmONS OF THE CITY ORDINANCE SECTION .34-1120. \. 0 AREAS PUBLIC USE: CURRENTLY. THERE IS NO LAND ON nilS PROPERTY THAT IS PROPOSED FOR PUBLIC USE. .... . . ·- ·- ·- . . - -· ·- ·- ­ ·. ... -­ · ·~ .· Sheet Number Sheet Title "' u WATER DEMANDS/FIRE FLOW: CURRENTLY THERE IS A FIRE HYDRANT AT THE INTERSECTION OF EAST HIGH STREET AND 1OTH STREET NE AND 1 COVER £ A FIRE HYDRANT ACROSS EAST HIGH STREET FROt.l THE NORTHERN SIDE OF mE PROPERlY. mE BUILDING WILL •c 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS & DEMOLITION PLAN 0 u ALSO HAVE A SPRINKLER SYSTEM FOR FIRE PROlECTION. SITE, UTILITY & LANDSCAPING PLAN PUBLIC tmUTIES: THE SITE WILL BE SERVED BY EXISTING PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER. WATER AND WASTEWATER MAIN PROFILES \ 3 WILL BE PROVIDED WITH THE FINAL SITE PLAN. 4 NOTES & DETAILS PROPOSED LAND DISTURBANCE:1.0± AC (EROSION CONTROL PLAN TO BE SUBMITIED WITH FINAl SITE PLAN) INGRESS AND EGRESS: ACCESS TO UPPER LEVB.. BUILDING PARKING GARAGE SHALL BE FROM EAST HIGH STREET AND ACCESS TO THE LOWER PARKING LEVEL SHALL BE FROM 10TH STREET. \ . . . ·.·.·.·. / ·· / .,....-; . -­ . . -­ . -. -. . . .-­ --:.... ........:..... . '---.-j \ \ \ \ \ 5 6 6 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN UGHTING PLAN TOTAL SHEETS LIGHTING PLAN: LIGHTING PLAN IS INCWDEO WITH THE PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS. AU. LIGHTING SHALL BE FULL OBLIQUE SHIELDING OUTDOOR LIGHTING, WHICH SHALL NOT EMIT LIGHT ABOVE THE LINE OF SIGHT TO THE LIGHT SOURCES WHEN \ c VIEWED FROM THE PROTECTED PROPERTIES. THE SHIELD SHALl. BLOQ< DIRECT ILLUMINATION OF PROTECTED PROPERTIES AND THE FIXTURE SHP.l.l. COMPLETELY CONCEAL AND RECESS THE UGHT SOURCE FROM ALL VIEWING / \ \ \ r--r-+~--r-~-r-+~£ 0 "' u POSITIONS EXCEPT THOSE POSmONS PERt.liTTID TO RECEIVE ILLUMINATION. SPILLOVER LIGHT fROM WMINARIES 204.65' •c 0 ONTO PUBLIC ROADS AND ONTO ADJACENT PROPERTY SHALL NOT EXCEED (1/2) FOOT CANDLES. u .· . . . ·.· ~~ -·· SITE TRIP GENERATION AND LAND USE 1TE CODE 9TH EDmON: 0 ~ .. "ArAMI ~ EXISTING MEDICAL OFFICE BlJILQINGS (10 000:1:: SF) pROpQSED MEDICA!,. OFFICE BUILDING G56 000 SO ••?A'liKING STREAAIS/BUFFERS: WEEKDAY o.>JLY lRIPS (\'PO)o 181{ENTER)/181{EXIT) Mt PEAK HOUR (VPH)o 19{ENTER)/O(EXIT) PIA PEAK HOUR (VPH)o 10{ENTER)/26{EXIT) EXISTING MOORES CREEK STREAM N\10 WATERSHED. WEEKDAY o.>JLY lRIPS (VPO)o 650{ENTER)/65D{EXIT) AM PEAK HOUR {\'PH): 69{ENTER)/18{EXIT) P" PEAK HOUR (VPH): 36{ENTER)/92{EXIT) SITE CONTAINS NO EXISTING WATER COURSES, STREAM BUFFERS OR FLOOD PLAINS. THIS SITE DRAINS TO THE . I E. ~iGH STR(f.j ~~~~~~~~~c ~ ~ 0 " .c IIII \ EXISTING VEGETATION: PARKING REQUIREMENTS: LANDSCAPING AND TREES AROUND THE EXISTING BUILDING AND PARKING LOT PARKING REQUIRED: MAX. BETWEEEN (1 SPACE/200 SF OF GFA) OR 3 SPACES/EXAM ROO~ + EMPLOYEES \ \ l!l -~- • " 1l ·" z 'IEHICLE PARKING REQUIRED: .36,000 SF / 200 • 1BO PARKING SPACES REQUIRED, OR 40 EXAM ROOMS x 3 SPACES/ROOM BICYCLE PARKING REQUIRED: 1 SPACE/20,000 SF (2 MINIMUM) + 5B EMPLOYEES • 178 SPACES ('--­ \ PARKING PROVIDED: PARKING TOTAL PROVIDED (PODIUM PARKING - 2 LEVELS): 195 SPACES TOTAL 0NC. 5 ON-STREET SPAC::S) NOTE: NO MORE THAN 50" OF THE TOTAL PARKING SPACES WILL BE SURFACE PARKING OPEN TO THE I I '--- "'"" \ \ \ ~ \ - IMPERVIOUS AREA: BUILDING = SKY. BICYCLE PARKING: 4 SPACES 9,~70 SF DRIVEWAY/PARKING DECK - 28,050 SF ... DECK --., \ '&­ ---­ ) ~)\. ~\ ~\ a C\1 w SIDEWAI...K "" 2,100 SF" \ 0 ~ OPEN GRASS AREA= 11,115 SF 0> TOTAL PAVED PARKING &: CIRCULATK>N: GARAGE PARKING (2 LEVELS) TOTAL AREA - 62,100 SF" C\1 DRIVEWAY ACCESS = 2,.393 SF \ ~'i C\1 SIGNAGE: TRASH REt..IOVAI..: SITE SIGNAGE SI-W.l.. BE SUBt.IITTED UNDER A SEPARATE APPUCATION THE PROPOSED BUILDING SHALL HAVE A EXTERIOR DUMPSTER AS SHOWN. THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE SI-W.l.. BE ElRICK TO ~TCH THE BUILDING WITH A WOODEN FENCE FOR ACCESS. \ \ PROPOSED 3 STORY BUILDING Yc;_ f \ i f­ \ w~ ~ 0 c =0 z STREET CLOSURE: A TEMPORARY STREET CLOSURE PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR CLOSURE OF SIDEWALKS, PARKING SPACES, AND ~ ROADWAYS AND IS SUBJECT TO APPROVAl.. BY THE CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER. PA.RTIAL. STREET CLOSURES WILL BE I / \ w ~ • TI NEEDED FOR THE CREATION OF THE SITE ENTRANCES AND 1OTH STREET IMPROVEMENTS. I / \ ....J c - 0 I / \ - ....J t 0 c. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ON PLANS IN AREAS OF CONSTRUCTION PRIOR TO STARTING WORK. CONTACT ENGINEER IMMEDIATB...Y IF LOCATION OR B..EVATION IS DIFFERENT FROt..l THAT SHOWN ON THE PLANS, IF THERE APPEARS TO BE A CONFLICT, AND UPON DISCOVERY OF AHf UTIUTY NOT SHOWN ON THE PLANS. / / > C/) c I c \ w 0 Nff SIDEWNJ< AND/OR CURB OMIAGE IDENTIFIED IN THE SITE VICINITY DUE TO PROJECT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AS DETERMINED BY THE CITY INSPECTOR SIW..L. BE REPAIRED AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. ALL SIGNING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE MUTCD. I I . \ l!l 1­ b 0:::• w~ > ·" A TEt.PORARY STREET CLOSURE PERt.fT IS REQUIRED FOR CLOSURE OF SIDEWALKS. PARKING SPACES AND ROADWAYS AND IS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER. SITE AND BUILDING CONSTRUCTION SHALL MEET 2006 IBC SECTION 3409 FOR ACCESSIBIUTY AND VA USBC 103.3 FOR CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY. I ---­ ~ ---- 20' MAX. SETBACK - -=­ ----­ / _ "-"' ~ .£)__ ~ \ z ....J 0::: <( 0] Ui: 0 c c. w ~ I I v .c I I ---­ () r­w ~ 0 c I I I >. w 0 E ~ I a:: TI c w 0 LOWER PARKING DECK ENTRANCE I­ r­Ul "'z "'ww FROM 10TH STREET => C/) z (j I 15 VJ l9 ~ z :J0 u I cXS ...c ..j...J 0 T"""'' LIGHT FIXTURES "W" NOTES: POLE LIGHT FIXTURE "SA" 1. LAMP TYPE SHALL BE LED WHITE LIGHT TO CREATE A UNIFIED COOL WHITE LIGHTING ACROSS THE SITE. 2. FIXTURES SHALL BE BRONZE IN COLOR. Type No _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ SiteLyter Series Catalog r~ o . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Di rect Pole-Mounted Luminaire Date: Approved: Job. Name Horizontal Lamp Type : ,\.c Luminaire Schedule No. 35791 Fixture: I C. lighting Project: Northtown Center APPLICATIONS · PaMr Olo ll, Roedl>...,.. . Wal lowayS, Oo:r.m• ro.al M.W!1, l eiV".i• Ooo rto. Auto Lo ts c; ProJect: Symbol Qty. Label DescrlpUon Arrangement Lumens/Lamp LLF an:l OIMr o u«IC>or ...-..;mnm..-ts z ~ FCW1020 IPHOTOMETRY 4 SA SITELYTER SERIES POLE LIGHT 40000 1.000 CONSTRU CTION • FormOe AOJ •1 ~ e SERIES VOIJNll:. SOlii!CUfEMPERATIIIUUMP F I~ISII LID OPTICS ACCESSORIES FCW1020 120'1 LEO 4000K 1200 Lumens Ellilr90itlal Di•triillrtion 1. EACH OUTDOOR LUMINAIRE EQUIPPED WITH A LAMP THAT EMITS 3,000 ELECTRICAL 0 FCWIO:IO 1:111'1 Pl. I Jl 277V HID 39W MH GIZ row MH GH liZ Btonze HFL Nao row flo~J D1 11 niO'ty /fl ml)! !£0!:1) OR MORE INITIAL LUMENS SHALL BE A FULL CUTOFF LUMINAIRE AND • T/8Y-rr.oun: &a l>al'a>l 'ol.i;n iore:;ral ~ ~ ~ ~·'"'< • 4101 a: C11>tom Clllot Fl HOOd !IT\ . SHALL BE ARRANGED OR SHIELDED TO REFLECT LIGHT AWAY FROM · A'l meiSI nao'kle Ill I.<<<~~~ sre OIJee BIEHl 41( 1800I.CD1 0M"IIOO ~ \ll) . .• ...... ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AND AWAY FROM ADJACENT ROADS. MOUNTING · !:oreIK>11111) FCW1020 120V LEO 4000K I200 Luntens Asymntetrical Dis1ribution I'CI. l 'oli""l"""lnl. o ,..(ft~ !.W ally) AND PROPERTY IN RESIDENTIAL OR RURAL AREAS ZONING DISTRICTS · M,.otaiJ!e ann arhrol•r lO r SQI>are ov!e3 (op ~o n :rl ) • ,. L • 1'tor>:ro a~'""'>l& "'Hp tor (ap:iona") T •• SPE CIFICATION SHALL NOT EXCEED ONE-HALF FOOTCANDLE. WARRANTY/LISTINGS ~ ~ • lll 1SS8 1.91&dl0 r .."91100eo&le X 2. ALL LIGHTING SHALL COMPLY WITH DARK SKY REQUIREMENTS. • F'ublffied 0'\e )'ear!lnol'!d ""'"'"'I~ • MOUNTING ~ ...... ·~ s··""' ..x ""~ s.. ~"'"'''I"'"""~ ~ • -"', • Mounts direo::tly to standard outlel bo>c. 9" um mnioeOl« all ruo. r~ • 90" Ordo.- lng (lui Co E.urnpio: $ LH402PU AOU·& CO~ffiUCllOM U) 0 z Ma11oe grade, corrosion resistant , hea")) waled. hl;;lh pressure die-cast aumlnum. Lens is 1/8" thick. cleartampeff!d ~ Forward throw refieclor;. serni-opecul<>r aluminum formed lOr ma:<\ ..,..,.. LAm ~ Ollelllatlt11 M -~ouon iOl(rTI ;o' \Yati:Qe' l2 =J2!(&l~il) llistnluti• • 1-TjfS I ~ Source H..,tiog DM -OI,.V ~ -V1V ! 4 rW "'b u i > 1 ·12ll~-21TV f.. ....... • ·.. I ·.·. I !! :250(1:18) ~. f fiNISH ..,.. .. . .I 40-4U(I(E161 5u .+·.. . C]). w Si~stoge chemical pr~treatment process that includes iron phosphate, to prepare the substrate for a LN stable, super durable . ·· ~ ·. standard poly99ter powder coat. ··- ~ - ' ~ C\'Iii\QJ.:t"tn 1r rac;oo..~~ Oill-l"'"""' ~tl'!lrii<'CIIlolrKI->< :'11 \ • Op~ona l e-coat process Is added to the standard nnish including zinc phosphate fora 5 year limited warrnt1ty. '~~EQ~-.,eM:Qilii8"'00W'"'lllii>O"I.O!QI>G!ll '~fllll)l"ni JI :.!JII!Iro".1 11i ~ ~ :llFti-Uco!\1."13a 0::: • Sookot PL: Four pin plug ·ln typ11 compact lll.IOI'llSC&nt IiJOO io;II IKO» '" '"'" < k>l~Ce. p,,,,,;~ ""'"'"'' ""' i0(11..n"'11 I<> IC l'(jl111"11'o "'""" > '\ \ OF THE POLE. 2. ALL LIGHT FIXTURES SHALL HAVE A FLAT LENS. \ 3. LAMP TYPE SHALL BE LED WHITE LIGHT TO CREATE A UNIFIED COOLj_...l.._l...l..J.._l_L.i,...W] · ... · .... ....·1 / \ . -..-:~ / ··· . -- . . ._ . ­ . . ·- ·- . -:---­ ~. ...,._ \ \ \ WHITE LIGHTING ACROSS THE SITE. 4. FIXTURES SHALL BE BRONZE IN COLOR. ~ ~ n ~ l!J J / "-._ \ \ I'- .< ACCESS TO PARKING DECK ("'") I '\ ···<·. b.1 b.2 ua.......u."' O.ll_ b.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 b.3 z C\1 ~ - .. \.·... "-.. .. \ ... ~ z "-._ · ·. ---­ . . . 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.9 •d •• \·Oc8 . ...... ...... :5 0: ... ~. . . . . . .... . 2.5 . . . . . . 4.1 3.0 A" u.S A" u.S 0.6 . i.4 a.. ~.9 C\1 5.1 w \ 6.3 ~.2 o.s 87"23'55" w 0 CJ) C\1 C\1 I­........ L_\~~----------~~~~~~L-----1 ("'­ 98.96' w~ (J) ~ "\. FACE OF BUILDING, NO STEPBAh \ z w ...J <( - z 0 '\ ...J t' ( 0 ~ _) > ~ '\ ........ 9.6 9.0 'sJL 4.2_ ~ 'Ve- en ::E '\ PROPOSED PRIMARY w \ 5.9 4.4 ·2.8 5.4 ':2.7 l!J I= ........ _J w \ \ PROPOSED (3) STORY MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING WITH BASEMENT z 0 ...J 0:: <( c:::: a.. \ I b. 5.1 ~.0 9.0 1s.o 14.0 8.3 FFE = 412.30 BSMT = 400.20 / I w I 0 I 1-­ ...... w ....J ~ 5.0 3.8 8.0 / w 0 E \ :::.:::: c:::: ~ U1 c ~.2 6.1 9.6 9.0 5.8 ~.1 w 0 I 4.8/ 6.8 8.4 5.9 4.4 ':2.8 I­ 1-­ "z 3.9 4.0 3.9 2.8 "'z ~.0 z (J) w :Ia 3.s 3.1 3.8 3.o ':l.o ':2.9 ::> w I en " z 1.5 1.6 1.7 I w I I I -- -- -- -- -- - {!) ........ I "'zj 0 - u 0 I I cxS ~ t' • I I 0.1 0.1 ~ e .. ~ I ...c ~ ••, . ' 0"'""" "• X T""""l • \ I I 280" SIGHT "' f I ~ \ I I 0 \ 280" SIGHT DlifANCE I I LPRClPOSED INGRESS/EGRESS - I I - - - PARKING DECK - \ I I I I I I I - -­ \ - -­ / / / ------­ - ~ ---- ~ CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION: SPECIAL USE PERMIT DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: May 8, 2018 Project Planner: Heather Newmyer, AICP Date of Staff Report: April 30, 2018 Project Name: The Chi Psi Lodge Property Street Address: 167 Chancellor St Tax Map/Parcel #: Tax Map 9, Parcel 126 Current Zoning Classification: Multifamily - Medium Density Residential (R-3), within the Corner Architectural Control District (ADC) within Corner Parking Zone Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Plan): High Density Residential Property Owner: Alpha Omicron of Chi Psi Corp Applicant’s Representative: Kevin Schafer (Design Develop) and Alan Taylor, P.E. (Waterstreet Studio) RE: Chi Psi Lodge Addition – 165-167 Chancellor Special Use Permit (SUP) Amendment Background The owner of property addressed 167 Chancellor Street (“Subject Property”) is seeking to construct an addition to the already existing fraternity house that was built between 1910 and 1920. The house was originally built for the Alpha Chi Rho fraternity, housed the Alpha Phi sorority in the 1980s, the Phi Delta Theta fraternity in the early 2000s, and is currently home to Chi Psi fraternity. There is an existing Special Use Permit (SUP) that was granted by City Council in 1985 for the use of both the Subject Property (167 Chancellor St, Tax Map 9, Parcel 126) and the adjacent property (165 Chancellor St, Tax Map 9, Parcel 127) as a sorority complex (or fraternity). The 1985 SUP Resolution (Attachment 2) limits both properties to no more than thirty-three (33) residents and grants the structure on the Subject Property to encroach into the front yard setback (noted as 36’ in SUP Resolution) on Madison Lane as shown on the approved site plan in 1985 (Attachment 3). 1 The applicant is seeking to amend the existing special use permit to modify the setbacks where the addition would encroach. The applicant is not seeking to increase the number of residents allowed on both properties or change the use of the special use permit; the use of sorority/fraternity and limit to no more than thirty-three residents would remain the same. The preliminary proposal calls for increasing the gross square footage (GSF) of the existing building from is 3,815 GSF to 5,505 GSF with addition, pedestrian improvements including a new six (6) foot sidewalk on the east side of Madison Lane where there currently is no sidewalk, enhanced landscaping including new street trees and proposed pedestrian lights on-site. The Subject Property has road frontage on Madison Lane and Chancellor Street and is zoned Multifamily - Medium Density Residential (R-3). The Subject Property falls within the Corner Architectural Control District (ADC) and is within the Corner Parking Zone. 2016 Aerial 2 Zoning Map Magenta: Corner Mixed Use District, Orange (west side of railroad tracks): R-3, Orange (east side of railroad tracks): UMD (University Medium Density), Blue Dashed Outline: Corner Parking District, Dark Blue Cross-Hatch: Architectural Design Control Districts 2013 Comp Plan Orange: High Density Residential, Purple: Mixed Use, Light Blue: Public or Semi-Public, Hatched Area: University (Not Subject to City of Charlottesville municipal authority) 3 Preliminary Analysis The Subject Property is located within the Corner District Architectural Design Control District, is in close proximity to the University of Virginia and is surrounded by a mix of fraternities, sororities and multifamily dwellings. The Subject Property is within the Corner Parking Zone where, per Sec. 34-971, provision of parking shall not be required for a development in the Corner Parking Zone unless such development requires a special use permit for increased residential density above that allowed by right. Based off of the Subject Property’s current zoning (R-3, Corner ADC), the Chi Psi Lodge preliminary proposal will require: 1) Special Use Permit – Per Sec. 34-420, a sorority or fraternity house requires a SUP within the R-3 District. The Subject Property has a SUP granted in 1985 for the use of a sorority or fraternity house; however, the preliminary proposal calls for an addition to the existing house, where the addition encroaches into the required front yard (Madison Lane) and corner side yard setbacks (Chancellor Street). The proposed modifications to the yard regulations will require a special use permit amendment. Per Sec. 34-162 (Attachment 5), City Council, in reviewing a SUP application, may modify, reduce or otherwise grant exceptions to yard regulations among other standards as listed. Planning Commission, in making its recommendations to City Council concerning any special use permit application, may include comments or recommendations regarding the advisability or effect of any modifications or exceptions. Required Setbacks: The required setbacks in the R-3 District, per Sec. 34-353, are as follows: • Front (Madison Lane): 36 ft. as noted in 1985 SUP Resolution and per Sec. 340353(b)(1): o (Sec. 34-353(b)(1)) - Where a front yard requirement is annotated with an asterisk (*): on any lot where forty (40) percent or more of the lots located within five hundred (500) feet in either direction, fronting on the same side of the street, have front yards greater or less than the minimum front yard specified in subparagraph (a), above, the required front yard for such lot shall be the average depth of the existing front yards within five hundred (500) feet. In the R-UMD and R-UHD districts this front yard requirement shall apply only on lots where forty (40) percent or more of the lots located within five hundred (500) feet in either direction, fronting on the same side of the street, have front yards less than the minimum front yard specified in subparagraph (a) above. In no case shall this regulation be interpreted to require a front yard of more than sixty (60) feet. 4 • Corner, street side (Chancellor St): 20 ft. • Side: 10 ft. • Rear: 25 ft. And where, per Sec. 34-1122 (Attachment 6), the Subject Property’s yard designations are interpreted as follows: The proposed addition will encroach in the front yard and corner, street side setback as shown. The exact dimensions have not been determined, but as part of the special use permit amendment application, the applicant will be required to note what setback modification (how many feet) they are requesting (For example, they are requesting to move from a 20’ corner, street side setback to a 10’ corner, street side setback). Please Note: The applicant is seeking to amend the existing special use permit granted in 1985 (Attachment 2) with the only request being to modify the setbacks. The applicant is not seeking to change the number of residents allowed on both properties (33 residents maximum) or change the use of the special use permit (sorority or fraternity house). 2) Board of Architectural Review (BAR) - The Subject Property falls within the Corner Architectural Design Control (ADC) District. Per Sec. 34-275, no building or structure within any major design control district, and no protected property, shall be constructed, reconstructed, altered or restored unless and until an application for a certificate of appropriateness (COA) is approved. On April 17, 2018, 167 Chancellor Street went before the BAR where the following action was taken: Schwarz moved: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for New Construction and Additions, I move to find that the proposed addition that will increase the building’s massing and add an additional porch and portico satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Corner ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application for general massing, concept and composition with details and the SUP recommendation to come back . Sarafin seconded. Approved (6-0). 5 Upon submittal of the SUP application, materials will go back before the BAR as noted in the action taken. Per Sec. 34-157(7), the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) is to provide a recommendation to City Council regarding if the SUP request would have an adverse impact to the district, and for recommendations as to reasonable conditions which, if imposed, that would mitigate such impacts. City staff has met with the owner/applicant and applicant’s representative to have preliminary discussions regarding the project. One of the preliminary meetings held with the applicant was considered a formal pre-application meeting for the special use permit request complying with Sec. 34-41(b)(1). The meeting was held on April 25, 2018 (See Pre-Application Verification Form (Attachment 4)). Should the applicant formally submit a special use permit request application, staff has requested in addition to general application requirements, per Sec. 34- 41(d): • Project Proposal Narrative (Sec. 34-41(d)(1)) • Comprehensive Plan Analysis (Sec. 34-41(d)(2)) – to include Streets That Work Narrative • Other Information – Graphics showing proposed massing of building addition in relation to massing of existing buildings on the street (Sec. 34-41(d)(9)) Questions/Topics for Discussion • Discuss the proposed special use permit amendment request in light of the following: o Upon initial review, do any of the Planning Commissioners foresee adverse impacts related but not limited massing and scale of project? (See Sec. 34-157, Attachment 7) Suggestions? Concerns? o Does the Planning Commission recommend any mitigations to the proposed building mass due to the requested setback modifications? o Is this project harmonious with surrounding area? o Does this use conform to the Land Use Map and future vision for this area? Attachments 1. Applicant Preliminary Project Proposal Narrative dated March 27, 2018 2. Special Use Permit Resolution for 165-167 Chancellor Street granted July 15, 1985 3. Minutes excerpt covering SUP taken from City Council meeting minutes dated 1985 4. Pre Application Verification Form dated April 25, 2018 5. Sec. 34-162 – Exceptions and modifications as conditions of permit 6. Sec. 34-1122 – Interpretation of lot and yard designations 7. Sec. 34-157 – General standards for issuance 6 THE CHI PSI LODGE 167 CHANCEL L OR STR EET C HAR L OTTESV IL L E , V A PRESENTED BY ALPHA OMICRON OF CHI PSI CORPORATION IN ASSOCIATION WITH MARCH 27th, 2018 Introduction Built between 1910-1920, 167 Chancellor Street resides in the Corner Architecture More in Keeping with the Precinct: When evaluating the existing building, Architecture Control District that was constructed originally for the Alpha Chi Rho and according to the City’s historic architectural description, the defining historic fraternity. More recently, the house was owned by the Alpha Phi sorority in the 1980s, characteristics occur along Chancellor Street, and include intersecting hipped roofs, the Phi Delta Theta fraternity in the early 2000s, and currently is home of the Chi Psi an asymmetrical three-bay front and a one-story front porch with angled sides. It is fraternity. Throughout the 100 year lifespan of the house, it has gone through various imperative that these defining elements, as well as the overall proportion, scale and levels of renovations and additions, including an addition constructed in the 1980s mass of the existing structure, be preserved and protected. that detracts from the structure’s historic character. It has previously been used as a commercial kitchen for a catering company, boarding house for students, and various When compared to the historic Chancellor Street Elevation, the Madison Lane fraternities and sororities. facade is relatively underdeveloped and retains little, if any, of the defining historic characteristics and subsequent charm. At the intersection of Chancellor and Madison, Existing SUP In 1985, the property was tied to the adjacent lot through an existing SUP, the existing 1980s addition further breaks down the legibility of the historic structure and applied for by the Alpha Phi Sorority to allow the use of the two properties as a “sorority is unsuccessful in either preserving or harmonizing with its adjacent context. It was in complex”, as well as for variances on the normally required setback along Madison these locations, along Madison Lane and towards the intersection of the two streets, Lane and an increase in density to 33 residents on both properties. that the Board of Architecture Review suggested for the proposed addition. The proposed work at 167 Chancellor Street is in keeping with Comprehensive Plan Consequently, we’ve taken the additional square footage that is needed for the and will not have an adverse affect on the surrounding area. Already under an existing program requirements for the typology of a fraternity and included it in an adjacent SUP, the proposed work does not change the use or increase density. The proposed addition, towards the intersection of Chancellor Street and Madison Lane, instead setback modifications are in keeping with adjacent properties and allow for a more of growing the structure vertically. The outcome is an addition that preserves the appropriate scaled building when compared to the precinct average. historic scale and massing along Chancellor street and protects the defining historic The proposed project aims to preserve the historic characteristics of the property while characteristics, while working with the existing grade to afford additional program in improving the property for the Chi Psi fraternity and the neighborhood as a whole. The the basement, in lieu of a third story. positive impacts of the proposed project include: Beyond preserving the defining characteristics of the historic structure, another Improved Pedestrian Connectivity: Currently on the east side of Madison Lane, no substantial design challenge is to harmonize the Madison Lane facade with its existing sidewalk continues to the intersection of Chancellor Street. The proposed site work neighboring adjacent context. We sought to understand the precinct historically, offers a 6’ sidewalk that will continue from the termination of the existing sidewalk to culturally, and programmatically, and appropriately react to the adjacent building the intersection of the two streets. Through further study and coordination with the City elements. The proposed project received unanimous BAR support for concept, massing, engineers, the owners of the property have also offered to facilitate a crosswalk at that and scale, by resolving to preserve the defining characteristics of the historic facade location. On Chancellor Street, there is a new sidewalk recently installed on the east on Chancellor Street while harmonizing with the classical building elements found side of the street. The proposed site plan improves the connectivity to this sidewalk by on Madison Lane. On a challenging corner lot, the proposed addition helps address providing a wider, less steep stairs than currently exist. Extreme grade change along facades on both streets, which happen to have very different aesthetics and styles. the properties edge with Chancellor Street make it challenging to accommodate a sidewalk on the west side of the street. Additionally, the concrete sidewalk disappears A side porch at the intersection of the two streets celebrates the corner lot condition altogether on the adjacent property and the path is overgrown with vegetation. Given with complimentary mass and articulation that address the vehicular intersection and this, providing a safe connection to the sidewalk on the east side of Chancellor would serves as a visual gateway for the flow of pedestrians from Rugby Road and Beta Bridge be preferable from a pedestrian perspective. towards the University and the Corner. Enhanced Pedestrian Lighting: The site plan proposes 8 total pedestrian pole lights, Even with the proposed addition, the building is still below the square foot average of including four along the new Madison Lane sidewalk extension / crosswalk to improve adjacent structures in the precinct. site lighting and pedestrian safety. Enhanced Landscaping: Currently, the landscape is scrubby and overgrown. Thoughtful planting beds will more appropriately compliment the proposed building, while six new street trees will line the proposed sidewalks. An effort to retain healthy and appropriate existing trees during construction will be a priority. PERCEIVED BLDG STREETWALL PERCEIVED BLDG 28ft STREETWALL 29ft CH AN 28ft CO CEL MP LOR ST RES SIO 20ft N 32ft 58ft 87ft 43ft 44ft REL EA 64ft SE PERCEIVED BLDG STREETWALL 52ft MA DIS 53ft ON E LN AV TY IF THE BUILDING STREET WALL IS USED IN RSI 10ft IVE PERCEIVED BLDG DEFINING THE PUBLIC REALM, THE NATURALLY UN STREETWALL OCCURRING COMPRESSION AND RELEASE CO MP ALONG MADISON LANE IN ACCORDANCE TO RES SIO RU GB MADISON BOWL IS THE DOMINATE PARTI FOR N PERCEIVED BLDG YR D STREETWALL THE STREET. CASE STUDY 1: MA DIS MADISON HALL ON BO WL PRECINCT IDENTITY DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC 167 CHANCELLOR ST CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA ANALYSIS OF STREETWALL IN PRECINCT MAY, 2018 RELEASE COMPRESS ION 167 CHANCELLOR ST COMPRESSION AT INTERSECTION OF DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA MADISON LANE AND CHANCELLOR STREET MAY, 2018 VIEW A RELEASE VIEW B COMPRESS ION PRECINCT IDENTITY DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC 167 CHANCELLOR ST CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PRECINCT AERIAL MAY, 2018 VIEW A RELEASE VIEW B COMPRESSION PRECINCT IDENTITY DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC 167 CHANCELLOR ST CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PERCEIVED COMPRESSION VS. RELEASE MAY, 2018 NO SIDEWALK TO INTERSECTION PRECINCT IDENTITY DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC 167 CHANCELLOR ST CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA EXISTING CONDITIONS AERIAL MAY, 2018 SIDEWALK ENDS AT ADJACENT PROPERTY NEW SIDEWALK LANDSCAPING TO BE REMOVED EXISTING STAIRS TO BE RELOCATED NO SIDEWALK TO INTERSECTION LANDSCAPING TO BE REMOVED SIDEWALK ENDS AT ADJACENT PROPERTY EXISTING STAIRS TO BE RELOCATED PRECINCT IDENTITY DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC 167 CHANCELLOR ST CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PEDESTRIAN CONDITIONS ON CHANCELLOR STREET MAY, 2018 " 25' -0" 5'-0 2 "BY-RIGHT" BUILDABLE AREA 10'-0" LOCATION THE BUILDING AT 167 CHANCELLOR OF PROPERTY STREET 167 CHANCELLOR ST LINE PER GIS DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA SITE CONSTRAINTS MAY, 2018 CAPTIVATE AND ENGAGE CORNER FOR BOTH VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC DETERMINE BEST LOCATION FOR ADDITIONS TO MEET PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS ME H NTS ELE WIT FIX 1980S ADDITION TO HARMONIZE WITH EXISTING ING ONIZE CHANCELLOR STREET AND NEW MADISON LANE FACADES BU ARM ILD H LA ND A NE DIS D TO ON MA PON RES CELEBRATE AND PRESERVE HISTORIC CHANCELLOR STREET FACADE ELEMENTS THE BUILDING AT 167 CHANCELLOR STREET DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC 167 CHANCELLOR ST CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA RESPONSIBILITIES AT CORNER LOT MAY, 2018 PER BAR COMMENTS, FOCUS AREA OF ADDITION AT REAR / SIDE. DEMOLITION OF ADDITION IS APPROPRIATE. LINE OF 1980S ADDITION PER BAR COMMENTS, RETAIN PORCH TO COLUMN LINE LINE OF ENCLOSED PORCH ADDITION (YEAR UNKNOWN) LINE OF BUILDING SETBACKS PER BAR COMMENTS, RETAIN HISTORIC CHARACTERISTICS FOUND ALONG CHANCELLOR STREET THE BUILDING AT 167 CHANCELLOR STREET DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC 167 CHANCELLOR ST CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA SUMMARY OF BAR DIRECTIVES MAY, 2018 AREA OF NEW SIDEWALK EXTENSION PROPOSED POST-MOUNTED PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING (TYP. 1 OF 8) 545 sidewalk STREET TREES PLANTING BEDS NEW STREET TREES 538 Charlottesville, VA landing Chi Psi Lodge TIE INTO EXISTING SIDEWALK 547.5 sidewalk 549 porch LINE OF ORIGINAL 549 HISTORIC STRUCTURE porch ACCESSIBLE ROUTE 549 F.F. 549 545 NEW BLUESTONE parking sidewalk WALK CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 418 E. MAIN STREET NEW STAIRS TO CHECKED BY: BP DRAWN BY: KS CHANCELLOR 434-806-8365 549 546 walk patio ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPOT PROPOSED SITE PLAN ISSUE DATE: NEW BLUESTONE WALK April 13, 2018 BRICK SEAT WALL T/ WALL AT 549 SK6 SHEET #6 OF 6 EXISTING HISTORIC STRUCTURE LANDSCAPING TO BE REMOVED 167 CHANCELLOR ST DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA EXISTING MAY, 2018 AREA TO BE RETAINED / UNTOUCHED 167 CHANCELLOR ST DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PROPOSED MAY, 2018 1960S ADDITION NOT IN KEEPING WITH CONTEXT TO BE DEMOLISHED EXISTING SIDEWALK TO BE WIDENED AND CONTINUED TO INTERSECTION EXISTING LANDSCAPE TO BE REMOVED 167 CHANCELLOR ST DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA EXISTING CONDITIONS ON MADISON LANE MAY, 2018 167 CHANCELLOR ST DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PROPOSED MADISON LANE ELEVATION MAY, 2018 DEFINING HISTORIC CHARACTERISTICS REMAIN INTACT 167 CHANCELLOR ST DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PROPOSED MAY, 2018 167 CHANCELLOR ST DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PROPOSED MAY, 2018 167 CHANCELLOR ST DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PROPOSED MAY, 2018 167 CHANCELLOR ST DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PROPOSED MAY, 2018 NEW SIDE PORCH CELEBRATES NEW WEST FACADE BALANCES CORNER LOT CONDITION WITH CLASSICAL FEATURES AND PORTICO COMPLIMENTARY MASS AND ARTICULATION 167 CHANCELLOR ST DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PROPOSED MAY, 2018 167 CHANCELLOR ST DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PROPOSED MAY, 2018 167 CHANCELLOR ST DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PROPOSED MAY, 2018 EXISTING DORMER TO REMAIN NEW OPENINGS AT GROUND LEVEL RECESS DISTINGUISHES NEW MASSING FROM EXISTING 167 CHANCELLOR ST DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PROPOSED MAY, 2018 PER BAR REQUIREMENTS, FOCUS AREA OF ADDITION AT MADISON / CORNER SIDE MAIN ADDITION Charlottesville, VA Chi Psi Lodge 1960S ADDITION FOOTPRINT FRONT PORCH LINE OF BUILDING SETBACKS CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 418 E. MAIN STREET CHECKED BY: BP DRAWN BY: KS 434-806-8365 PER BAR REQUIREMENTS, RETAIN CHANCELLOR ST. ELEVATION SETBACKS HISTORIC BUILDING FOOTPRINT VARIANCES 1 SETBACK VARIANCES ISSUE DATE: PRECINCT IDENTITY March 27, 2018 SK5 1" = 10' ANALYSIS OF BUILDING FOOTPRINTS IN PRECINCT SK5 SHEET #5 OF 6 4008 3413 3510 5508 4416 6561 5870 CH 6991 AN CEL 2595 3878 LOR ST 6638 6627 6330 5995 6301 5295 5304 5338 6793 MA DIS ON E LN AV TY RSI PRECINCT AVERAGE FINISHED SQ FT. = 5,400 SF 4600 IVE UN EXISTING STRUCTURE = 65% of PRECINCT AVERAGE STRUCTURE WITH PROPOSED ADDITION = 4,650 SF, RU GB 85% of PRECINCT AVERAGE YR D MA DIS ON BO WL 167 CHANCELLOR ST DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PRECINCT SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON MAY, 2018 Sec. 34‐162. ‐ Exceptions and modifications as conditions of permit. (a) In reviewing an application for a special use permit, the city council may expand, modify, reduce or otherwise grant exceptions to yard regulations, standards for higher density, parking standards, and time limitations, provided: (1) Such modification or exception will be in harmony with the purposes and intent of this division, the zoning district regulations under which such special use permit is being sought; and (2) Such modification or exception is necessary or desirable in view of the particular nature, circumstances, location or situation of the proposed use; and (3) No such modification or exception shall be authorized to allow a use that is not otherwise allowed by this chapter within the zoning district in which the subject property is situated. (b) The planning commission, in making its recommendations to city council concerning any special use permit application, may include comments or recommendations regarding the advisability or effect of any modifications or exceptions. (c) The resolution adopted by city council to grant any special use permit shall set forth any such modifications or exceptions which have been approved. (9-15-03(3)) Sec. 34‐1122. ‐ Interpretation of lot and yard designations. Interpretation of Lot and Yard Designations Attachment 8 Sec. 34-157. - General standards for issuance. (a) In considering an application for a special use permit, the city council shall consider the following factors: (1) Whether the proposed use or development will be harmonious with existing patterns of use and development within the neighborhood; (2) Whether the proposed use or development and associated public facilities will substantially conform to the city's comprehensive plan; (3) Whether proposed use or development of any buildings or structures will comply with all applicable building code regulations; (4) Whether the proposed use or development will have any potentially adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, or the community in general; and if so, whether there are any reasonable conditions of approval that would satisfactorily mitigate such impacts. Potential adverse impacts to be considered include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: a. Traffic or parking congestion; b. Noise, lights, dust, odor, fumes, vibration, and other factors which adversely affect the natural environment; c. Displacement of existing residents or businesses; d. Discouragement of economic development activities that may provide desirable employment or enlarge the tax base; e. Undue density of population or intensity of use in relation to the community facilities existing or available; f. Reduction in the availability of affordable housing in the neighborhood; g. Impact on school population and facilities; h. Destruction of or encroachment upon conservation or historic districts; i. Conformity with federal, state and local laws, as demonstrated and certified by the applicant; and, j. Massing and scale of project. (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; (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 (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. (b) Any resolution adopted by city council to grant a special use permit shall set forth any reasonable conditions which apply to the approval. (9-15-03(3); 11-21-05; 2-21-06) MEMORANDUM From The Office of the Charlottesville City Attorney TO: Mike Stoneking DATE: Feb. 7, 2018 FROM: Lisa Robertson RE: Zoning Ordinance Deficiencies As you know, for some time I have been very concerned about a number of “loopholes” within the City’s Zoning Ordinance (ZO), which if not fixed soon, could result in an unfortunate loss of opportunities for the type of development the City is struggling to obtain. The matters I regard as urgent in nature involve ZO provisions where the City is awarding extra building height and density to developments without receiving any significant benefit in return. I was hoping that some consensus would be achieved among various stakeholders who have been meeting to discuss this problem; however, that hasn’t happened, and I continue to believe that every day we leave these loopholes unaddressed creates potential for lost opportunities for public benefits. Will you please ask PLACE to consider my recommended [interim] proposal? (See Attachment #1). First Proposal: Attached (Attachment #1) is proposed wording that I suggested more than a year ago, as a “catch all” provision that would plug these loopholes. Attachment #2, a chart, identifies the specific loopholes that are problematic. This suggested amendment would NOT preclude the City from continuing to work on a longer-term consensus about how to rework the zoning ordinance to establish reasonable heights and other development regulations, while preserving the ability to develop a plan for Incentive Zoning that would identify certain increased benefits to a developer which is willing to provide features, design elements, uses (affordable housing!) or other amenities in return for those benefits. Within a Resolution approved by the Planning Commission last year, one of the categories of ZO amendments they authorized me to develop is clarification of provisions within the Mixed Use Districts, to guide implementation by staff. An example of clarification needed is what specific amount of GFA must a developer provide, in order to be a bona fide “mixed use” building or development entitled to additional height or density? That’s what’s addressed in Attachments #1 and #2. Second Proposal As you and I have discussed, there are some “companion” ZO amendments which have potential to enhance the quality of development proposals immediately, and which would likely dovetail nicely with ZO provisions that might be considered for adoption in the future, once the Comp Plan review process is complete. I’ve included as part of Attachment #1 a written summary of the items you and I have discussed as possible companion provisions, and I would be interested in hearing whether or not these are provisions that PLACE as a whole might endorse? ATTACHMENT #2 CHARLOTTESVILLE MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICTS: HEIGHT AND DENSITY BONUSES FOR “MIXED-USE” Zoning District Height Bonus Density Bonus “Mixed-Use” Standard Notes Downtown Corridor None None N/A • 43 DUA by-right • Height bonus: None Can qualify for height bonus • 50’ by-right • “Mixed use buildings and • Density bonus: 25-75% of GFA with 99% to 1% mix of Downtown Extended • “Mixed-use building”: 101’ developments”: must be residential, at least 25% residential and non­ by-right 43 DUA by-right, non-residential residential uses 240 DUA by SUP • 21 DUA by-right • “Mixed use buildings and • Density bonus: 25-75% of GFA Downtown North None developments”: must be residential, at least 25% 43 DUA by-right non-residential 120 DUA by SUP West Main West None None N/A West Main East None None N/A • 7 DUA by-right if only single • § 34-662(e) sets minimum family detached 12.5% GFA for non-residential • 21 DUA by-right if only Cherry Avenue None uses. However, this provision is townhouse or multifamily not clearly tied to any of the • “Mixed-use project”: mixed-use bonus provisions. 43 DUA by-right High Street Corridor None None N/A Neighborhood Commercial None None N/A Corridor Highway Corridor None None N/A Water Street District None None N/A Urban Corridor District None None N/A South Street District None None N/A • 21 DUA by-right Can qualify for density • “Mixed use building or bonus with 99% to 1% mix Corner District None None development”: of residential and non­ 43 DUA by-right residential uses • 21 DUA by-right • Density bonus: At least 25% of • “Mixed use building or Central City Corridor None GFA must be for non-residential development”: use 43 DUA by-right Street Typology Charlottesville, Virginia - Downtown J. Street Typology - Industrial - • • Mixed Use A Mixed Use B /~ - Neighborhood A • • Neighborhood B Streets That Work - local 0 0.25 Memorandum March 9, 2018 From: PLACE Design Task Force To: Lisa Robertson. cc: Lisa Green, Chair Planning Commission, Kathy Galvin, City Council, PLACE Re: Mixed Use. Dear Lisa, At the February 8th meeting of PLACE we discussed your proposed provisional zoning ordinance text amendment as shown below: (full copy of your memo under separate cover in email). There were only five PLACE members in attendance but we unanimously agreed to support this provisional change. Final change is subject to a completed Zoning Audit. Supporting discussion:  This was a targeted, surgical change pointed at only two areas ion the mixed -use section where no definition existed, The Corner having no standard for the density bonus and Downtown Extended having no standard for the height bonus.  No other districts or definitions were changed.  12.5% is a precedent already- in the Cherry Street district. Dissenting discussion:  Perhaps 12.5 % is too low as 25% is used elsewhere in the ordinance.  A proper mix might be best determined by measuring the benefit to the community and by looking through a cultural lens rather than a profit model. Additional discussion was held regarding part two of your memo: PLACE could not reach consensus to support this in its current form. Supporting discussion:  Relegating parking and parking structure entrances away from framework streets is a good idea and should be fleshed out on a neighborhood-specific basis.  Concealing surface lots and parking structures has merit. Dissenting Discussion:  This might be a strong companion piece to the mixed-use definition might be better situated as a spate piece.  More specific study is required to be sure the above listed notions are practicable throughout. Submitted: Mike Stoneking March 9, 2018 ATTACHMENT #1 Add an introductory provision to Zoning Ordinance Article VI (Mixed Use Districts), within Division 1 (General), along these lines: Proposal 1 for Consideration: Where a provision of any mixed use zoning district included in this article allows additional height for a mixed-use building, or allows additional residential density for a mixed use building, development, or project, the following requirements must be met for the building, development, or project to be entitled to the additional height or density: • Where the provision allows for additional height for a mixed-use building, residential and non- residential uses shall each occupy at least 12.5% of the Gross Floor Area of the proposed building. • Where the provision allows for additional residential density for a mixed-use building, residential and non-residential uses shall each occupy at least 12.5% of the Gross Floor Area within the proposed building unless different percentages are specified within the division containing the regulations for the applicable mixed-use zoning district. • Where the provision allows for additional residential density for a mixed-use development or project, residential and non-residential uses shall each occupy at least 12.5% of total Gross Floor Area of the buildings comprising the proposed development or project unless different percentages are specified within the division containing the regulations for the applicable mixed-use zoning district. Proposal 2 for Consideration (“Companion” Amendments) Within mixed-use buildings, developments, and projects, off-street parking facilities must meet the following requirements along streets designated as “framework streets” in the Streets That Work element of the Comprehensive Plan: o Within structures containing parking: (i) any floor at street-level [of a framework street] shall be devoted to a permitted use other than parking; or (ii) any parking use at the street level [of a framework street] shall be concealed from view from the [framework] street using liner retail, residential, commercial, or office space. o Entrances to surface parking lots and structured parking shall not be located along the framework street, but shall be located along non-framework streets or alleys. o Surface parking lots must be located behind buildings and screened from the framework street with landscape elements [or could specify S-2 or S-3 screen here].