Agenda PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DOCKET TUESDAY, July 10, 2018 at 5:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. Commission Pre-Meeting (Agenda discussion(s)) Beginning: 4:30 p.m. Location: City Hall, 2nd Floor, NDS Conference II. Commission Regular Meeting Beginning: 5:30 p.m. Location: City Hall, 2nd Floor, Council Chambers A. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS B. UNIVERSITY REPORT C. CHAIR'S REPORT D. DEPARTMENT OF NDS E. MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE FORMAL AGENDA F. CONSENT AGENDA (Items removed from the consent agenda will be considered at the end of the regular agenda) 1. Minutes – May 8, 2018 – Pre- meeting and Regular meeting 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. 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 proffered development conditions. The proffered development conditions include: (i) affordable housing: one unit will be designated affordable and will rent at a rate set by HUD home rents, making the unit affordable to those with income of up to 80% AMI for a period of not more than 10 years, (ii) building height: no building on the site shall exceed 35’ in height from grade. The Subject Property is further identified on City Real Property Tax Map 57 Parcels 127. The Subject Property is approximately 0.26 acres. The Land Use Plan calls for Low Density Residential. The Comprehensive Plan specifies density no greater than 15 units per acre. Information pertaining to request may be viewed online at http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and-services/departments-h-z/neighborhood- development-services or obtained from the Department of Neighborhood Development Services, 2nd Floor of City Hall, 610 East Main Street. Persons interested in this rezoning petition may contact Matt Alfele, City Planner by email at (alfelem@charlottesville.org) or by telephone (434-970-3636). 2. 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 Property is further identified on City Real Property Tax Map 57 Parcels 127. The Subject Property is further identified on City Real Property Tax Map 57 Parcels 127. The Subject Property is approximately 0.26 acres. The Land Use Plan calls for Low Density Residential. The Comprehensive Plan specifies density no greater than 15 units per acre. Information pertaining to request may be viewed online at http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and- services/departments-h-z/neighborhood-development-services or obtained from the Department of Neighborhood Development Services, 2nd Floor of City Hall, 610 East Main Street. Persons interested in this rezoning petition may contact Matt Alfele, City Planner by email at (alfelem@charlottesville.org) or by telephone (434-970-3636). IV. COMMISSION’S ACTION ITEMS Continuing: until all action items are concluded 1. Entrance Corridor Review Board a. Seminole Square Shopping Center V. FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE/ADJOURN Tuesday, July 17 & 31, 2018 – 5:00 Work Comprehensive Plan PM Session Tuesday, August 14, 2018 – 4:30 PM Pre- Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2018 – 5:30 PM Regular Entrance Corridor - Lexington Avenue Meeting and East High Street - Tarleton Oak Entrance Corridor SUP recommendation - 140 Emmet Special Permit – 140 Emmet Street Zoning Text Amendments –Temporary Construction Laydown and Temporary Parking Areas (initiated June 12, 2018) Minutes – April 24, 2018 – Work Session, June 12, 2018 - Pre- meeting and Regular meeting Anticipated Items on Future Agendas Zoning Text Amendments –Off-street parking facilities requirements along streets designated as “framework streets” (initiated May 8, 2018) Temporary Construction Laydown and Temporary Parking Areas (initiated June 12, 2018) SUP –MACAA (1021 Park Street), 167 Chancellor Street Rezoning and Special Permit - 918 Nassau Street (Hogwaller Farm Development) PUD - ZM18-00002- 1335, 1337 Carlton Avenue (Carlton Views PUD) 513 Rugby Road 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 6/1/2018 TO 6/30/2018 1. Preliminary Site Plans 2. Final Site Plans a. William Taylor Plaza PUD Phase II– June 28, 2018 3. Site Plan Amendments 4. Subdivision a. BLA – Carlton View II Apartments (TMP 56-43.1 & 43.2) - June 5, 2018 Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DOCKET TUESDAY, May 8, 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: Lyle Solla-Yates Chair Green called the meeting to order at 5:00pm and Ms. Creasy provided an overview of the agenda. Commissioner Keller asked for a refresher on the protocols for PUDs and that information was provided. Brian Hogg asked about the BAR approval for 167 Chancellor Street. Ms. Creasy stated that as this is an item for preliminary discussion this evening, this a good time to provide feedback. Chair Green asked if there were any questions on 227 Brookwood. Commissioner Keller wanted to make sure there was a safety plan for the site as well as a plan for drop off and pick up. Chair Green wanted clarity that any future owner who would use the family day home permit would be appropriately licensed. Ms. Robertson noted that the requirements have some exemptions on licensure requirements so the wording would need to take that into account. Commissioner Keesecker asked if the 10th Street façade could be considered as part of the EC as he has concerns about the wall of the garage. It was noted it could. 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: Lyle Solla-Yates COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS Commissioner Lahendro: reported he did not attend the April 19th 2018 PACC TECH meeting because he was out of town but was able to obtain the minutes. There were three items presented: 1) the UVA athletics master plan update was discussed as well as a draft phasing of the different athletic projects; 2) the County presented an update on the Three Notched Trail planning; and 3) there were project updates by each agency representatives. Mr. Hogg was at the meeting and may have something else to add. He also reported the HAC Allocations Committee met on April 26th and were reviewing the affordable housing fund application process. We are working to simplify the application process, to provide greater flexibility, and implement a committee selection process that includes affordable housing representatives. The Tree Commission met on May 1st which he had to miss that because we gave our Comprehensive Plan public presentation that night. Commissioner Keller: no report Commissioner Keesecker: reported he attended the Hydraulic and 29 Steering Committee meeting on April 12, 2018 to talk over some details related to the Hydraulic and 29 plan. This is after the day that the Planning Commission had endorsed the Small Area Plan in general so the foundation of that plan is consistent in moving forward but with the consultants continuing to explore options at various 'pinch points' on the edges of the work area, for instance trying to improve the right hand northbound lane from Hydraulic to 29. They considered an option for taking 2 lanes west bound under Hydraulic and under 29 to improve that flow; discussed the interface of Hydraulic and Brandywine and the stretch that moves around that curve; discussed some options to review for bike lane options and connectivity at the 29/Hydraulic 1 intersection proper and in the end the committee recommended that consultants look further at an option that connected all 4 quadrants at that intersection for bike/pedestrian. On April 18th he attended the Emmet Streetscape meeting which was the initial kickoff meeting where the consultants provided their observations of the existing conditions. They presented a brief overview of the study process, timeline, and goals based on the Smart Scale application provisions. The team anticipates a visioning process with three principles, complete street, safety, and beautification of the corridor. This study runs from Ivy Road to Arlington and Emmet Street. He said there was a group discussion on how to resolve one of the major questions that the team will have to address which is how to move the multimodal trail on the stretch of Emmet through the pinch point where the train trestle is. There is an existing very narrow area so there is some discussion of a tunnel. He reported on another Hydraulic and 29 meeting on April 26th which he did not attend but a discussion was held regarding how to package the different projects within the work area into an application for Smart Scale. He recalled the study area included eight projects and not all could be funded at once so there was some discussion about what combination of those would be put forward and when. We got an email from Mr. Emory that it was a pleasure to see how quick the Hydraulic and 29 plan came together and how it might have benefitted other parts of the city if those had been undertaken at different times; but it hasn’t been that quick because they met for about 15 months and met every two weeks. It has been a fairly concerted effort and the VDOT staff has done a super good job organizing it in a way to keep it moving. Commissioner Santoski: no report UNIVERSITY REPORT, Brian Hogg: reported that May 17th is the PACC meeting and at that meeting the University of Virginia Foundation will be presenting their plans for demolishing the Cavalier Inn and beginning clearing for the Ivy Corridor site. My colleague, Michael Joy will present an update on the Athletics Master Plan. At the June Board of Visitors meeting there will be several items on the Buildings and Grounds Committee’s agenda: The design of the Ivy Mountain Musculoskeletal Center will be presented for final approval. It is just over the City line in the County and it will be replacing the Kluge Children’s Health Center. The designs of the proposed addition and renovation of Alderman Library, of the new Softball complex, and of the new Student Health building (the next project on the east side of Brandon Avenue) will all be presented to the Buildings and Grounds Committee for review. CHAIR'S REPORT, Lisa Green: reported she did not have any meetings this month. The Citizen Transportation and Advisory Committee will meet on the 16th of May, 7:00 pm at Water Street Center. The East High Streetscape Project does not have another meeting set as of yet but she encourages you to go to East High Streetscape.org and take the survey and let your voice be heard. This is an add on to the Belmont Bridge as part of Smart Scale funding to have the project extend all the way to 10th Street past the bridge. The Emmet Street project meeting is May 12th at the Cavalier Inn from 9:00 am to 11:00 am. This is a citizen information meeting and there is a walking tour beginning at 11:00. DEPARTMENT OF NDS Missy Creasy: reported we have two Comprehensive Plan meetings this week, one on Thursday from 12:00 noon to 2:00 pm. at City Space and one on Saturday from 10:00 until 12:00 at the Central Library in the McIntire Room on the third floor. These are two of the four that we have scheduled for the month of May for citizen participation for the Comprehensive Plan to gather feedback on the different chapters as well to gather feedback on the draft map that the Planning Commission has put together. The next meeting is May 29th in the Belmont neighborhood in the evening. Following the meetings the Planning Commission will be working with the comments received and providing updates to materials moving forward through the Comprehensive Plan process. The Commission has a work session scheduled on the 22nd on the calendar that doesn’t have a specific topic to it and wondered if you had a topic and/or would like to take a break since we do have four meetings this month. Commissioner Keller moved to dispense with the May 22nd work session, seconded by Commissioner Santoski, motion passes 5-0. MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE FORMAL AGENDA – no speakers present CONSENT AGENDA (Items removed from the consent agenda will be considered at the end of the regular agenda) No vote was taken on the consent agenda. Items will be forwarded to the next meeting. 2 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 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 Matt Alfele provided the staff report. Chair Green opened the public hearing. There were no speakers so she closed the public hearing Commissioner Keller moved 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. Limiting the number of children to a maximum of eight (8). b. Limiting operation hours from 7:00am to 5:30pm. c. That there be on file with the City a plan for the drop off and pick up of children exiting and entering cars and that it be provided annually to all of the parents whose children are attending this facility and as a new child joins it be provided to that family as well. d. A requirement for state licensure as required. Seconded by Commissioner Keesecker, motion passes 5-0. 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. Report by Matt Alfele: Fountainhead Properties has asked to rezone four parcels of land to the “planned unit development" category, which allows for customized rules for specific sites. Two buildings have already been constructed and a third is nearing a groundbreaking. The rezoning request is part of a larger development that started back in 2012. The first phase of the development was the completion of the by-right Blue Ridge PACE Center. He said this January, the Planning Commission approved a site plan for a third phase known as Carlton Views II. This calls for 48 units and is moving forward in part because Council authorized the spending of $1.44 million from the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund. Scott Collins, Civil engineer: represented Fountainhead before the Planning Commission. He understood the concerns about the PUD process but said the approach was taken to expand the possibility of more affordable housing within city limits. He stated we’re actually building on a very successful project and it looks great and has been well received in the community. This is really providing something for the community that Charlottesville doesn’t have. It’s providing for a campus style development that provides accessible and affordable housing next to an amenity that is set up to provide services for residents within a walkable area. Stacy Pethia Housing Coordinator: said the first two residential buildings were financed with low-income housing tax credits which are received through the Virginia Housing and Development Authority. They have already signed agreements clarifying that those units will be affordable for 30 years. Fountainhead could only build four housing units on the remaining land by-right. The rezoning would increase the residential density on the entire site from 21 to 32 dwelling units per acre. Ms. Pethia said Fountainhead has contacted her to request additional funding for the third residential 3 building. That will require the rezoning to be granted in order to qualify for the low-income housing tax credits from the VHDA. Commissioner Santoski: said he has grown wary of the planned unit development (PUD) mechanism. He noted that we’ve had it happen in the past that when we’ve looked for PUD documents, most recently thinking about the one out on 5th Street, there was a lack of documentation within the public files about what exactly that document was. He was referring to the Beacon on 5th Street, a recently constructed apartment complex built by Riverbend Development. Council approved a PUD rezoning for the project in March 2004 but it wasn’t constructed until over a dozen years later. Commissioner Santoski expressed concern that if the rezoning took place now and the development was not built, the development could be out of synch with changes that might come in the current review of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Alfele: said he is aware of that frustration but that Fountainhead’s application laid out expectations for the future. He pointed out how they provided a really good document so that if someone in ten years comes along they would have this document and would really know what they can and cannot do on this parcel. That has not always been the case. Commissioner Lahendro: said he was also skeptical of using the PUD method in this case. He felt that we’re not getting the real benefit of a PUD when two-thirds of the site has already been decided upon and the third that’s left is at the opposite end of the site. Open the Public Hearing Mark Kavit: said he is in favor of seeing more affordable housing done if it is really affordable housing. Until last week he was employed at Blue Ridge PACE Center and is familiar with this piece of property and had been following this matter for quite some time but he had been told to really not discuss much and keep my mouth shut which I don’t have to worry about that now. His main concern is parking, and the site line from the street with cars going back and forth as well as entering and exiting the street. The parking lot beside PACE is used 100% by PACE. They are now using street parking in addition to the front of the building and a little bit up the hill. He saw an initial plan sometime back on the parking area that made it look like it was over where the dumpsters are and that is totally not true. They are using the entire space and they are still growing. There are about 25 JAUNT buses that come into PACE in the mornings and 25 that go out in the evening. With cars parked on the street you are not able to see the distance going up the hill on both sides while turning. We could really use some affordable housing for seniors. He feels that more research needs to be done on this project and more details in the plans as well that addresses some of the concerns that have been brought up tonight. Bill Emory: a resident of Woolen Mills neighborhood said he was also opposed to the project. This development as initially designed spread out across the 4.8 acres at 21 DUA which allowed for focusing on the well-being of the residents vis a vis recreation and open space. Bumping up the density will come at the residents’ expense. The Planning Commission understands but the general public might not understand that there is no different zoning for rich and poor, there is no special Hogwaller lens that changes the scope of review in this matter to “This is good enough for where it is going, this is good enough for who it is for”. I have faith that the ten PUD objectives and the Zoning Map Amendment requirements will be evaluated here exactly as you would evaluate them if this rezoning was in a higher income portion of the City. The meaning of “not complying with the Land Use Map” is as significant here as it would be on Dairy Road. I wish you all had been given the opportunity for a work-session as you often do with PUD applicants. There are questions and concerns that could have been addressed with the developer in such a format, these include: The former SUP conditions regarding maximum number of bedrooms and fifty foot height limit which have not been carried forward. The lack of innovative arrangement of buildings and open space. The lack of the higher quality which is possible through PUD zoning. Is this a cohesive unified project? What percentage of the current residents are working for PACE or are PACE clients? Will the pedestrian linkage between buildings A, Carlton Views II, and the PACE Center actually come to pass? Instead of having to walk out in the street or take the JAUNT bus. Can it be required? Where is the Carlton Views II open space? (Parcel A) Generally, the quality of the open space is minimal. It is not usable for recreation, much of it is not accessible to the elderly. Where is the variety of housing types? Where is the mix of incomes? What employment or stores exist near this proposed residential density? Why would we locate the economically vulnerable people in an area with no services within walking distance? Westhaven is walkable, South 1st Street is walkable, and this neighborhood is not. 4 What is improved by changing from M-I with an SUP to PUD? Staff finds the only substantial and realistic change the rezoning to PUD will achieve is an increase in residential density. The code, the PUD objectives, should lead to quality like Timberlake Place rather than quantity, people warehouses floating on asphalt, like this. The PUD ordinance allows a developer to build a neighborhood, this doesn’t make the cut. Rachel Vigor: a current resident of the existing Carlton Views said the quality of life in the building is not high. She said there’s general frustration with the apartment. She said people experience it as being hastily built and not built right and things such as broken dishwashers, the sliding doors for balconies being too heavy to move, doors closing on people as they enter or exit their apartments. Ms. Vigor said management is lacking and people are asked to go to another apartment complex on Prospect Avenue if they have complaints. She added she cannot afford to live there and will be moving out soon. Closed the Public Hearing Mr. Collins: rebutted stating the plan is conceptual at this time. He also said that as more units come on line there would be more on-site management staff. Most apartment complexes, if it’s anywhere below 100 units, it’s very typical to find the leasing offices and staffing off-site because they do it from another place. Commissioner Keller: said for all of the specificity of this, there’s still a good number of details and questions that remain unanswered for instance, she wanted to see a diagram depicting how people would be able to walk and circulate around the entire community. She said we want these to be very good and livable and successful communities. She commented that maybe a little more time to address some of these questions would result in a better community and a better PUD. Lisa Robertson, Interim City Attorney: pointed out of that if the item was deferred, four different planning Commissioners would hear the presentation from scratch. Mr. Collins: asked for a deferral when it appeared the Commission was going to vote to recommend denial. He had hoped for a recommendation for an approval because of the timing of getting funding to help subsidize the project. Commissioner Santoski: said he understood that complexity. He said these things are so complicated and pull in so many different pieces of funding and it’s not the developer or the agency’s fault. It’s so hard to grab that federal money and other local monies to make these things work. Commissioner Lahendro moved to accept the deferral Seconded by Commissioner Keller, motion passes 5-0. IV. COMMISSION’S ACTION ITEMS Chair Green Gaveled out of the Planning Commission and into Entrance Corridor Entrance Corridor Review Board - 10th Street and East High Street: This is a certificate of appropriateness for a three-story medical office building at the corner of East High Street and 10th Street NE. The 1.1-acre property at the corner of 10th Street and East High Street is owned by Sentara Martha Jefferson Hospital. Three buildings currently on the site would be demolished. The Comprehensive Plan calls for “mixed-use” at the site and the zoning is in the Downtown North district, which would allow for the new building without further approvals from City Council. Jeff Werner: Historic Preservation Planner, said the proposed new building is a three-story medical office building with a two-story entrance fronting on High Street and a two-story rear parking structure with 178 spaces. Chair Green: said it goes against every single thing that we’ve been talking about in the design of what we’re doing in this area. It’s everything we’re trying to go away from. 5 Ms. Creasy: added there are comments in the preliminary site plan that note the continued conversations and compatibility with the project and one of those changes was a request to put a pedestrian entrance on East High Street. She said staff has determined that the height, mass and scale of the building is appropriate under the entrance corridor guidelines. Mr. Werner: said compared to existing buildings and structures fronting on East High Street this site is prominent and the proposed building’s scale and materials are appropriate for a corner building. Also the large parking deck at the rear is unfortunate in terms of massing but permitted. The project’s architect said he felt his team had provided a site plan and drawings that well placed the new building within its surroundings. Mark Dignard: Innovate Architecture | Interiors: pointed out how this building embodies a tough site, a very acute angle on a corner with sloping streets that surround it. The idea is, how do we put a building there and its parking in such a way that adds to as opposed to taking away from the community and the entrance corridor. Mr. Dignard said the project will use some of the same materials and elements as at a portion of the former Martha Jefferson Hospital that now houses the CFA Institute. Many of the commissioners felt the parking deck was not the best use of the space. Commissioner Keller: said we need housing and we need mixed-use. One of the worst things now about downtown is the parking deck at the other medical building on East Jefferson Street. To add this one, we’d just become a wasteland. Mr. Dignard: said from 10th street, pedestrians will only see a brick wall with planting. He said the rendering included in the application shows a white surface in the parking deck, but the actual product would look different. He said from a vehicular standpoint or a pedestrian standpoint, we’ve kind of hidden the cars along High Street. You get a glimpse of the entrance driveway along the side of the building to get back to the parking, but you really can’t see it very well. Commissioner Keller: said she thought the building looked like a “mini-hospital” rather than a medical office building. She feels that it just doesn’t fit that corner very well, and then you add the parking deck to it and it’s just an insult. Mr. Dignard: said medical office buildings tend to be square. He explained the reason is the medical design wants you to have a nice rectilinear space to be able to lay out the space, and as you develop a project, you want to develop every square foot you can. Commissioner Lahendro moved to deny the certificate of appropriateness because the brick wall along 10th Street was too high. They also said the pedestrian experience on East High Street would not be improved by the current application. Motion passes 4-0-1 vote; Commissioner Keesecker abstained; Seconded by Commissioner Santoski. Entrance Corridor Review - 1000 East High Street - Ready Kids, A certificate of appropriateness for an addition at the ReadyKids building operated by Children, Youth and Family Services at 1000 East High Street. Commissioner Keller moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for an addition at the ReadyKids building with the staff recommendations for conditions: 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. Chair Green Gaveled out of Entrance Corridor and back to the Planning Commission. 2. Preliminary Discussion 167 Chancellor Street: 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 the limit to no more than thirty-three residents would remain the same. The preliminary proposal calls for increasing the gross 6 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. Mr. Keesecker said on a corner condition heavily traveled basically a building with two fronts will require a fairly unique architectural solution. He said the massing has the ability to be appropriate and as a SUP the impacts of the loss of the setbacks and the improvements to the space between building and the public way to make that space more animated and better. Chair Green: The question coming to us is the approval of the SUP and to grant a more non-conforming setback. Commissioner Lahendro: said he objects because this violates every one of the secretary standards of rehabilitation and a façade-ostomy and using it for the back of the house and it is not a façade anymore. He said it is inappropriate for the scale and the massing for the building and the context around it. Applicant: Chancellor is a lot more like a typical Charlottesville residential street. The front entrance is usually a bump- out dormer and residential feel. Chancellor Street was the primary street. This is the BAR submission, to face Chancellor Street as Madison Lane developed, the elevation flipped to address Madison Lane more appropriately fit. Mr. Hogg: said St. Anthony’s is perfectly symmetrical; it was neo- classical building when it started and now it’s got two big neo-classical porticos. This was a Queen Ann house with porch facing Chancellor Street and this was the back of the house. The two houses at the end, 165 and 167, in fact face Chancellor Street and the reason is that this is the back yard. He said all of the other houses on Madison Lane face Madison Lane. He commented that a large portion of this addition is the big party room going onto the patio, legibly their dining room. Every fraternity in the last five years has come to the BAR or some other regulatory agency saying that we need a party room and we will put it underground so it won’t be so noisy when we are on Preston Avenue near people. It’s basically demolishing the south end of this house. He is not sure that your analysis of trying to fit this in to this pattern of development in this neighborhood as a variation of the setbacks is really convincing. Mr. Hogg said he doesn’t think the board’s discussion of the compression and release really reflects his experience on that side of the street. He also finds it interesting you are proposing a 6 foot sidewalk and he feels the sidewalk on that side of Madison lane is 3 or 4 feet. Ms. Newmyer: said this is just a local street but it’s always said if we can provide a wider sidewalks that is great. Commissioner Santoski: said he thought it looked nice and thought the changes to it enhance the building were good. 3. Zoning Text Amendment – Mixed Use in Downtown Extended Commissioner Keller move to initiate a Zoning Text Amendment to implement changes to the Mixed Use Zoning regulations to specify minimum gross for area requirement that must be satisfied in order for a development to receive additional height or density. This minimum standard is 12.5% of gross floor area and would apply only in zoning districts which no different percentages specified. This amendment is proposal one endorsed by PLACE via March 9, 2018 correspondence, Seconded by Commissioner Lahendro, motion passes, 4-0-1 (Commissioner Keesecker abstained). Commissioner Keller move to initiate the Zoning Text Amendment based off of proposal two consideration in our packet. the that within mixed use, buildings, developments and projects; off street parking facilities must meet the following requirements along streets designated as framework streets and the Streets That Work element of the Comprehensive Plan 1) within structures pertaining parking any floor at street level of a framework shall devoted to a permitted use other than parking or little to any parking use at the street level of a framework street shall be concealed from view from the framework street using linear retail residential, commercial or office space; 2) entrances to surface parking lots and structured parking lot shall be located along the framework street but shall be located along non-framework streets or alleys; 3) the surface parking lot must be located behind building and screened from the framework street with landscape elements, Seconded by Commissioner Lahendro, motion passes 5-0. 7 Ms. Robertson said she will do the report for proposal one using the same information she put in the legal audit code review and received a recommendation from the PLACE Design Task Force. This one will be ready by the June meeting. She said proposal two seems straight forward but the PLACE Task Force said there needs to be some further study to determine whether there are any problematic areas that if it were adopted as a requirement that this couldn’t be accomplished. Commissioner Keller said it has been an honor and a privilege and a pleasure to serve with you guys (Commissioner Keesecker and Commissioner Santoski) since 2009 and looks forward to seeing you in other venues. Thank you for all of your commitment, hard work, vision, chairing and vice chairing and all of those things that you both have done so well. Meeting adjourned at 1:30 8 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: July 10, 2018 APPLICATION NUMBER: ZM17-00004 Project Planner: Matt Alfele Date of Staff Report: June 25, 2018 Applicant: Shimp Engineering Applicants Representative: Justin Shimp with Shimp Engineering, P.C. Current Property Owner: Chris Hulett (Hulett Management Services) Application Information Property Street Address: 1206 Carlton Avenue Tax Map/Parcel #: Tax Map 57, Parcel 127 Total Square Footage/ Acreage Site: Approx. 0.26 acres (11,325 square feet) Comprehensive Plan (General Land Use Plan): Low Density Residential Current Zoning Classification: R-2 Tax Status: Parcel is up to date on payment of taxes Completeness: The application generally contains all of the information required by Zoning Ordinance (Z.O.) Sec. 34-41. !pplicant’s Request (Summary) On March 13, 2018 the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing for the rezoning of 1206 Carlton Avenue from R-2 Two-Family Residential to R-3 Multi-family with no proffered development conditions; and an accompanying SUP request for the same property to increase density from twenty-one (21) DUA to twenty-four (24) DUA and modify the southeast side yard setbacks from eleven point six (11.6’) feet to eight (8’) feet. The Planning Commission Page 1 of 13 voted four (4) to two (2) to recommend denial of the rezoning request to City Council and six (6) to zero (0) to recommend denial of the SUP. On March 30, 2018 the applicant emailed City Council and staff a signed Proffer Statement (Attachment A-1) that was not included in the March 13th Public Hearing materials. At the April 2, 2018 City Council meeting, Council referred the rezoning and SUP request back to Planning Commission for new Public Hearings based on the information within the March 30th Proffer Statement. All materials within the application are the same as presented to the Planning Commission on March 13th with the addition of the following proffer language: 1. The proposed development does not trigger affordable housing requirements per Sec. 34-12. However, one unit will be designated affordable and will rent at a rate set by HUD home rents, making the unit affordable in those with income of up to 80% AMI for a period of not more than 10 years. 2. No building on the site shall exceed 35’ in height from grade. This is the maximum allowable height in the low density residential districts: R-1, R-1S, and R-2. The following Staff Report has been update to include the addition of the applicant’s Proffer Statement. 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 proffered development conditions. The proffered development conditions include: (i) affordable housing: one unit will be designated affordable and will rent at a rate set by HUD home rents, making the unit affordable to those with income of up to 80% AMI for a period of not more than 10 years, (ii) building height: no building on the site shall exceed 35’ in height from grade The rezoning application is being requested (in conjunction with SUP application SP17-00008) to accommodate a proposed six (6) unit apartment building on the subject property that would not be permitted under the current zoning. Page 2 of 13 Vicinity Map Zoning Map Gray: Industrial, Light Orange: (R-2) Residential Two-family, Yellow: (R-1S) Residential Single-Family, Purple: (NCC) Neighborhood Commercial Corridor Red: (B-2) Commercial, Green: Planned Unit Development, Dark Orange: (R-3) Residential Multi-family & Dark Red: (B-3) Commercial 2016 Aerial Page 3 of 13 2013 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Yellow: Low Density Residential, Red: Neighborhood Commercial, & Dark Red: Business and Technology Page 4 of 13 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. Preliminary Analysis 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). Zoning History of the Subject Property Year Zoning District 1949 B-2 Business 1958 R-3 Multiple Dwelling District or M-1 Restricted Industrial (The 1958 Land Use Map was not parcel based and is difficult to refine beyond R-3 or M-1) 1976 R-3 Multiple Dwelling District Page 5 of 13 1991 R-3 Multiple Dwelling District 2003 R-2 Residential Z.O. Sec. 34-42 1. Whether the proposed amendment conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the comprehensive plan; a. Land Use The applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, as required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(d)(2), is provided in the Background section of the proposed rezoning application. Staff Analysis The Subject Property is currently zoned R-2 which is one of the most restrictive zoning categories in the City. All by-right, provisional, and special uses allowed within this zoning district are residential and related per Z.O. Sec. 34-420 and single-family attached and two-family are the most common of these uses. The 2013 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map indicates the Subject Property remain low-density residential. The land use section of the comprehensive plan indicates all single or two-family type housing and a density less than fifteen (15) DUA is Low Density. High Density are locations with a DUA over fifteen (15) or locations with multi-family housing types (townhouses, apartment, condominiums). The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the Subject Property to R-3 residential to accommodate a higher density development. The R-3 zoning district allows a wide range of by-right, provisional, and special uses per Z.O. Sec. 34-420, but the majority of uses remain residential or related in nature. In the narrative statement the applicant is proposing a six (6) unit residential apartment building with related parking. The applicant is proposing to retain all uses permitted in the R-3 zoning district as allowed under Z.O. Sec. 34-420. The Proffer Statement (Attachment A-1) calls for one (1) of the units be affordable for ten (10) years. According to the land use section of the comprehensive plan, a six (6) unit apartment is considered High Density. The Subject Property is bordered by: Direction Zoning District Current Use East PUD (Eddins Cluster of single family homes. Cottages) NOT BUILT South B-2 Residential Page 6 of 13 South R-2 Vacant spike strip about 5’ wide West Not Zoned Alley leading to Bainbridge Street West R-2 Residential North R-3 Multi-family Residential Staff finds the proposed rezoning is not consistent with the City’s future Land Use Map, but may contribute to other goals within the Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. As the subject property is centrally located to single family, multi-family, and commercial centers, a slightly higher residential density on Carlton Avenue, at this location, could contribute to Goal 2.3 (Enhance pedestrian connections between residences, commercial centers, public facilities, amenities and green space.) in the Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Although the development being proposed is consistent with surrounding uses, staff would like to point out any rezoning could have unintended consequence. Potential future development allowed in R-3 districts might not integrate into the fabric of low density neighborhoods. In addition to the rezoning request, the applicant is also submitting an application for a SUP (SP17-00008) to build an apartment building with six (6) two-bedroom units on the subject property. The proposed use in the SUP application (high density residential) is consistent with the current uses surrounding the subject property, but the rezoning application retains all uses found in the section Z.O. Sec. 34-420 Use Matrix of the zoning code. Planning Commission should consider other uses that are allowed within the use matrix (Z.O. Sec. 34-420) during review of this application. Examples of a uses allowed in the R-3 district that are not permitted with in the R-2 districts are:  Public Health Clinic  Bed & Breakfast  Townhouse b. Community Facilities The applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, as required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(d)(2), is provided in the Background section of the proposed rezoning application. Staff Analysis The City’s Comprehensive Plan identifies community facilities as fire protection, police enforcement, and emergency response services; public Page 7 of 13 utilities and infrastructure; and public parks and recreation opportunities. Each of these departments reviewed the Development Plan and found no impacts to community facilities. c. Economic Sustainability The applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, as required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(d)(2), is provided in the Background section of the proposed rezoning application. Staff Analysis Staff finds no direct conflict with Chapter 3 (Economic Sustainability) of the Comprehensive Plan with a change of use from M-2 to R-3. d. Environment The applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, as required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(d)(2), is provided in the Background section of the proposed rezoning application. Staff Analysis Staff finds uses in R-3, such as a small apartment and required parking, could increase impervious surface and stormwater runoff. Current stormwater regulations will prevent the subject property from discharging additional stormwater above current levels. The subject property is undeveloped which will require innovative design to keep stormwater at current levels. These concerns would be addressed at site plan review. e. Housing The applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, as required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(d)(2), is provided in the Background section of the proposed rezoning application. Staff Analysis The application was reviewed by the City’s Housing Development Specialist and finds the uses which could occur as part of a R-3 development, such as a small apartment building, on the subject properties could contribute to Goals 1.1, 1.2, 3.6, 8.2, & 8.5 in the Housing chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Per Z.O. Sec. 34-12 the applicant is not required to provide on or off site affordable housing or payment into the City’s !ffordable Housing Fund. Page 8 of 13 Although the applicant is not required to provide any affordable housing for the proposed development, the accompanying proffer statement indicates the applicant will include one (1), on-site affordable unit. This unit will be priced at a rent level affordable to households with incomes no greater than 80% of area median income (currently $1,027/month for a one bedroom apartment or $1,179/month for a two bedroom unit), as established annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Provision of this unit will help meet the needs of the 320 households with incomes at 80% of area median income who are paying more than half of their income for rent each month. f. Transportation The applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, as required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(d)(2), is provided in the Background section of the proposed rezoning application. Staff Analysis The application was reviewed by the City’s Traffic Engineer and finds the uses which could occur as part of a R-3 development, such as a small apartment building, could contribute to Goals 1.2, 2.6, & 6.1 in the Transportation chapter of the Comprehensive Plan and section 4.1 of Streets that Work. According to the application materials, any future development will utilize the existing alley to the west of the subject property. g. Historic Preservation & Urban Design The applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, as required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(d)(2), is provided in the Background section of the proposed rezoning application. Staff Analysis Staff finds the uses which could occur as part of a R-3 development, such as a small apartment building, could contribute to Goal 1.4 in the Historic Preservation & Urban Design chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is currently vacant. 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 applicant’s narrative statement. Page 9 of 13 Staff Analysis Staff finds that a land use change from R-2 to R-3, with a minor increase in density as noted in the applicant’s narrative statement, could benefit the surrounding community by providing additional residential housing options. 3. Whether there is a need and justification for the change; The applicant has provided information on the factors that led to a request to rezone the subject properties from R-2 to R-3 in the Narrative section of their application. Staff Analysis !ccording to the City’s 2013 Land Use Map, this portion of the City should be Low Density Residential with a DUA under fifteen (15). In reality this portion of the City is a mix of low density residential, high density residential, industrial, and commercial uses. Rezoning the subject property from R-2 to R-3 would be consistent with the current land use fabric of the neighborhood. 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 property is currently served by existing public utilities and facilities. The applicant has provided a narrative statement on adverse effects and mitigation in their application materials. Staff Analysis Any development on the subject property would be evaluated during site plan review and need to meet all current regulations related to public utilities and facilities. Due to the location and previous use of the subject property, staff believes all public services and facilities would be adequate to support development. The purposes set forth per Z.O. Sec. 34-350 are: Two-family (R-2). The two-family residential zoning districts are established to enhance the variety of housing opportunities available within certain low-density residential areas of the city, and to provide and protect those areas. There are two (2) categories of R-2 zoning districts: R-2, consisting of quiet, low-density residential areas in which single-family attached and two-family dwellings are encouraged. Included within this Page 10 of 13 district are certain areas located along the Ridge Street corridor, areas of significant historical importance. Multifamily. The purpose of the multifamily residential zoning district is to provide areas for medium- to high-density residential development. The basic permitted use is medium-density residential development; however, higher density residential development may be permitted where harmonious with surrounding areas. Certain additional uses may be permitted, in cases where the character of the district will not be altered by levels of traffic, parking, lighting, noise, or other impacts associated with such uses. There are three (3) categories of multifamily residential zoning districts: R-3, consisting of medium-density residential areas in which medium- density residential developments, including multifamily uses, are encouraged. Staff finds the development, as proposed in the application materials, would meet the purpose as set forth at the beginning of the district classification. Public Comments Received Community Meeting Required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(c)(2) On November 13, 2017 the applicant held a community meeting at Clark Elementary. The applicant gave an overview of the project as it related to the need for a rezoning and a SUP. The community voiced the following concerns with the proposed development:  One (1) parking space per unit would be inadequate. Traffic and a shortage of parking in the neighborhood is an ongoing problem and this development could contribute to that.  The existing alley is not adequate for ingress/egress.  The building should be pushed north to allow additional sunlight into the apartments. On March 13, 2018 the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing for the rezoning of the subject property from R-2 to R-3 with no proffers. During the Public Hearing, two members of the public spoke. One spoke in support of the project and believed it was in line with the “social fabric” of the neighborhood. The other speaker read a list of concerns from the Belmont-Carlton Neighborhood Association. The speaker indicated the concerns were not related to this specific project, but the concentration of development overall in Belmont and the need for the City to address infrastructure. As of the date of this report, Staff received a number of emails regarding this project and they have been forwarded to Planning Commission and City Council. The main concern Page 11 of 13 noted is related to inadequate parking for this project and the effect that will have on the surrounding neighborhood. Staff Recommendation Staff finds the proposed development, as presented in the rezoning application could contribute to many goals of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds that the by-right uses for R-3, as outline in Z.O. Sec. 34-420, are appropriate for the subject property and differ only slightly from the existing by-right R-2 uses. Any SUP would require additional review by staff, Planning Commission, and City Council. Staff is concerned that a rezoning of the subject property would not conform to the City’s 2013 Land Use Map. Summarizing the Standard of Review, staff finds: (1) Whether the proposed amendment conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the comprehensive plan. No: Staff finds the proposed rezoning (as presented in the application materials) would not comply with the City’s Comprehensive General Land Use Plan Map, but would contribute to other chapters of the City’s 2013 Comprehensive Plan. (2) Whether the proposed amendment will further the purposes of this chapter and the general welfare of the entire community. Yes: 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. Yes: 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. Yes: 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 zoned district. Suggested Motions 1. I move to recommend approval of this application to rezone the subject property from R-2, to R-3, on the basis that the proposal would service the interests of the general public and good zoning practice. Page 12 of 13 OR, 2. I move 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. Attachments A. Rezoning Application dated December 22, 2017 A-1. Proffer Statement dated March 29, 2018 and signed March 30, 2018 B. !pplicant’s Narrative Statement and supporting documents dated December 22, 2017 Page 13 of 13 Attachment A-1 . . .. . . . : . .. _ -: PROJECT MANAGEMENT ·. · . . ... .. . CIVIL ENGINEERING . LAND PLANNING .. .. " ""· . . ... •' ..' March 29, 2018 RE: Proffer Statement I TMP 57·127/1206 Carlton Avenue Justin Shimp of Shimp Engineering (on behalf of property owner, Hulett Management Services) submitted a rezoning application in accordance with Sec. 34-41 for 1206 Carlton Avenue from the property's current residential zoning, R-2, to multi-family residential, R..3. Additionally, in accordance with Sec. 34-158 an application was submitted for a special use 11 permit to allow for residential density of 24 dwelling units per acre and an adjustment to the side yard setback from 11 '6 to 8'. Agreement to be bound by proffers: The applicant agrees that if the property is rezoned, the property will be subject to the following proffered conditions: Affordable Housing: The proposed development does not trigger affordable housing requirements per Sec. 34-12. However, one unit will be designated affordable and will rent at a rate set by HUD home rents, making the unit affordable to those with income of up to 80o/o AMI for a period of not more than 10 years. Physical Improvements: No building on the site shall exceed 35' in height from grade. This is the maximum allowable height in the low density residential districts: R-1, R-1 S, and R-2. The conditions outlined in this proffer statement are contingent upon City Council's approval of the requested rezoning from R-2 to R-3 and the conditions outlined in the Special Use Permit application: adjustment of side yard setback from 11 '6" to 8' and allowing 24 DUA. If ZM-17-00004 is approved, these conditions will be applied to TMP 57-127. ' ·7 ...:» C · I v:x·-­ C ris Hulett, Hulett Management Services Date Attachment A o 1-----1~. . ~ lfFl ~~ - ~t · ·u · g.. •••i . • tJ::~I G~ J~\ City of Charlottesville Application for Rezoning ~-,f-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - f ~/ . ~GINIA- }-~/ Project Name: \ z_Q lP (Q Y\fOvJ Address of Property: \6J u Co\ vl-rJY"\ nVi / Tax Map and Parcel Number(s): _-y_~_· _-_---4\...;:;2_1:...!.'----------­ _..:::G=:_- '{} ,..., Current Zoning: ( - £-­ Proposed Zoning: \?..__- 3 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: \o'f.J dens~ Yts.\d e Vlfu_Q Applicant: &V\Imp tD~V1-e-evin~ Address: 2.0\ E . jV\Q)\f\ ~i-·, C;\r)cw \ oltfS\ 1\\f Yrr 22q 02.. 1 Phone: ('-\ ?:i-() n·;- - s I"! 0 Email: f!Jcti)'} & &l1i mr - fi13 intf·lli{)J Applicant's Role in the Develpprnent (check one): ~-.~~{Oe;i~~e . v. Owner ~--~~ Lontract t-'Urcnaser \\1 r ~~~0-{'V\'\i'.(\\- 1 Phone:--------­ · (1) Applicant's a L...--1­ (1) Signature._-+--:~~---:::>"'.::..---- Print ::Suh\r1 b~ i W1'9 Date Applicant's (Circl z~ () . . OC)::)OY 1 Attachment A City of Charlottesville Pre-Application Meeting Verification Project Name: \ 10Co ~eLfON m Other City Officials in Attendance: ~rzs;;~N~ DONCAN The following items will be required supplemental information for this application and must be submitted with the completed application patkage: 1. ------------------------------------------------­ 2. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ­ 3. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ­ 4. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ­ 5. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ­ 2 Attachment A City of Charlottesville Application Checklist Project Name: IWlf C.a y l:±OY\ I certify that the following documentation is ATTACHED to this application: 34-157(a)(2) Narrative statement: applicant's analysis of conformity with the Comprehensive Plan 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 34-158(a)(6): other pertinent information (narrative, illustrative, etc.) Completed proffer statement n the Pre-Application Meeting Verification. Applicant Signature_:...=:_..-t!~.=+--~::......__ __ ,zj :z.z-fn­ sv Its: __::::s~·....L.:..!..~.....____.""'-""~~!1.'-"-~T-_,_,....................L..!Uo~~-....&l<.l<.o<-=-I~-.IV" ~~~ (For entities, specify: Officer, Member, Manager, Trustee, etc.) 3 Attachment A City of Charlottesville Community Meeting Project Name: /2Qp CO..vl:±ovJ 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 of the 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 inc e supplemental attendance sheet. The City will provide a format acceptable for use as the supplement \\_A CLY\411 .1M o 111 -\- ~v'\11 W _ -~·· · _--· --__'-AA" "' Date _ _ _ _ _ __ I t s : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (Officer, Member, Trustee, etc.) 4 Attachment A City of Charlottesville Personal Interest Statement Project Name: I.LDLP Ca 1l±dn I swear under oath before a notary public that: D A member ofthe City of Charlottesville Planning Commission (identified below), or their immediate family member, has a personal interest in the property or transaction that is the subject of this application. Planning Commissioner(s): ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Or rf\1 No member of the City of Charlottesville Planning Commission, or their immediate family member, ~ personal interest in the property or transaction that is the subject ofthis application. And D A member of the City of Charlottesville City Council (identified below), or their immediate family member, has a personal interest in the property or transaction that is the subject of this application . City Councilor(s): -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~-~~-~--~­ Or ~ No member of the City of Charlottesville Planning Commission, or their immediate family member, has ·a personal interest in the property or transaction that is the subject of this application . Applicant: 'iiliiYY\f ~·Vl• 2 ~ fov Hwl!1:1:JC 1\,tf.l.Y\.PL~ By: Signature -$2~JciJA __::y,rint Its: S\J\\mr ~\\fre){'MY\ ~ +ov Commonwealth of Virginia City of Charlottesville 5 Attachment A City of Charlottesville Owner's Authorizations (Not Required) Project N a m e : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ­ Right of Entry- Proper~ Owner Permission I, the undersigned, hereby gran\ the City of Charlottesville, its employees and officials, the right to enter the property that is the subject o{"~ ~·s application, for the purpose of gathering information for the review of this rezoning application. Owner: Date--------­ By (sign name):_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ '\\ ~n---- Print N a m e : - - - - - - - - - - - - ­ Owner's: LLC Member LLC Manager Corporate Officer (specify):_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Other (specific): _ _ _ _ __ Owner's Agent I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I have autho ~{ ed the following named individual or entity to serve as my lawful agent, for the purpose of making application for this rezoning, and for all related purposes, including, without limitation: to make decisions and r~\ esentations that will be binding upon my proper­ ty and upon me, my successors and assigns. Name of Individual Agent:----------~:.- Name of Corporate or other legal entity authorized to serv~s agent: - - - - - - - - - - - ­ Owner: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ \_~ __ Date:------­ By (sign n a m e ) : - - - - - - - - - - - - - Print Name\ + - - - - - - - - - - - ­ Circle one: Owner's: LLC Member LLC Manager Corporate Officer' S\ '-------­ Other (specific): _ _ _ _ __ 6 Attachment A City of Charlottesville Fee Schedule Application Type Quantity Fee Subtotal Rezoning Application Fee Mailing Costs per letter $1 per letter Newspaper Notice Payment Due Upon Invoice TOTAL Office Use Only Amount Received:_ _ _ _ Date Paid _ _ _ _ _ Received B y : - - - - - - - - - - ­ 7 Attachment A City of Charlottesville LID Checklist Compensatory Plantings (see City buffer mitigation manual). 90% of restor- 5 points or 1 point for each able stream buffers restored. 18% of the total acreage Pervious pavers for parking and driveways with stone reservoir for storage 7 points or 1 point for each of 0.5 inches of rainfall per impervious drainage area . Surface area must be 7% of parking and driveway >1,000 ft. or~ 50% of the total parking and driveway surface area. 2 surface area. Shared parking (must have legally binding agreement) that eliminates >30% 5 points or 1 point for each of on-site parking required. 6% of parking surface elimi­ nated. Impervious Disconnection. Follow design manual specifications to ensure 8 points adequate capture of roof runoff (e.g. cisterns, dry wells, rain gardens) Bioretention. Percent of site treated must exceed 80%. Biofilter surface ar- 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 area for each lot~ 200 ft. 2 • 8 points or 1 point for each 10% of lots treated. Designed/constructed swales. Percent of site treated must exceed 80%, 8 points or 1 point for each achieve non-erosive velocities, and able to convey peak discharge from 10 10% of site treated. year storm. Manufactured sand filters, filter vaults (must provide filtering rather than 8 points or 1 point for each just hydrodynamic). Percent of site treated must exceed 80%. Sizing and 10% of site treated. volume for water quality treatment based on manufacturer's criteria. Green rooftop to treat~ 50% of roof area 8 points Other LID practices as approved by NDS Engineer. 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 Applicant's Signature Signature._____________ Print - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ilate - - -·- -- ­ 8 Attachment B PROJECT MANAGEMENT SHIMP ENG I NEER I NG~ CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING <=.__;> December 22, 2017 RE: 1206 Carlton Special Use Permit/Rezoning Project Narrative TMP 57-127 Shimp Engineering, serving as owner's agent to Hulett Management Services, Inc., is applying concurrently for a rezoning and a special use permit on TMP 57-127 to allow for the construction of a multi-family residential structure with six, two-bedroom units. In accordance with Sec. 34-41 of the Charlottesville Zoning Ordinance, Shimp Engineering is applying to rezone the parcel from R-2 (Residential) to R-3 (Multi-Family Residential). In accordance with Sec. 34-158, Shimp Engineering is applying for a Special Use Permit to reduce the side setback on the southeast property boundary from 10' to 8' and to increase the DUA allowed in a R-3 district from 21 DUA to 24 DUA to allow for the proposed six units. Compatibility with Existing Conditions: The property is bordered on the north by a parcel zoned R-3 with an existing six unit apartment building on the property. Adjacent to the six unit structure located at 1204 Carlton is another multi-family residential structure at the corner of Bainbridge St. and Carlton Ave. The parcel opposite TMP 57-127 on Carlton Ave is zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development). Immediately to the south of the property is a spite strip zoned R-2. The remainder of the parcels on the block fronting on the south side of Carlton Avenue are zoned B-2 (Commercial). Residential uses, both single family and multi-family, constitute the greatest use immediately surrounding the property. A proposed six-unit multi-family structure is consistent with the existing patterns of use and development. The proposed structure is three stories, making it slightly taller than surrounding buildings; however, the site sits at a lower grade than the parcels immediately to its north, where the existing multi-family structures are located, and the site is at a lower grade than the parcels directly opposite Carlton Avenue. The proposed three story structure does not exceed the allowable height by-right in an R-2 district, 35'. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan: The proposed improvements to the vacant property align directly with goals outlined in the transportation, land and housing sections of the Comprehensive Plan. Transportation: Goal 2.4 "Encourage a mix of uses in priority locations, such as along identified transit corridors and other key roadways, to facilitate multimodal travel and increase cost-effectiveness of future service." TMP 57-127 is serviced directly by Bus Route 3, providing residents with convenient bus access to Downtown and 5th St. Station. Goal2.6 "Promote urban design techniques, such as placing parking behind buildings, reducing setbacks and increasing network connectivity, to create a more pedestrian friendly streetscape and to reduce speeds on high volume roadways." The proposed improvements to the site place the required parking behind the structure, away from the street. Housing: Goal3 "Grow the City's housing stock for residents of all income levels." The proposed development will provide a housing type, the two bedroom apartment, that is more affordable to a broader range of income levels in Belmont, as opposed to the single family dwelling. Goal 3.3 "Achieve a mixture of incomes and uses in as many areas of the City as possible.*" The availability of a variety of housing types is a platform for the development of diverse, mixed-income neighborhoods. Attachment B PROJECT MANAGEMENT SHIMP CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING Affordable Housing: The size of the proposed dwelling units in the multi-family structure will provide a welcome juxtaposition in pricing to the existing single family dwellings in the Belmont neighborhood. The lot is currently vacant and does not have any existing affordable housing. The FAR of the proposed development does not exceed 1.0 and so this project does not require affordable housing to be built on or off site and it does not require payment into the city's affordable housing fund. The GFA of the project is 7,332' sq ft. and all of this square footage is dedicated to residential use. Compliance with USBC Provisions: The proposed development will comply with all applicable USBC Provisions. Potential Adverse Impacts: Adverse traffic impacts will be minimal because the plan provides for adequate parking and the proposed one-way entrance off of Carlton Ave allows for access to the property without compromising the safety of pedestrians with a two way entrance. Attachments: 2 Site Context Maps Attachment B PROJ ECT MANAGEMENT SHIMP E CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING Figure I: 500' Radius Ex isting Zoning Belmont Pizza 1206 Carlton VA Industries for the Blind Figure 2: Site Context Attachment B 1206 CARLTON MASSING DIAGRAMS I .I 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: July 11, 2018 APPLICATION NUMBER: SP17-00008 Project Planner: Matthew Alfele Date of Staff Report: June 27, 2018 Applicant: Shimp Engineering Applicant’s Representative: Justin Shimp with Shimp Engineering, P.C. Current Property Owner: Chris Hulett (Hulett Management Services) Application Information Property Street Address: 1206 Carlton Avenue Tax Map/Parcel #: Tax Map 57, Parcel 127 Total Square Footage/ Acreage Site: Approx. 0.26 acres (11,325 square feet) Comprehensive Plan (General Land Use Plan): Low Density Residential Current Zoning Classification: R-2 Tax Status: Parcel is up to date on payment of taxes Completeness: The application generally contains all of the information required by Zoning Ordinance (Z.O.) Secs. 34-41(d), and 34-158(a) and (b). Applicant’s Request (Summary) On March 13, 2018 the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing for the rezoning of 1206 Carlton Avenue from R-2 Two-Family Residential to R-3 Multi-family with no proffered development conditions; and an accompanying SUP request for the same property to increase density from twenty-one (21) DUA to twenty-four (24) DUA and modify the southeast side yard setbacks from eleven point six (11.6’) feet to eight (8’) feet. The Planning Commission Page 1 of 15 voted four (4) to two (2) to recommend denial of the rezoning request to City Council and six (6) to zero (0) to recommend denial of the SUP. On March 30, 2018 the applicant emailed City Council and staff a signed Proffer Statement (Attachment A-1) that was not included in the March 13th Public Hearing materials. At the April 2, 2018 City Council meeting, Council referred the rezoning and SUP request back to Planning Commission for new Public Hearings based on the information within the March 30th Proffer Statement. All materials within the application are the same as presented to the Planning Commission on March 13th with the addition of the following proffer language: 1. The proposed development does not trigger affordable housing requirements per Sec. 34-12. However, one unit will be designated affordable and will rent at a rate set by HUD home rents, making the unit affordable in those with income of up to 80% AMI for a period of not more than 10 years. 2. No building on the site shall exceed 35’ in height from grade. This is the maximum allowable height in the low density residential districts: R-1, R-1S, and R-2. The following Staff Report has been update to include the addition of the applicant’s Proffer Statement. Justin Shimp (applicant), on behalf of the owner, (Hulett Management Services) has submitted a Special Use Permit (SUP) application pursuant to City Code Z.O. Sec. 34-420, which states residential density up to 43 DUA (Dwelling Units per Acres) is permitted with an SUP for R-3 zoned properties. 1206 Carlton Avenue (Subject Property) is currently zoned R-2 and the applicant is perusing a rezoning of the subject property to R-3 per petition ZM17-00004. In addition to increased density, the applicant is requesting adjustments to side yard regulations per Z.O. Sec. 34-162. The subject property has frontage on Carlton Avenue and is approximately 0.26 acres. The 2013 Land Use Map calls for Low Density Residential. The applicant has submitted a rezoning petition (ZM17-00004) and a SUP application in order to develop a specific project on the subject property (attachment C). Per the two applications the proposed development involves:  ZM17-00004 – A rezoning request of the subject property with proffered development conditions from R-2 to R-3.  SP17-00008 – A SUP request to increase density from twenty-one (21) DUA to twenty-four (24) DUA.  SP17-00008 – A SUP request to modified the southeast side yard from the required eleven point six (11.6’) feet to eight (8’) feet. Page 2 of 15 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. Vicinity Map Zoning Map Gray: Industrial Light Orange: (R-2) Residential Two- family Yellow: (R-1) Residential Single- Family Purple: (NCC) Neighborhood Commercial Corrido Red: (B-2) Commercial Green: Planned Unit Development Dark Orange: (R-3) Residential Multi- family Dark Red: (B-3) Commercial Page 3 of 15 2016 Aerial 2013 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Yellow: Low Density Residential, Red: Neighborhood Commercial, & Dark Red: Business and Technology Page 4 of 15 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 (across Carlton PUD (Eddins Cluster of single family homes. Ave) Cottages) NOT BUILT South B-2 Residential South (abutting) R-2 Vacant spike strip about 5’ wide West (abutting) NA Alley leading to Bainbridge Street West R-2 Residential North (abutting) R-3 Multi-family Residential The uses surrounding the subject property are mostly a mix of single family, two-family, and multi-family. In addition, commercial and industrial uses are in close proximity to the subject property. Most of the surrounding buildings are one (1) or two (2) story in height. The buildings adjacent to the subject property have footprints covering ¼ to ½ of the available lot area. Directly across the street from the subject property is the Eddins Cottages PUD. This is an approved PUD not currently under construction. When completed, Eddins Cottages will contain a mix of ten (10) attached and detached dwellings. The Virginia Industries for the Blind and Clark Elementary are also in close proximity to the subject property. Page 5 of 15 Staff Analysis: The site plan (attachment C) and application materials (attachment A and B) proposes a three (3) story apartment building with six (6) two-bedroom units and seven (7) parking spaces. The footprint of the building will cover less than a ¼ of the site with parking located behind the building. The proposed use is harmonious with the existing patterns of uses within the neighborhood. (2) Whether the proposed use or development and associated public facilities will substantially conform to the city's comprehensive plan. 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) Below are specific areas of the Comprehensive Plan for which the development may be in compliance: a. Land Use 2.3: Enhance pedestrian connections between residences, commercial centers, public facilities, amenities and green spaces. b. Housing 1.3: Evaluate the effects new developments have on transit, the environment, density, open space configuration, commuter costs and affordable housing. 3.2: Incorporate affordable units throughout the City, recognizing that locating affordable units throughout the community benefits the whole City. 3.3: Achieve a mixture of incomes and uses in as many areas of the City as possible. 3.4: Encourage creation of new, onsite affordable housing as part of rezoning or special use permit applications. 3.5: Consider the range of affordability proposed in rezoning and special use permit applications, with emphasis on provision of affordable housing for those with the greatest need. 3.6: Promote housing options to accommodate both renters and owners at all price points, including workforce housing. 8.5: Promote redevelopment and infill development that supports bicycle and pedestrian-oriented infrastructure and robust public transportation to better connect residents to jobs and commercial activity. c. Transportation 2.1: Provide convenient and safe bicycle and pedestrian connections between new and existing residential developments, employment areas and other activity centers to promote the option of walking and biking. Page 6 of 15 2.3: Improve walking and biking conditions by discouraging and/or minimizing curb cuts for driveways, parking garages, etc. in new development and redevelopment. 2.6: Promote urban design techniques, such as placing parking behind buildings, reducing setbacks and increasing network connectivity, to create a more pedestrian friendly streetscape and to reduce speeds on high volume roadways. Below are specific areas of the Comprehensive Plan for which the development may not be in compliance: d. Land Use 2.1: When considering changes to land use regulations, respect nearby residential areas. Comprehensive Plan The 2013 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map calls for the subject property and adjacent areas to be Low Density Residential. Low Density Residential, as described within the Land Use Map, includes all land occupied by single or two-family types housing. The density in these areas by-right should be no greater than 15 dwelling units per acres. Staff Analysis: As noted in 2(a) through 2(c) above, many of the City’s Comprehensive Plan goals could be achieved through a residential development of this type on the subject property. The location could promote more pedestrian and cycling trips to Downtown Belmont, the Mall (the subject property is in close proximity to the mixed use trail on Water Street), and to Kathy’s Shopping Center. Several goals in the Comprehensive Plan speak to a desire to have density, as appropriate, in locations that will foster alternative transportation options to employment, entertainment, and education centers. The proposed development is consistent with existing development patterns along Carlton Avenue, although these patterns are not consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Map. A small six (6) unit apartment building will provide additional housing options within Belmont without creating a major impact on the neighborhood or supporting infrastructure. Streets that Work Plan The Streets that Work Plan (approved September 2016 as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan) labels Carlton Avenue 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 Page 7 of 15 Local Streets are characterized as the majority of the street network and have no specific associated typology due to the variation of context and available space. The Streets that Work Plan notes design elements on Local Streets should not exceed the dimensions specified for Neighborhood B streets, and that techniques such as curb extensions are appropriate. A minimum of five (5) to six (6) feet of clear zone width for sidewalks is recommended for Neighborhood B streets. Sidewalks and on-street parking are noted as the highest priority street elements. Staff Analysis: Based on the application package and supporting documents (attachments, A, B, & C), staff concludes that the pedestrian network along the subject property’s frontage is consistent with the Streets that Work Plan. In addition, the development will utilize the existing alley to the rear of the property creating a one-way traffic pattern on site. This will minimize the size of the curb cut on Carlton Avenue. (3) Whether proposed use or development of any buildings or structures will comply with all applicable building code regulations. Based on the information contained within the application (attachment A and C), the proposed development would likely comply with applicable building code regulations. However, final determinations cannot be made prior to having the details required for final site plan and building permit approvals. (4) Potential adverse impacts, including, but not necessarily limited to: a) Traffic or parking congestion Traffic, Parking, and Other Modes of Transportation The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the development plan and finds a six (6) unit apartment building will not adversely affect traffic on Carlton Avenue or the surrounding street network. Due to the location of parking (behind the building) and one-way traffic flow; the development will create additional traffic for the nonpublic alley as vehicles circle through the development looking for parking or making deliveries. The availability of mass transit (Bus Route 3 http://www.charlottesville.org/home/showdocument?id=34085 ), biking, and walking options could negate any rise in vehicular traffic. The development plan calls for an apartment building with six (6) two-bedroom units and a total of seven (7) parking spots. This meets the requirements per Z.O. Sec. 34-984 of the City Zoning Code. Parking congestion may occur if residents have more than one (1) vehicle or have guests that visit by car. On street parking is currently allowed on Carlton Avenue and Chestnut Street. This could become a bigger concern when the Eddins Cottages PUD is completed. Page 8 of 15 Staff Analysis: The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the development plan and finds it will not have a major impact on the amount of traffic or parking on Carlton Avenue or surrounding street network. Vehicular Access One (1) point of vehicular access off a City maintained street is required for the proposed development per Z.O. Sec. 34-896(a). Current vehicular ingress and egress to the subject property includes one (1) access point on Carlton Avenue and one (1) access point off of Bainbridge Street by way of an unaccepted alley. The site plan (attachment C) shows the access point off of Carlton Avenue will be one-way. Per Z.O. Sec. 34-975(e)(1), the one-way driveway will be required to install and maintain control devices, such as signs, pavement markings, etc., as may be reasonably necessary to provide direction and control of vehicular movements. Staff Analysis: The vehicular ingress /egress and circulation pattern, as shown on the site plan (attachment C); will lower chances of conflict with pedestrians on Carlton Avenue. By having a one-way vehicular circulation pattern and utilizing the alley, the curb cut on Carlton Avenue can be keep to a minimum width and be consistent with other curb cuts along Carlton Avenue. Staff is concerned that any conflict that could arise regarding the alley is a civil matter which the City would have no or limited standing. Staff also recommends the one-way circulation pattern should flow traffic off Carlton Avenue into the development. A sign should be placed in the parking lot directing traffic to use the alley to access Bainbridge Street and markings on the pavement should also indicate direction of use. b) Noise, lights, dust, odor, fumes, vibration, and other factors which adversely affect the natural environment The proposed development should result in only a moderate increase in noise, as the development only proposes six (6) two-bedroom units. The site plan (attachment C) shows street trees and landscaping pre Z.O. Sec. 34-867. The site plan also shows vegetation screening of the parking. No lighting plan was provided but will be required during final site plan review. Staff Analysis: A six (6) unit apartment building at this location will have minimal impact and can be mitigated through existing site plan regulations. c) Displacement of existing residents or businesses The subject property is currently vacant. No residents or businesses will be displaced. Page 9 of 15 d) Discouragement of economic development activities that may provide desirable employment or enlarge the tax base As noted above, the subject property is vacant and any use has the potential to add to the City’s tax base. e) Undue density of population or intensity of use in relation to the community facilities existing or available The City’s Comprehensive Plan identifies community facilities as fire protection, police enforcement, and emergency response services; public utilities and infrastructure; and public parks and recreation opportunities. The applicant’s proposal narrative (attachment A) has not adequately discussed this issue within its comprehensive plan analysis required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(d)(3). Staff Analysis: Staff finds the development will have little impact on existing community facilities. The proposed development is on a City maintained street and can be served by existing fire, police, and emergency response services. The additional density of the site will also have limited impact on surrounding parks. The site plan (attachment C) indicates stormwater collected on site that is piped into the City’s system. The development will also be required to install a sewer lateral from the apartment building into the City’s main. f) Reduction in the availability of affordable housing in the neighborhood The subject property is currently vacant. No affordable housing units will be lost per this development. g) Impact on school population and facilities The applicant’s project proposal narrative (attachment A) does not specifically analyze this factor, as required by Z.O. Sec. 34-158(b). Staff Analysis: Because housing is open to all, there is a possibility that families with children could take residence here. Therefore, some impact could be created on school population and facilities. h) Destruction of or encroachment upon conservation or historic districts The subject property is not within any design control district. i) Conformity with federal, state and local laws, as demonstrated and certified by the applicant Based on the information contained within the application (attachment A, B, and C), the proposed development would likely comply with applicable federal and state Page 10 of 15 laws. As to local ordinances (zoning, water protection, etc.), it generally appears that this project, as detailed in the application, can be accommodated on this site in compliance with applicable local ordinances; however, final determinations cannot be made prior to having the details required for final site plan and building permit approvals. Specific Z.O. requirements reviewed preliminarily at this stage include massing and scale (building height, setbacks, stepbacks, etc.) and general planned uses. j) Massing and scale of project The application materials (attachment A, B, and C) depict a new building three (3) stories above the surface of the subject property, as viewed from Carlton Avenue. The site plan (attachment C) indicates the maximum height of the building will be thirty-five (35’) feet. The proffer statement included in the rezoning application (ZM17-00004) also indicates the allowable height for any development is thirty-five (35’) feet. The maximum height for districts zoned R-3 is forty-five (45’) feet. The massing information in the application indicates the building will be larger than the surrounding structures, but will be located at a lower grade. The subject property’s frontage is on Carlton Avenue. Z.O. Sec. 34-353 calls for twenty-five (25’) feet minimum front yard, twenty-five (25’) minimum rear yard, and one (1’) foot for every three (3’) feet in height with a ten (10’) feet minimum side yards for developments containing twenty-two (22) to forty-three (43) DUA. To accommodate the building location, driveway, and parking the applicant is requesting altering the southeast side yard from eleven point six (11.6’) feet to eight (8’) feet per Z.O. Sec. 34-162. No architectural or elevation drawings were submitted with this application. Staff Analysis: The massing, with the corresponding proffer statement, and footprint are consistent with R-3 requirements. Staff also finds the adjustment to the southeast side yard from eleven point six (11.6’) feet to eight (8’) feet to be appropriate. Due to the additional five (5’) foot strip of land, the proposed development will still be thirteen (13’) feet from parcel 57-126 (1208 Carlton Avenue). (5) Whether the proposed use or development will be in harmony with the purposes of the specific zoning district in which it will be placed; In 1949 the property was zoned B-2 Business. In 1958 the property was zoned R-3 Multiple Dwelling District/ or M-1 Restricted Industrial (the map has some overlay in this location). In 1976 the property was zoned R-3 Residential Multiple Dwelling. In 1991 the property was maintained as R-3 Residential Multiple Dwelling. In 2003 the Page 11 of 15 property was zoned R-2 Residential. (Application ZM17-00004 is requesting the zoning return to R-3). According to Z.O. Sec. 34-350(b)(1), R-2, consisting of quiet, low-density residential areas in which single-family attached and two-family dwellings are encouraged. According to Z.O. Sec. 34-350(c)(1), R-3, consisting of medium-density residential areas in which medium-density residential developments, including multifamily uses, are encouraged. Staff Analysis: If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the corresponding rezoning request (ZM17-00004), staff finds the proposed development to be harmonies with the zoning district. If Planning Commission recommends denial of the corresponding rezoning request, staff finds the proposed development not to be harmonious with the zoning district. (6) Whether the proposed use or development will meet applicable general and specific standards set forth within the zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, or other city ordinances or regulations; and Based on the information contained within the application and site plan (attachment A, B, and C), the proposed development would likely comply with applicable local ordinances. However, final determinations cannot be made prior to having the details required for final site plan and building permit approvals. (7) When the property that is the subject of the application for a special use permit is within a design control district, city council shall refer the application to the BAR or ERB, as may be applicable, for recommendations as to whether the proposed use will have an adverse impact on the district, and for recommendations as to reasonable conditions which, if imposed, that would mitigate any such impacts. The BAR or ERB, as applicable, shall return a written report of its recommendations to the city council. The subject property is not located in a design control district. Public Comments Received Community Meeting Required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(c)(2) On November 13, 2017 the applicant held a community meeting at Clark Elementary. The applicant gave an overview of the project as it related to the need for a rezoning and a SUP. The community voiced the following concerns with the proposed development: Page 12 of 15  One (1) parking space per unit would be inadequate. Traffic and a shortage of parking in the neighborhood is an ongoing problem and this development could contribute to that.  The existing alley is not adequate for ingress/egress.  The building should be pushed north to allow additional sunlight into the apartments. On March 13, 2018 the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing for the rezoning of the subject property from R-2 to R-3 with no proffers. During the Public Hearing, two members of the public spoke. One spoke in support of the project and believed it was in line with the “social fabric” of the neighborhood. The other speaker read a list of concerns from the Belmont-Carlton Neighborhood Association. The speaker indicated the concerns were not related to this specific project, but the concentration of development overall in Belmont and the need for the City to address infrastructure. As of the date of this report, Staff received a number of emails regarding this project and they have been forwarded to Planning Commission and City Council. The main concern noted is related to inadequate parking for this project and the effect that will have on the surrounding neighborhood. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission focus on the following items during review:  Appropriate density  Impact to the surrounding neighborhood  Increased traffic and access.  If the subject property is rezoned from R-2 to R-3 the by-right density would equal a total of five (5) units. The request for a SUP to add one (1) additional unit combined with the proffer language would equal a total of six (6) units. Planning Commission should give some thought to: o No rezoning or SUP = a max of two (2) market rate units o Rezoning from R-2 to R-3 = a max of four (4) market rate units and one (1) affordable unit. o Rezoning from R-2 to R-3 with a SUP = a max of five (5) market rate units and one (1) affordable unit. Recommended Conditions Staff recommends that a request for higher density and adjusted southeast side yard requirement could be approved with the following conditions: 1. Up to 24 dwelling units per acre (DUA) are permitted on the subject property. Page 13 of 15 2. The design, height, and other characteristics of the development shall remain essentially the same, in all material aspects, as described within the application materials (attachment C) received December 26, 2017 and dated December 22, 2017. Except as the design details of the development may subsequently be modified to comply with staff comments, or by any other provision(s) of these SUP Conditions, any change of the development that is inconsistent with the application shall require a modification of this SUP. Key elements of this design are: a. One (1) apartment building containing six (6) two-bedroom units. b. Southeast side yard setback of eight (8’) feet. c. One-way vehicular traffic pattern. d. Vegetation used to screen parking. e. Parking lot shall be located behind the building and not visible from Carlton Avenue. f. Pedestrian circulation pattern shall be independent from the vehicular traffic pattern. 3. 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 completely conceal 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. 4. The development shall provide one (1) bicycle storage space per two (2) dwelling units for a minimum of three (3) storage spaces. 5. Signage and pavement markings shall be provided indicating one-way traffic pattern. 6. Trash facility shall be provided and if outside needs to be screened per Z.O. Sec. 34- 872(b)(2). Suggested Motions 1. I move to recommend approval of this application for a Special Use Permit in the R-2 (application ZM14-00004 under review to rezone from R-2 to R-3) zone at 1206 Carlton Avenue to permit residential development with additional density and adjustment to the southeast side yard requirement with the following listed conditions. a. ________________________________________________________________ b. ________________________________________________________________ c. ________________________________________________________________ d. ________________________________________________________________ Page 14 of 15 e. ________________________________________________________________ f. ________________________________________________________________ g. ________________________________________________________________ h. ________________________________________________________________ OR, 2. I move to recommend denial of this application for a Special Use Permit in the R-2 zone at 1206 Carlton Avenue. Attachments A. Special Use Permit Narrative and supporting documents Dated December 22, 2017 B. Special Use Application Dated December 22, 2017 C. Site Plan Dated December 22, 2017 Page 15 of 15 Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment B Attachment B Attachment B Attachment B Attachment B Attachment B Attachment B Attachment C SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 1206 CARLTON FIRE MARSHAL'S NOTES EXIST LEGEND NEW DESCRIPTION TAX MAP 57, PARCEL 127 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1"=1000' OWNER/DEVELOPER T SITE ZONING E W V I JUSTIN M.E SHIMP LEGAL REFERENCE R Lic. No. 45183 R F O SOURCE OF BOUNDARY & TOPO BUILDING HEIGHT BUILDING SETBACKS FLOOD ZONE SHEET INDEX SHEET C1 - COVER SHEET EXISTING USE SHEET C2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS ELECTRIC / TELEPHONE / CABLE TV SHEET C3 - SITE PLAN PROPOSED USE SHEET C4 - LANDSCAPE PLAN PARKING SCHEDULE LAND USE SCHEDULE NOTES ITE TRIP GENERATION LAND DISTURBANCE CITY PERMITS SIGNS APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DATE Attachment C T E W VI RE JUSTIN M. SHIMP Lic. No. 45183 R FO Attachment C T E W V I JUSTIN M.E SHIMP R Lic. No. 45183 R F O Attachment C T E W V I R E JUSTIN M. SHIMP Lic. No. 45183 R FO SEE PLANS FOR EXACT LAYOUT. SPACE SET SHRUB PLUMB. TOP OF PLANTS AS SPECIFIED IN PLANT LIST ROOTBALL SHALL NOT BE MORE OR AS SHOWN. ADJUST SPACING AS THAN 1" ABOVE FINISHED GRADE NECESSARY OR AS DIRECTED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. REMOVE BURLAP & WIRE FROM TOP 1/3 OF ROOTBALL MULCH 2" DEEP IMMEDIATELY AFTER 3" TALL WATERING PLANTING AND WATER BERM THOROUGHLY. FINISHED GRADE PLANTING PIT. PREPARED SOIL FOR SHRUBS 1/2 BALL VARIES DIA. MIN SOIL SURFACE ROUGHENED TO BIND NEW SOIL See next sheet for alternatie elevation ALTERNATE Seminol eSquare BREAKUPMONOT ONOUSST OREFRONT PEDEST RIANFRI ENDL Y Shoppi ngCenter >1, 000li n.f t.ofs toref ront Ex ter iorAl ter ati ons OUT DOORSPACE BREAKUPSEAOFPARKI NG Entr anceRevi ewBoar d June19,2018 EXIST ING PROPOSED EASTWINGFROMHI LLSDAL EDRI VE EASTWI NGFROMHI LLSDAL EDRI VE NEWMA TERI ALSANDMASSI NGBREAKUPMONOT ONOUSL INEARFEEL Redevelopment Seminol eSquare BREAKUPMONOT ONOUSST OREFRONT PEDEST RIANFRI ENDL Y Shoppi ngCenter >1, 000li n.f t.ofs toref ront Ex ter iorAl ter ati ons OUT DOORSPACE BREAKUPSEAOFPARKI NG Entr anceRevi ewBoar d June19,2018 EXI STI NG PROPOSED WESTNORTHWI NGFROMHI LLSDAL EDRI VE EASTNORTHWI NGFROMHI LLSDAL EDRI VE NEWMA TERI ALSANDMASSI NGBREAKUPMONOT ONOUSL INEARFEEL Redevelopment Seminol eSquare BREAKUPMONOT ONOUSST OREFRONT PEDEST RIANFRI ENDL Y Shoppi ngCenter >1, 000li n.f t.ofs toref ront Ex ter iorAl ter ati ons OUT DOORSPACE BREAKUPSEAOFPARKI NG Entr anceRevi ewBoar d June19,2018 EXI STI NG PROPOSED TRA VELI NGNORTHONHI LLSDAL EDRI VE TRAVEL INGNORTHONHI LLSDAL EDRI VE NEWOUTDOORP ATI OSWI THTREL LISCREA TESASP ACEFOROUTDOORDI NING Redevelopment Seminol eSquare BREAKUPMONOT ONOUSST OREFRONT PEDEST RIANFRI ENDL Y Shoppi ngCenter >1, 000li n.f t.ofs toref ront Ex ter iorAl ter ati ons OUT DOORSPACE BREAKUPSEAOFPARKI NG Entr anceRevi ewBoar d June19,2018 EXI STI NG PROPOSED SEMI NOLECOURTL OOKI NGT OWARDSNORTHWI NG SEMI NOLECOURTL OOKI NGT OWARDSNORTHWI NG RAI SEDPEDESTRI ANCROSSI NGSANDPERGOLASCREA TEAMOREINVI TINGPEDESTRI ANEXPERI ENCE WALKI NGBETWEENNORTHANDEASTWINGOFTHESHOPPI NGCENTER Redevelopment Seminol eSquare BREAKUPMONOT ONOUSST OREFRONT PEDEST RIANFRI ENDL Y Shoppi ngCenter >1, 000li n.f t.ofs toref ront Ex ter iorAl ter ati ons OUT DOORSPACE BREAKUPSEAOFPARKI NG Entr anceRevi ewBoar d June19,2018 EXI STI NG PROPOSED SEMI NOLECOURTL OOKI NGT OWARDSNORTHWI NG SEMI NOLECOURTL OOKI NGT OWARDSNORTHWI NG ADDI TI ONALSI DEWALKS,L ANDSCAPI NGANDINCREASEDDENSI TYCREA TEAMOREPEDESTRI AN FRI ENDL YFEELTHROUGHOUTTHEENTI RESHOPPINGCENTER Redevelopment Seminol eSquare BREAKUPMONOT ONOUSST OREFRONT PEDEST RIANFRI ENDL Y Shoppi ngCenter >1, 000li n.f t.ofs toref ront Ex ter iorAl ter ati ons OUT DOORSPACE BREAKUPSEAOFPARKI NG Entr anceRevi ewBoar d June19,2018 EXI STI NG PROPOSED NORTHWI NGP ARKI NGL OT NORTHWINGP ARKI NGL OT THEADDI TI ONOFTWONEWCOMMERCI ALBUI LDI NGS,MI NIMIZESTHEEXP ANSI VEP ARKI NGL OTS ANDMAKESTHESHOPPI NGCENTERMOREPEDESTRI ANFRIENDLY Redevelopment Seminol eSquare BREAKUPMONOT ONOUSST OREFRONT PEDEST RIANFRI ENDL Y Shoppi ngCenter >1, 000li n.f t.ofs toref ront Ex ter iorAl ter ati ons OUT DOORSPACE BREAKUPSEAOFPARKI NG Entr anceRevi ewBoar d June19,2018 EXI STI NG PROPOSED I NTERSECTI ONOFSEMI NOL ECOURTANDHI LLSDAL EDRI VE I NTERSECTI ONOFSEMI NOL ECOURTANDHI LLSDAL EDRI VE THEADDI TI ONOFTWONEWCOMMERCI ALBUI LDI NGS, INCREASESDENSI TYANDHEL PST OVI SUAL LY BREAKUPTHEL ARGEP ARKI NGLOTS Redevelopment Seminol eSquare BREAKUPMONOT ONOUSST OREFRONT PEDEST RIANFRI ENDL Y Shoppi ngCenter >1, 000li n.f t.ofs toref ront Ex ter iorAl ter ati ons OUT DOORSPACE BREAKUPSEAOFPARKI NG Entr anceRevi ewBoar d June19,2018 OAKRI DGEST ONE DRYST ACKED BM 1617,1616,1613 T rel li s/met alr oofov erc olumns ,rear ,fr ont /si des BL UEST ONE ST ONEWALLANDCOL UMNCAPS T RADI TIONALLAPMAHOGANY ALL URAFI BERCEMENT OLDLEXI NGT ONBRI CK QUEENSI ZE T RADI TIONALLAPCEDAR ALL URAFI BERCEMENT Redevelopment Wall stone: Oak Ridge Stone Seminole Square Redevelopment Photographs of physical samples provided by applicant. (Available at NDS) Allura Fiber Cement Panel: Traditional Lap, Mahogany Stone cap: Bluestone Allura Fiber Cement Panel: Traditional Lap, Maple Brick: Lawrenceville Monticello MET ALCANOPYMA006 B&CAWNINGS PAI NTEDBM 1613ONBRI CK PVCT RIM VERSAT EX PAI NTEDTOMAT CHMAHOGANYLAPSIDI NG COLUMNS,PHOTRELLI SW/METALROOF MET ALCANOPYMA152 B&CAWNINGS ANODI ZEDALUMI NUM T RELLI ST009 B&CAWNI NGS PAI NTEDBM 1617 Redevelopment EXI STI NG PROPOSED TRA VELI NGSOUTHONHI LLSDAL EDRI VE TRAVEL INGSOUTHONHI LLSDAL EDRI VE ONNEWBRI DGELOOKI NGATBACKOFNORTHWI NG ONNEWBRIDGELOOKI NGATBACKOFNORTHWI NG REAROFBUILDI NGBECOMESMOREI NVI TI NGWI THNEWP AINT ,DESI GNA TEDP ARKI NGAND LANDSCAPI NG Expansion Seminol eSquare Shoppi ngCenter CONNECT IONT OTRAI L Ex pans ionPr ojec t Entr anceRevi ewBoar d June19,2018 EXI STI NG PROPOSED ATENDOFNEWHIL LSDALEDRI VEBRI DGE ATENDOFNEWHIL LSDALEDRI VEBRI DGE LOOKI NGWESTATREAROFNORTHWING LOOKI NGWESTATREAROFNORTHWING NEWL ANDSCAPI NGI SADDEDBYTRAI LTOTI EINWI THTHESHOPPI NGCENTER Expansion Seminol eSquare Shoppi ngCenter CONNECT IONT OTRAI L Ex pans ionPr ojec t Entr anceRevi ewBoar d June19,2018 EXI STI NG PROPOSED I NREAROFEAST-NORTHWING I NREAROFEAST-NORTHWING LOOKI NGTOWARDSHILLSDAL EDRI VEBRI DGE LOOKI NGTOWARDSHILLSDAL EDRI VEBRI DGE THEEXISTI NGAL LEYI SNOWMOREPEDESTRI ANFRI ENDL YWI THDESI GNA TEDSI DEWAL KS, TRAI LAND LANDSCAPI NG Expansion Seminol eSquare Shoppi ngCenter CONNECT IONT OTRAI L Ex pans ionPr ojec t Entr anceRevi ewBoar d June19,2018 Installed 2009 Hardiness Zone 8b Fred Meyer - Issaquah, WA A pattern of greenscreen® wall mounted panels are mounted off the surface of a split face block wall to break up a monolithic surface adjacent to a pedestrian drop off waiting zone. Additional panels mounted in the parkway to overhead roof protection help block wind driven weather. 1 7 4 3 S. L A CIENEG A BLVD. LOS ANGELES, CA. 9 0 0 3 5 T - 800.450.3494 www.greenscreen.com Exsting concrete or masonry wall Expansion anchor by others 480 lbs. pull out minimum 3/8” diameter fastener CL TO CONCRETE WITH CONCRETE ANCHOR #5136 Spacer - AND 5136 SPACER 1/2" X 1 1/2" dia. - black UHMW plastic, typ. #5132R Mounting Clip, typ. VARIES 3" thick g re e n s c re e n ® panel, typical 3/4" to 3" 2-1/4" 3 3/4" - 5 1/4" SECTION 5132R ADJUSTABLE CLIP The 5132R Adjustable Clip provides panel support for both download and uplift. The clip can mount to wall surfaces or to a steel frame. The slot allows for panel adjustment and ease of installation. s umm er 20 15 TM 1743 S. L A CIENEGA BLVD. LOS ANGELES, CA . 90035 T - 800.450.3494 www.greenscreen.com CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT TO THE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR REVIEW BOARD (ERB) ENTRANCE CORRIDOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: July 10, 2018 Projects: A) Seminole Square Redevelopment and B) Seminole Square Expansion Planner: Jeff Werner, AICP Applicant: Great Eastern Management Applicant’s Representative: Scott Collins Applicant’s Relation to Owner: Engineer, Collins Engineering Application Information Property Street Address: 230-270 Zan Road Property Owner: Giant Sequel Investors, LLC Tax Map/Parcel #: 41C003100 Total Square Footage/Acreage Site: 18.81 acres Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Plan) Designation: Mixed Use Current Zoning Classification: Highway Corridor (HW) with Entrance Corridor (EC) Overlay Entrance Corridor Overlay District: Route 29 North (Sub-Area A) Current Usage: Shopping Center Existing conditions Seminole Square Shopping Center was constructed in 1986 on approximately 18 acres and features 168,278 square feet of single-story commercial space fronting on a surface parking lot with 978 parking spaces. The site is accessed from the west by an entrance off of Route 29 (via Seminole Court) and from the north and south via the recently-completed extension of Hillsdale Drive. There is no access from the east; the rear of the shopping center’s East Wing runs parallel to Meadow Creek. Seminole Square Redevelopment (Final July 3, 2018) Page 1 Applicant’s Request Note: This staff report covers both the Seminole Square Redevelopment plan and Seminole Square Expansion plan. Separate COAs will be required for each. Seminole Square Redevelopment:  Improvements to primary facades of the existing commercial buildings.  Construction of two new commercial buildings. At North Wing - approximately 6,000 square feet (60-ft. x 94-ft). At the East Wing - approximately 12,000 square feet (120-ft. x 100-ft). Improved primary facades of existing buildings and exterior walls of the two new buildings will feature walls faced with combinations of brick, stone and cement fiber siding with a sequence of trellises, metal canopies and cable-supported metal awnings. In some locations, the existing stucco will remain and be painted. At the existing buildings, exterior columns will be enclosed within piers or pilasters of either brick, fiber cement material or painted PVC trim. A field stone knee-wall with bluestone cap will be installed beneath storefront windows and form a pediment for the brick, where it is used on exterior walls and column enclosures. New signage to be installed above building entries. The facades will vary in height and cornice detail; some sections will feature a simple cornice, in others the cornice will be more complex and include brackets. Existing roofing to remain. Seminole Square Expansion (Rear of North Wing): At the rear (north) of the existing North Wing buildings creation of parking areas and construction of the greenway trail segment. At the rear and side walls, existing stucco will be painted and cable-supported metal canopies installed over existing doors. Related parking, lighting and landscape improvements as summarized below. At the northern boundary of the parcel, an 8-foot wide, asphalt, multi-purpose path will link the sidewalk on Route 29 to an existing sidewalk at the northeast corner of the parcel--a distance of approximately 1,100-ft and within a 10-foot right of way to be deeded to the city. On each side of the path will be a wood, two-rail, split rail fence. Where necessary due to grade, a stacked-stone retaining wall will be constructed on the north side of the path. Where the path crosses Hillsdale Drive will be a flashing signal. Ultimately, this trail segment will provide a bike/ped connection to the planned Meadow Creek trail. (Note: This greenway trail segment is a condition of the Critical Slope Waiver, approved by City Council on October 2, 2017. See attachments.) Proposed building materials (Existing and new construction)  Brick: Lawrenceville Monticello (revised from Old Lexington)  Stone facing: Oak Ridge, dry stack pattern  Stone cap: Bluestone  Fiber cement board panels: Allura lap siding, 4” and 6”, Mahogany and Maple (revised from Cedar)  Painted columns and cornice: Versatex PVC trim (Color: TBD)  Stucco (rear and side elevations): existing to be painted (color: Benjamin Moore #1616, Stormy Sky)  Stucco (primary elevations): existing to be painted (color: Benjamin Moore #1613, Silent Night)  Green Screens: Wall-mounted panels with vegetation. (Plantings TBD)  Roof (new buildings only): flat roof concealed behind parapet  Roof (existing buildings): existing to remain  Awnings and canopies: painted metal (color: Benjamin Moore #1617, Cheating Heart) and anodized aluminum  Metal trellis: painted metal (color: Benjamin Moore #1617, Cheating Heart) Seminole Square Redevelopment (Final July 3, 2018) Page 2  Metal storefront windows and doors: Match existing frames: dark bronze (Not all storefronts being replaced.) Parking lot improvements, including lighting and landscaping (Redevelopment and Expansion)  Parking: Portions of the existing parking lots will be redeveloped, resulting in the removal of 92 parking spaces. (886 spaces will remain, exceeding the required 853.) Some parking spaces (58) will be relocated to the rear of the North Wing’s two buildings. The perceived scale of the shopping center’s parking lot is reduced by the division of the parking areas; divided by streetscape and landscaping. The individual parking spaces are arranged to increase flow of traffic, and minimally interfere with pedestrian crossings. The edges of the parking lots are separated from Hillsdale Drive and Seminole Court with a 12-foot planting bed, creating a soft, yet definitive buffer between the streets and parking areas.  Crosswalks: The proposed site plan features eight internal parking lot pedestrian crossings, accommodating pedestrian needs and vehicular circulation. The Redevelopment connects the individual lots together with pedestrian crossings at key locations such as the intersection of Hillsdale Drive and Seminole Court. (Note: Additional pedestrian connections linking buildings and public sidewalk, etc.—requirements per city code--will be addressed during Site Plan review.)  Lighting: All light fixtures are noted as full cutoff, and directed away from adjoining properties and road. Light spillover is limited to one-half foot-candle. Pedestrian areas are well lit. Pole-mounted fixtures are placed 20’ above grade. All lamping is noted as LED white lights to create a unified cool white lighting throughout the site.  Landscaping: Landscaping primarily occurs within the planted beds at the perimeter of the designated parking areas. Within these will be medium and large canopy trees, including: Red Maple, River Birch, London Plane, Staghorn Sumac, and Bald Cypress. Ornamental grasses and shrubs will infill between the trees. Throughout project area: 119 trees and 553 shrubs. Signage (Redevelopment only) Signage is shown on project drawings (for illustration only), however all new signage will require a separate permit and, unless amended, must comply with the approved Comprehensive Signage Plan, dated June 7, 2005. Standard of Review The Planning Commission serves as the Entrance Corridor Review Board (ERB) and, as the ERB, is 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 (COA) 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 reviewing 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; Staff Analysis: This project is predominantly the aesthetic improvement and renovation of an existing, linearly-oriented, single–story, commercial center. The height, massing, and scale of the existing Seminole Square Redevelopment (Final July 3, 2018) Page 3 buildings—currently and after improvements--and of the two new buildings are consistent with and compatible to those of other commercial areas within this sub-area of the corridor. §34-310(2): Exterior architectural details and features of the subject building or structure; Staff Analysis: The existing building elevations provide somewhat of a blank canvas on which to apply updated architectural elements and materials. While primarily aesthetic improvements—versus structural—the applied materials and components will create a human-scaled and aesthetically welcoming commercial center. The variation of façade heights, materials (brick, stone, metal) and design elements (piers, pilasters, awnings, canopies) modify the facades so as to create the appearance of individual, yet architecturally-related buildings. The minimal aesthetic improvements to the rear (north) facades of the North Wing buildings are insufficient. While these elevations are not the primary façade and not intended to serve as entries into the commercial spaces, they will be visible from Hillsdale Drive, the greenway trail required via the Critical Slope Waiver, and the new parking areas. Incorporating onto these elevations design elements and components similar to—but not necessarily to the extent of matching--the primary facades to better engage trail users and pedestrians along Hillsdale Drive would address this concern. §34-310(3): Texture, materials and color of materials proposed for use on the subject building or structure; Staff Analysis: The materials and finishes for the proposed renovations and new construction will add texture, materiality, and color to an outdated shopping center. Red brick, metal roofing for awnings and canopies, field stone, painted stucco and [faux wood] siding are building materials commonly used in the area. §34-310(4): Design and arrangement of buildings and structures on the subject site; Staff Analysis: This is an auto-oriented zoning district. However, as has occurred at Barracks Road Shopping Center, further improvements and, most importantly, infill and redevelopment take time. The extension of Hillsdale Drive—now a true through-street—provides this site with valuable street frontage that will, incrementally and over time, be developed. §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. Staff Analysis: The goals are to make the site function well for the users of this site and the corridor, and to have an attractive development that is compatible with its surrounding context. Commercial development dominates sub-area A; almost all of it being in single-story buildings fronting on large parking lots. Outside of the prevailing suburban, strip mall form, there is no coherent design theme linking the various commercial centers within this sub-area. However, like other commercial centers within the corridor, the improvements proposed at Seminole Square provide design elements, materials, colors and landscaping that will provide the center its own, unique sense of place. §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, Seminole Square Redevelopment (Final July 3, 2018) Page 4 including franchise development, should complement the City’s character and respect those qualities that distinguish the City’s built environment. Staff Analysis: Redevelopment: Proposal complies generally with this guideline. Expansion: Issues at the rear elevations of the North Wing must be addressed. 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. Staff Analysis: This guideline is not applicable. 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. Staff Analysis: Proposal complies generally with this guideline. Additional, code-required, access issues will be address at Site Plan review. 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. Staff Analysis: Redevelopment: Proposal complies generally with this guideline. Expansion: Issues at the rear elevations of the North Wing must be addressed. 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. Staff Analysis: Relative to landscaping (trees and plantings), proposal complies generally with this guideline. 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. Staff Analysis: Redevelopment: proposal complies generally with this guideline. Expansion: The construction and dedication of the trail is a welcome and positive addition to the city’s trail system. Issues at the rear elevations of the North Wing must be addressed. 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. Staff Analysis: Proposal complies generally with this guideline. Create Restrained Communications: Private signage and advertising should be harmonious and in scale with building elements and landscaping features. Staff Analysis: This guideline is not applicable. All new signage must comply with the approved Comprehensive Signage Plan, dated June 7, 2005. 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 Seminole Square Redevelopment (Final July 3, 2018) Page 5 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. Staff Analysis: While the relegated parking is limited, proposal complies generally with this guideline. 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. Staff Analysis: Proposal complies generally with this guideline, particularly in that franchise elements have not dictated the design. Section 2 (Streetscape) Staff Analysis: The proposed streetscape features are appropriate. The areas being redeveloped feature site elements such as: parking, crosswalks, lighting, and landscaping. Each of these site elements are consistent throughout the proposed redeveloped area. Section 3 (Site): Staff Analysis: The site features are appropriate. The utilities and service areas are appropriately enclosed and screened. The proposed expansion features a trail segment that provides bike/ped access along the center’s northern boundary. Section 4 (Buildings): Staff Analysis: The variation of heights, materials (brick, stone, metal) and of design elements (piers, pilasters, awnings, canopies) modify the facades so as to create the appearance of individual, yet architecturally-related buildings. At the rear elevations of the North Wing, additional treatment may be necessary. Section 5 (Individual Corridors): Route 29 North, Sub-Area A: Northern Corporate Limits to 250 Overpass While much of the growth of this corridor is expected to be within Albemarle County’s section as it extends north, there is great opportunity to redevelop Charlottesville’s parts with more intense retail and mixed uses. Scale of development will go from large to medium as you move south towards the City. More pedestrian scaled, mixed-use infill opportunities exist in the Barracks Road area as opposed to the auto-oriented north end. Route 29 North Sub-Area A: Northern corporate limits to 250 overpass Vision: As Route 29 traffic enters the City this area should serve to calm traffic and create a transition from auto- oriented, suburban development to more pedestrian friendly, urban scale development. Planting and maintaining street trees along the existing Route 29 sidewalks, and locating buildings close to the road will assist in this effort. Although wide roads and large traffic volumes discourage pedestrian crossings, a pedestrian environment can be encouraged within developments. Providing walking and driving linkages between developments and providing for transit will also create alternatives to having to drive on Route 29. Individual building designs should complement the City’s character and respect the qualities that distinguish the City’s built environment. This corridor is a potential location for public way-finding signage. Staff Analysis: The following are from the Recommended General Guidelines for Route 29 North, Sub- Area A. This project general meets the recommendations. While the relegated parking is minimal, it is Seminole Square Redevelopment (Final July 3, 2018) Page 6 understandable given project’s minimal building construction and limited space behind existing buildings..  Larger scale commercial retail development  Limited residential and mixed-use  Auto-oriented  Surface or structured parking behind buildings  Pedestrian connectivity within developments  Articulated building forms to reduce mass  Divided and planted parking lots to reduce visual impact Hydraulic Small Area Plan Staff Analysis: While the Hydraulic Small Area Plan, adopted may 7, 2018 recommends improvements to bike and pedestrian access to and through Seminole Square. This project’s improved streetscape and pedestrian routes along Hillsdale Drive and the contribution of the trail segment along the northern boundary provide positive steps towards addressing that need. Additionally, this project includes minimal new construction (two new buildings; less than 20,000 SF in total) thus preserving the option for future and more-intensive infill development/re-development as envisioned in the Small Area Plan. Public Comments Received No public comments have been received to date. Staff Recommendations Note: Separate Site Plans have been submitted for the two projects—Seminole Square Redevelopment and Seminole Square Expansion--therefore staff recommends that separate actions be taken on the COA request for each project. Overall, the proposed transition of this shopping center—the Redevelopment component--is generally consistent with the guidelines and a welcome transition from the existing. If the design, materials, finishes and site improvements are satisfactory to the ERB, staff is supportive approving the COA for the proposed Seminole Square Redevelopment. However, the Expansion component of the project requires further clarification and discussion. Specifically, the treatment of the rear elevations of the North Wing buildings has not been addressed satisfactorily. The visual impact of these walls was a key concern during preliminary discussion about the re-grading of the site and the construction of the greenway trail. Staff suggests consideration of the following in any motion for approval:  All glass must be clear, with minimum 70% visible light transmittance (VLT).  While signage requires separate permits and approvals, all illuminated signage shall appear to be lit white at night.  Rooftop mechanical equipment will be screened within appurtenance. Suggested Motions Seminole Square Redevelopment 1. Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the City Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed new construction, existing building rehabilitation, landscaping, site improvements associated with the Seminole Square Redevelopment satisfy the ERB’s criteria and are compatible with the goals for sub-area A of the Route 29 North Entrance Corridor, and that the ERB approves the COA application as submitted. Seminole Square Redevelopment (Final July 3, 2018) Page 7 2. …approves the COA application as submitted with the following conditions… 3. Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the City Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines I move to find that the proposed new construction, existing building rehabilitation, landscaping, site improvements associated with the Seminole Square Redevelopment does not satisfy the ERB’s criteria and are not compatible with the goals for sub-area A of the Route 29 North Entrance Corridor, and that the ERB denies the COA application as submitted. Seminole Square Expansion 4. Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the City Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed existing building rehabilitation, landscaping, site improvements, and greenway trail segment associated with the Seminole Square Expansion satisfy the ERB’s criteria and are compatible with the goals for sub-area A of the Route 29 North Entrance Corridor, and that the ERB approves the COA application as submitted. 5. …approves the COA application as submitted with the following conditions… 6. Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the City Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed existing building rehabilitation, landscaping, site improvements, and greenway trail segment associated with the Seminole Square Expansion does not satisfy the ERB’s criteria and are not compatible with the goals for sub-area A of the Route 29 North Entrance Corridor, and that the ERB denies the COA application as submitted. Attachments:  Plan view - project summary. NDS  Critical Slope Waiver, dated Oct 2, 2017  Collins Engineering, Seminole Square Redevelopment, Preliminary Site Plan, sheets 1 through 9 (dated May 22, 2018), sheet 10 through 13 (dated May 16, 2018), and sheet 14 (dated May 22, 2018).  Collins Engineering, Seminole Square Expansion, Preliminary Site Plan, sheets 1 through 5 (dated March 6, 2018), sheets 11, 12, & 13 (dated May 16, 2018), and sheet 14 (date May 22, 2018).  Collins Engineering, Proposed Seminole Square & Pepsi Trailway Exhibit, undated, one sheet.  Henningsen Kestner Architects, Exterior Renovations for Seminole Square Shopping Center, dated May 22, 2018, sheets ERB-00 through ERB.17. (Note: Alternate elevation on 2nd sheet ERB.07)  Henningsen Kestner Architects, Seminole Square Shopping Center Exterior Alterations, dated June 19, 2018, unnumbered sheets include renderings and photos of materials.  Greenscreen (product information) Seminole Square Redevelopment (Final July 3, 2018) Page 8 Seminole Square Redevelopment Seminole Square Expansion (For discussion only.) Greenway Trail Expansion Existing North Wing Façade Rehab Existing North Wing Façade Rehab Redevelopment New Route 29 Seminole Court Façade Rehab Existing East Wing Hillsdale Drive New RESOLUTION APPROVING A REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CRITICAL SLOPES PROVISIONS PURSUANT TO CITY CODE SECTION 34-1120(B)(6) FOR SEMINOLE SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER WHEREAS, Towers Limited Partnership, owner of property designated on City Tax Map 41C, Parcel 3.1, consisting of approximately 18.81 acres of land, and known as Seminole Square Shopping Center (the “Property”), seeks a waiver of the critical slopes requirements of City Code Sec. 34-1120(b)(6) in connection with the construction of two (2) segmented retaining walls, totaling 1,180’ in length, along the northern portion of the Property (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered this request at their regular meeting on September 12, 2017, and recommended approval of the request, with conditions, to waive the critical slopes requirements, pursuant to City Code Sec. 34-1120(b)(6); and WHEREAS, upon consideration of the information and materials provided by the applicant, and the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the City Council finds and determines pursuant to City Code Sec. 34-1120(b)(6)(d)(ii) that due to unusual size, topography, shape, location, or other unusual physical conditions, or existing development of the Project, one (1) or more of these critical slopes provisions would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use, reuse or redevelopment of such property; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council for the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the request by Towers Limited Partnership for a waiver of the critical slopes requirements for the above-described Project on the Property, is hereby granted, conditioned upon the following: 1. The Applicant shall petition City Council to vacate the existing 1985 stormwater easement, in order to transfer the burden of maintenance of the stormwater facility from the City to the owner of the Property. 2. A detailed survey by a licensed professional should be provided following construction of the retaining wall to capture any deviation from the approved plans. Upon completion of the as-built survey, the stormwater routing analysis should be verified using the as-built data. 3. The improvements depicted in the Concept Plan Exhibit Series attached to the critical slopes waiver request shall be incorporated in any site plan amendment for future redevelopment of the Property, including the following modifications recommended by staff: a. Elimination of the proposed pedestrian crossing along Hillsdale Drive given its proximity to the signalized intersection; b. Proposed pedestrian areas shall meet ADA standards (including curb ramps, minimum width and cross-slope); and c. Proposed bicycle racks shall be located close to the building entrance, visible from the multi-use trail, and the number of bicycle racks shall meet the standards outlined in City Code Sec. 34-881 (in effect on the date of this SUP approval). 4. Construction shall not begin until after the Hillsdale Road extension project is complete. 5. The proposed 8’ wide greenbelt trail shall be asphalt, and include a buffer no less than three (3) feet from the parking lot, and the proposed type and height of the fence will be determined by Parks & Recreation staff prior to site plan approval. 6. Proposed 10’ wide easement encompassing the 8’ wide greenbelt trail shall be for maintenance of the trail itself and not for any improvements placed within the easement by the Property Owner (i.e. the retaining wall), which shall be maintained by the Property owner. A deed of easement from the Property owner to the City, in form approved by the City Attorney, for the greenbelt trail shall be signed prior to site plan approval. 7. The previously submitted routing analysis for the existing stormwater basin between Seminole Square and Pepsi shall be revised and resubmitted to Engineering staff should the retaining wall located on the Seminole Square site require adjustment due to the development activities on either the adjoining Pepsi property or the Seminole Square property. Approved by Council October 2, 2017 Clerk of Council W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W DETAIL PLANTING PLAN #1 W W 1 11 W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W S W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W S W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W 454 W W W W W W W 446 454 448 W 0 44 452 45 6 448 W W 1 12 DETAIL PLAN #2 PLANTING N 200 GARRETT STREET, SUITE K. - CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 - 434.293.3719 NOT FOR SCALE JOB NO. SHEET NO. CONSTRUCTION W 44 W 6 W W W NOT FOR W W W W W W W W CONSTRUCTION W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 12 - DETAIL PLANTING PLAN #2 W W 119'-3" 313'-11" W W 88 RA W 125 RA W W 257 MC 171'-8" S W 111 PV W S W 122 FG 23 HV 59'-0" W 2 BN S 37 RA W 8 BN 311 RA W 3 BN 77 RA 47 RA 9 RA 16 PA 280 LM W 9 RA 6 BN 1 RA 13 PV W 4 BN 394 LM 3 RA 1 TD W 7 PA 3 RT W W 6 RG 50 RA 3 AA W 4 VD 3 AR 507 RA W W 209 LM 9 AA 11 PA 17 RA W 2 BN W W 4 VD 28 AA W W W 48 LM 9 JV W W W W W W 65 LM W 1 RG 97 LM 4 TO 2 BN W W 4 BN 4 IMN W 4 VD 3 BN 118 LM 5 AA W W W 294 30 W 29 RA 35 RA 14 RA 14 RA 3 BN 46 LM 1'-7 W '-11 W 6 VD 19 RA 19 RA 19 RA 19 RA 19 RA 34 RA 14 LM 28 AA " 8 JV " 15 RA 2 BN W 7 VD W W 16 FG 5 AA W W 4 TO W 9 BN 1 RT 9 FG 7 VD 8 RA W W 4 IMN W W W W 10 FG 200 GARRETT STREET, SUITE K. - CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 - 434.293.3719 W W 5 AR 11 FG W 12 AA W W 10 AA W W W 8 JV 2 BN W W W W 9 AA 13 AA W W 4 TO W W W W 17 AA 3 BN W 8 RG 11 AA 4 IMN W W 13 RA W W W 569 LM 18 RA 3 PA W 219 LM W W W W 4 RT W W W 1530 LM 8 JV W 2 PA W 9 RA W 6 RA 21 RA 3 BN W 24 PV 13 BN W W 6 RA 6 RA 6 RA 6 RA 6 RA 3 BN W W 3 RT 14 IV 6 RA 33 AA W 54 83 W '- 0" '-8 W " W W 5 TD W W 1 IVJ W 18 PV 27 PV 16 PV 18 PV 17 PV W 9 IV 14 IV 11 IV W 12 IV 12 IV 1 IVJ 1 IVJ 1 IVJ 1 IVJ 1 IVJ W W W W 76'- 2 RA 3" W W 21 RA W 2 BN W W 37 RA W W W W W 1 BN W W 12 RA W W W W W W W W 2 BN 9 RA W JOB NO. W SCALE W W SHEET NO. N W 5 VD NOT FOR 3 TD CONSTRUCTION 24 RA 9 JV 11 PV 30 MC 4 TO 4 IMN 82 PAL 8 JV 3 AR 7 RA 4 TO 4 IMN 17 PV 19 RA 454 8 JV 3 BN 43 MC 5 FG 4 TO 3 VD 13 FG 107 PAL 1 AR 4 IMN 14 PV W W W W W W W W W W 31 PV 454 W W W W W W W W W W W W W W 3 VD W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W 5 FG W 53 MC W 8 JV 200 GARRETT STREET, SUITE K. - CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 - 434.293.3719 W W W 15 PA W 22 RA W W 136 RA 1 BN 553 LM 4 TO W 2 BN 2 BN 4 RG W W 6 RA W 7 RA 2 BN 4 IMN W W W 5 RA 452 W W W W W W W W 110 PAL W W W 8 JV W 7 RA W W 144 RA 1 AR W 1 RT 4 TO W W W 10 RA 45 202'-2" W S S S 0 4 IMN W W W W 148 LM W 2 BN 4 RG 448 448 8 JV W 7 RA 148 LM W 2 BN 1 RT 4 TO W 8 RA 11 RA 39 PV 11 RA 4 IMN W 3 RT 12 JV W 5 PA 446 W 17 RA 563 LM 44 W 6 6 RG W 45 RA W W W 122'-3" W W W W W W W W W W W 1 AR MATCHLINE W W SEE SHEET 11 - DETAIL PLANTING PLAN #1 38 PV W 3 TD W W 205'-3" W 68'-7" W W W W W JOB NO. W W SCALE W W SHEET NO. N W W DEPTH NOTES: -3'-0" FOR ALL TREES NOT FOR 4" -2'-0" FOR ALL OTHER PLANTINGS 3" DOUBLE SHREDDED SET TOP OF ROOT CONSTRUCTION CROWN 2" ABOVE VARIES - SEE DEPTH NOTES* 6" HARDWOOD MULCH 4" ORGANIC COMPOST ADJACENT GRADE TILLED INTO TOP 6" OF ROUGHEN SIDES TOPSOIL PROFILE TO CREATE OF PLANTING HOLE SHAPE SOIL SURFACE TO A 10" MODIFIED ROOT ZONE PROVIDE 3' DIAMETER TOPSOIL PULL OR WASH POTTING WATERING RING MIX AND ROOT MAT SCARIFY FACE OF FINISH GRADE APART TO DIRECT THE SUBGRADE PRIOR TO OUTER ROOTS INTO THE TREE PIT DEPTH EQUALS APPLICATION OF TOPSOIL ADJACENT SOIL. DO NOT ROOTBALL DEPTH DECOMPACTED SOIL LEAVE CIRCLING ROOTS -RIP WITH SINGLE-TOOTH -MEASURE BEFORE AGAINST THE ROOT BALL. DIGGING TO AVOID RIPPER OR OTHER MECHANICAL MEANS NATIVE BACKFILL SOIL OVEREXCAVATION PRIOR TO APPLICATION AMENDED WITH 15% PREPARE SUBSOIL TO OF SOIL, SCARIFY FACE DECOMPOSED FORM PEDESTAL TO OF SUBGRADE ORGANIC COMPOST 2 X ROOTBALL PREVENT SETTLING SUBGRADE DIAMETER MINIMUM PLANTING SOIL SECTION SHRUB PLANTING SECTION 01 SCALE : 1" = 1'-0" 02 SCALE : 1/2" = 1'-0" SEE PLANT SCHEDULE PLANTING NOTES FOR SPACING 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY PLANT MATERIAL QUANTITIES SOWN ON PLAN WITH TOTALS IN PLANTING SCHEDULE. NOTIFY FINISHED GRADE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO FINAL BIDDING. UNITS PRICES BE SUBMITTED AS PART OF 2" DOUBLE-SHREDDED FINAL BID. HARDWOOD MULCH 2. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE GUARANTEED FOR ONE (1) FULL YEAR AND SHALL BE IN A HEALTHY GROWING 01 PLANTING CONDITION. PLANT MATERIALS WHICH DO NOT FULFILL THIS GUARANTEE SHALL BE REPLACED AT NO COST TO THE L4.00 SOIL SECTION OWNER. REPLACEMENT SHALL BE GUARANTEED THROUGHOUT THE ORIGINAL GUARANTEE PERIOD. PLANTS THAT DIE SHALL BE REPLACED IMMEDIATELY. SUBGRADE 3. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WATERING, WEEDING, PEST CONTROL, AND FERTILIZATION OF ALL PLANT MATERIAL UNTIL, a.) UPON FINAL ACCEPTANCE IS ISSUED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND/OR OWNER, AND b.) THE CONTRACTOR PROVIDES OWNER WRITTEN NOTIFICATION OF ALL MAINTENANCE NEEDS OF ALL SCOPE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PERENNIAL & GROUNDCOVER PLANTING - SECTION 200 GARRETT STREET, SUITE K. - CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 - 434.293.3719 03 SCALE : 1/2" = 1'-0" PLANTING PLAN(S) CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT ASSUME IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS FULLY OPERATIONAL AT THE COMPLETION OF THE PLANTING INSTALLATION. 4. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING MISS UTILITY PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF CONSTRUCTION FOR LOCATION OF ALL UTILITY LINES. TREES SHALL BE LOCATED A MINIMUM OF FIVE (5) FEET FROM SEWER/WATER CONNECTIONS. NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF CONFLICTS. 5. THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IS THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE AND SHALL BE THE APPROVING AUTHORITY FOR INFORMATION PROVIDED WITHIN THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 6. ALL PLANT MATERIALS, TOPSOIL, MULCH, FERTILIZERS, SOIL AMENDMENTS, PLANTING SUPPLIES, AND METHODS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS APPROVAL. REJECTED MATERIALS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE WITHOUT DELAY AT NO EXPENSE TO THE OWNER. 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL LAYOUT AND MARK LOCATION FOR ALL PLANT MATERIAL, AND IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN AND SHALL REQUEST IN FIELD APPROVAL FROM LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 8. ALL PLANT MATERIALS AND PLANTING METHODS SHALL CONFORM TO A.A.N. STANDARDS. 9. BEDS TO CONTAIN SHRUBS, PERENNIALS, ORNAMENTAL GRASSES, OR PERENNIALS SHALL BE TILLED TO A DEPTH OF 12" AND THE SOIL CONDITIONED BY ADDING 3" OF A U.S. COMPOSTING COUNCIL APPROVED COMPOST. 10. ALL PLANTING BED AREAS SHALL BE COVERED WITH A 3" MINIMUM LAYER OF MEDIUM TEXTURED SHREDDED WEBBED STRAPPING, HARDWOOD MULCH UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. ARBORTIE OR APPROVED 2"x2"x6' MIN. HARDWOOD EQUIV. -USE 2 STAKES PER TREE -LOOPED TO TRUNK 11. ALL SUBSTITUTIONS OF PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE REQUESTED IN WRITING TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND AND SET OUTSIDE ROOT -(2) PER TREE APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE OWNER OR THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. PACKAGE -NAIL OR STAPLE TO STAKE 3" DOUBLE SHREDDED SET TOP OF ROOT 12. ALL PLANTING OPERATIONS SHALL BE UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF AN EXPERIENCED PLANTSMAN. HARDWOOD MULCH, CROWN 2" ABOVE TAPER AT TRUNK. MULCH ADJACENT GRADE 13. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO SELECT PLANT MATERIALS IN THE NURSERY. TO WITHIN 2" OF TRUNK IN PLANTING AREAS SHAPE SOIL SURFACE TO PROVIDE 3' DIAMETER 14. FOR TREES BALLED IN WIRE BASKETS, CUT AND REMOVE TOP AND SIDES OF BASKET AFTER INSTALLATION. REMOVE ALL WIRE & WATERING RING STRING FROM ROOTBALL AND ALL BURLAP FROM FINISH GRADE 15. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT AND PLANTS AND MATERIALS THAT ARE IN AN UNHEALTHY OR TOP 2 3 OF ROOTBALL 4" PERF. PVC INSPECTION WELL UNSIGHTLY CONDITION, AS WELL AS PLANTS AND MATERIALS THAT DO NOT CONFORM TO A.A.N. STANDARDS. C -CAP @ SURFACE ROUGHEN SIDES L OF PLANTING HOLE 12" #57 STONE 16. SOIL SHALL BE FREE OR ALL WEEDS AND ROCKS GREATER THAN 1" IN DIAMETER. TREE PIT DEPTH EQUALS NATIVE BACKFILL SOIL ROOTBALL DEPTH AMENDED WITH 15% 17. PLANT SIZES, QUANTITIES, AND SPECIES WILL BE CHECKED BY MUNICIPALITY INSPECTION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH PLANT -MEASURE BEFORE ORGANIC COMPOST DIGGING TO AVOID SCHEDULE AS APPROVED BY THE MUNICIPALITY. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR DELAY IN ISSUANCE OF OVEREXCAVATION CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY BY THE MUNICIPALITY RESULTING FROM UNAUTHORIZED SUBSTITUTIONS OR DOWNSIZING. DRIVE STAKES 6" TO 1'-0" INTO UNDISTURBED SOIL 18. UPON COMPLETION OF LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION, THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE GENERAL JOB NO. 3 X ROOTBALL BELOW ROOTBALL CONTRACTOR WHO WILL VERIFY COMPLETENESS, INCLUDING THE REPLACEMENT OF ALL DEAD PLANT MATERIAL, AND DIAMETER MINIMUM SCHEDULE A FINAL INSPECTION FOR ACCEPTANCE BY OWNER. SCALE 19. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE TREE STAKING AT THE END OF THE ONE YEAR WARRANTEE PERIOD. TREE PLANTING SECTION 04 SCALE : 1/2" = 1'-0" SHEET NO. 44 6 W W W W NOT FOR W W W W W W W CONSTRUCTION W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 12 - DETAIL PLANTING PLAN #2 W W 119'-3" W W 313'-11" W W W 171'-8" S W W W S 59'-0" W W 2 BN S 37 RA W 3 BN 311 RA 77 RA 47 RA 16 PA W 9 RA 280 LM W 98 RA 9 RA 6 BN 1 RA 13 PV W 9 BN 4 BN 394 LM 3 RA 1 TD 7 PA W 3 RT W 6 RG 50 RA W 3 AA 4 VD W 505 RA 3 AR W 209 LM 9 AA 22 PA W 17 RA W 2 BN W 4 VD 28 AA W 48 LM 9 JV W W W W W W W W 65 LM W 1 RG 97 LM 4 TO 2 BN W W 4 BN 4 IMN W 4 VD 3 BN W 118 LM W 5 AA W W 294 30 W 29 RA 35 RA 14 RA 14 RA 3 BN 46 LM 1'-7 '-11 W 6 VD 19 RA 19 RA 19 RA 19 RA 19 RA 34 RA 14 LM 28 AA W " 8 JV " 15 RA 2 BN W 7 VD W 16 FG 5 AA W W W 4 TO 9 BN 1 RT W 9 FG 7 VD 8 RA W W 4 IMN W W W 10 FG W 200 GARRETT STREET, SUITE K. - CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 - 434.293.3719 W 5 AR 11 FG W W 12 AA W 10 AA W W W 8 JV W 2 BN W W W 9 AA 13 AA W 4 TO W W W W W 17 AA 3 BN W 8 RG 11 AA 4 IMN W W 13 RA W W W 569 LM 18 RA 3 PA W W W 219 LM W W W 4 RT W 1530 LM W W 2 PA 8 JV W 9 RA W W 6 RA 13 BN 21 RA W 3 BN 24 PV W 6 RA 6 RA 6 RA 6 RA 6 RA 3 BN W W 3 RT 14 IV 6 RA 33 AA W W 54 83 '- 0" '-8 W " W W 5 TD W W 1 IVJ W 18 PV 27 PV 16 PV 18 PV 17 PV W W 9 IV 14 IV 11 IV 12 IV 12 IV 1 IVJ 1 IVJ 1 IVJ 1 IVJ 1 IVJ W W W W 76'- 2 RA 3" W W 21 RA W 2 BN W W 37 RA W W W W W 1 BN W W 12 RA W W W W W W W W 2 BN 9 RA W JOB NO. W SCALE W W SHEET NO. N W 5 VD NOT FOR 3 TD CONSTRUCTION 24 RA 9 JV 11 PV 30 MC 4 TO 4 IMN 82 PAL 8 JV 3 AR 7 RA 4 TO 4 IMN 17 PV 19 RA 454 8 JV 3 BN 43 MC 5 FG 4 TO 3 VD 13 FG 107 PAL 1 AR 4 IMN 14 PV W W W W W W W W W W 31 PV 454 W W W W W W W W W W W W W 3 VD W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W 5 FG W W 53 MC 8 JV 200 GARRETT STREET, SUITE K. - CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 - 434.293.3719 W W W W 15 PA 22 RA W W 136 RA 1 BN 553 LM 4 TO 2 BN W 2 BN W 4 RG W W 6 RA 7 RA 2 BN 4 IMN W W W 452 W 5 RA W W W W W W W 110 PAL W W W 8 JV W 7 RA W W 144 RA 1 AR W 1 RT 4 TO W W W 10 RA 45 202'-2" S S S 0 W W 4 IMN W W W W 148 LM 2 BN 4 RG 448 448 8 JV 7 RA 148 LM W W 2 BN 1 RT 4 TO 8 RA 11 RA 39 PV W W 11 RA 4 IMN 3 RT 12 JV 5 PA 446 W W 17 RA 563 LM 44 6 W W 6 RG 45 RA W W W W 122'-3" 1 AR W W W W W W W W W W MATCHLINE W W W SEE SHEET 11 - DETAIL PLANTING PLAN #1 38 PV 3 TD W W 205'-3" W W 68'-7" W W W W JOB NO. W W SCALE W W W SHEET NO. N W W DEPTH NOTES: -3'-0" FOR ALL TREES NOT FOR 4" -2'-0" FOR ALL OTHER PLANTINGS 3" DOUBLE SHREDDED SET TOP OF ROOT CONSTRUCTION CROWN 2" ABOVE VARIES - SEE DEPTH NOTES* 6" HARDWOOD MULCH 4" ORGANIC COMPOST ADJACENT GRADE TILLED INTO TOP 6" OF ROUGHEN SIDES TOPSOIL PROFILE TO CREATE OF PLANTING HOLE SHAPE SOIL SURFACE TO A 10" MODIFIED ROOT ZONE PROVIDE 3' DIAMETER TOPSOIL PULL OR WASH POTTING WATERING RING MIX AND ROOT MAT SCARIFY FACE OF FINISH GRADE APART TO DIRECT THE SUBGRADE PRIOR TO OUTER ROOTS INTO THE TREE PIT DEPTH EQUALS APPLICATION OF TOPSOIL ADJACENT SOIL. DO NOT ROOTBALL DEPTH DECOMPACTED SOIL LEAVE CIRCLING ROOTS -RIP WITH SINGLE-TOOTH -MEASURE BEFORE AGAINST THE ROOT BALL. DIGGING TO AVOID RIPPER OR OTHER MECHANICAL MEANS NATIVE BACKFILL SOIL OVEREXCAVATION PRIOR TO APPLICATION AMENDED WITH 15% PREPARE SUBSOIL TO OF SOIL, SCARIFY FACE DECOMPOSED FORM PEDESTAL TO OF SUBGRADE ORGANIC COMPOST 2 X ROOTBALL PREVENT SETTLING SUBGRADE DIAMETER MINIMUM PLANTING SOIL SECTION SHRUB PLANTING SECTION 01 SCALE : 1" = 1'-0" 02 SCALE : 1/2" = 1'-0" SEE PLANT SCHEDULE PLANTING NOTES FOR SPACING 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY PLANT MATERIAL QUANTITIES SOWN ON PLAN WITH TOTALS IN PLANTING SCHEDULE. NOTIFY FINISHED GRADE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO FINAL BIDDING. UNITS PRICES BE SUBMITTED AS PART OF 2" DOUBLE-SHREDDED FINAL BID. HARDWOOD MULCH 2. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE GUARANTEED FOR ONE (1) FULL YEAR AND SHALL BE IN A HEALTHY GROWING 01 PLANTING CONDITION. PLANT MATERIALS WHICH DO NOT FULFILL THIS GUARANTEE SHALL BE REPLACED AT NO COST TO THE 13 SOIL SECTION OWNER. REPLACEMENT SHALL BE GUARANTEED THROUGHOUT THE ORIGINAL GUARANTEE PERIOD. PLANTS THAT DIE SHALL BE REPLACED IMMEDIATELY. SUBGRADE 3. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WATERING, WEEDING, PEST CONTROL, AND FERTILIZATION OF ALL PLANT MATERIAL UNTIL, a.) UPON FINAL ACCEPTANCE IS ISSUED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND/OR OWNER, AND b.) THE CONTRACTOR PROVIDES OWNER WRITTEN NOTIFICATION OF ALL MAINTENANCE NEEDS OF ALL SCOPE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PERENNIAL & GROUNDCOVER PLANTING - SECTION 200 GARRETT STREET, SUITE K. - CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 - 434.293.3719 03 SCALE : 1/2" = 1'-0" PLANTING PLAN(S) CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT ASSUME IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS FULLY OPERATIONAL AT THE COMPLETION OF THE PLANTING INSTALLATION. 4. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING MISS UTILITY PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF CONSTRUCTION FOR LOCATION OF ALL UTILITY LINES. TREES SHALL BE LOCATED A MINIMUM OF FIVE (5) FEET FROM SEWER/WATER CONNECTIONS. NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF CONFLICTS. 5. THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IS THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE AND SHALL BE THE APPROVING AUTHORITY FOR INFORMATION PROVIDED WITHIN THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 6. ALL PLANT MATERIALS, TOPSOIL, MULCH, FERTILIZERS, SOIL AMENDMENTS, PLANTING SUPPLIES, AND METHODS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS APPROVAL. REJECTED MATERIALS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE WITHOUT DELAY AT NO EXPENSE TO THE OWNER. 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL LAYOUT AND MARK LOCATION FOR ALL PLANT MATERIAL, AND IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN AND SHALL REQUEST IN FIELD APPROVAL FROM LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 8. ALL PLANT MATERIALS AND PLANTING METHODS SHALL CONFORM TO A.A.N. STANDARDS. 9. BEDS TO CONTAIN SHRUBS, PERENNIALS, ORNAMENTAL GRASSES, OR PERENNIALS SHALL BE TILLED TO A DEPTH OF 12" AND THE SOIL CONDITIONED BY ADDING 3" OF A U.S. COMPOSTING COUNCIL APPROVED COMPOST. 10. ALL PLANTING BED AREAS SHALL BE COVERED WITH A 3" MINIMUM LAYER OF MEDIUM TEXTURED SHREDDED WEBBED STRAPPING, HARDWOOD MULCH UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. ARBORTIE OR APPROVED 2"x2"x6' MIN. HARDWOOD EQUIV. -USE 2 STAKES PER TREE -LOOPED TO TRUNK 11. ALL SUBSTITUTIONS OF PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE REQUESTED IN WRITING TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND AND SET OUTSIDE ROOT -(2) PER TREE APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE OWNER OR THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. PACKAGE -NAIL OR STAPLE TO STAKE 3" DOUBLE SHREDDED SET TOP OF ROOT 12. ALL PLANTING OPERATIONS SHALL BE UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF AN EXPERIENCED PLANTSMAN. HARDWOOD MULCH, CROWN 2" ABOVE TAPER AT TRUNK. MULCH ADJACENT GRADE 13. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO SELECT PLANT MATERIALS IN THE NURSERY. TO WITHIN 2" OF TRUNK IN PLANTING AREAS SHAPE SOIL SURFACE TO PROVIDE 3' DIAMETER 14. FOR TREES BALLED IN WIRE BASKETS, CUT AND REMOVE TOP AND SIDES OF BASKET AFTER INSTALLATION. REMOVE ALL WIRE & WATERING RING STRING FROM ROOTBALL AND ALL BURLAP FROM FINISH GRADE 15. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT AND PLANTS AND MATERIALS THAT ARE IN AN UNHEALTHY OR TOP 2 3 OF ROOTBALL 4" PERF. PVC INSPECTION WELL UNSIGHTLY CONDITION, AS WELL AS PLANTS AND MATERIALS THAT DO NOT CONFORM TO A.A.N. STANDARDS. C -CAP @ SURFACE ROUGHEN SIDES L OF PLANTING HOLE 12" #57 STONE 16. SOIL SHALL BE FREE OR ALL WEEDS AND ROCKS GREATER THAN 1" IN DIAMETER. TREE PIT DEPTH EQUALS NATIVE BACKFILL SOIL ROOTBALL DEPTH AMENDED WITH 15% 17. PLANT SIZES, QUANTITIES, AND SPECIES WILL BE CHECKED BY MUNICIPALITY INSPECTION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH PLANT -MEASURE BEFORE ORGANIC COMPOST DIGGING TO AVOID SCHEDULE AS APPROVED BY THE MUNICIPALITY. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR DELAY IN ISSUANCE OF OVEREXCAVATION CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY BY THE MUNICIPALITY RESULTING FROM UNAUTHORIZED SUBSTITUTIONS OR DOWNSIZING. DRIVE STAKES 6" TO 1'-0" INTO UNDISTURBED SOIL 18. UPON COMPLETION OF LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION, THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE GENERAL JOB NO. 3 X ROOTBALL BELOW ROOTBALL CONTRACTOR WHO WILL VERIFY COMPLETENESS, INCLUDING THE REPLACEMENT OF ALL DEAD PLANT MATERIAL, AND DIAMETER MINIMUM SCHEDULE A FINAL INSPECTION FOR ACCEPTANCE BY OWNER. SCALE 19. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE TREE STAKING AT THE END OF THE ONE YEAR WARRANTEE PERIOD. TREE PLANTING SECTION 04 SCALE : 1/2" = 1'-0" SHEET NO. PROPOSED SEMINOLE SQUARE & PEPSI TRAILWAY EXHIBIT 200 GARRETT STREET, SUITE K, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902 OFFICE: 434-293-3729 GRAPHIC SCALE ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 60 ft.