Agenda PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DOCKET TUESDAY, January 8, 2019 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 – December 11, 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. Charlottesville Capital Improvement Program FY 2020-2024: Consideration of the proposed 5-year Capital Improvement Program totaling $125,588,651 in the areas of Affordable Housing, Education, Economic Development, Public Safety & Justice, Facilities Management, Transportation & Access, Parks & Recreation, Technology Infrastructure, Stormwater Initiatives and General Government Infrastructure. A copy of the proposed CIP is available for review at http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and-services/departments-a-g/budget-and-performance- management/fy-2020-budget-worksessions Report prepared by Ryan Davidson, Office of Budget and Performance Management. 2. SP18-00001 - 901 River Road SUP Request - Shimp Engineering on behalf of Go Store It River, LLC (owner) has submitted an application seeking approval of a Special Use Permit (SUP) request for the property located at 901 River Road with road frontage on River Road and Belleview Avenue. The proposal requests to allow for increased residential density as well as a self-storage company, pursuant to City Code Sections 34-480, where self-storage is allowed via a special use permit and density in excess of 21 dwelling units per acre (DUA) is allowed (up to 64 DUA) via a special use permit if residential density is associated with a mix-used development as indicated in Sec. 34-458. The proposal indicates a total of 54 residential units which equates to 25 DUA calculated with respect to entire development site (2.203 acres) as defined per Sec. 34-458. The property is further identified on City Real Property Tax Map 49 Parcel 98 (“Subject Property”). The Subject Property is zoned IC (Industrial Corridor District). The site is approximately 2.203 acres or 95,963 square feet. The Comprehensive Plan designates the land use of the Subject Property as Business and Technology. 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 SUP application may contact NDS Planner Matt Alfele by e-mail (alfelem@charlottesville.org) or by telephone (434-970-3636). 3. CP18 - 00002 – Emmet Street Streetscape Concept - Pursuant to Virginia Code section 15.2-2232 and City Code sec. 34-28, the Planning Commission will review the proposed Emmet Street Streetscape concept, located on Emmet Street from the Ivy Road/University Avenue intersection; north on Emmet Street to the Arlington Boulevard intersection, to determine if the general location, character and extent of the proposed improvements are substantially in accord with the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan or part thereof. Following the joint public hearing, the Planning Commission shall communicate its findings to the Charlottesville City Council, with written reasons for its approval or disapproval. The conceptual design of the proposed improvements may be examined at the Department of Neighborhood Development Services, 610 East Market Street, Charlottesville, Virginia, Monday – Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. 4. CP18 - 00003 – 5th / Ridge / McIntire Multimodal Corridor Study - Pursuant to Virginia Code section 15.2- 2232 and City Code sec. 34-28, the Planning Commission will review the proposed 5th / Ridge / McIntire Multimodal Corridor concept, from the intersection of Harris Street and McIntire along McIntire Avenue Ridge Street / 5th Street Extended to the intersection of Harris Road and 5th Street SW, character and extent of the proposed improvements are substantially in accord with the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan or part thereof. Following the joint public hearing, the Planning Commission shall communicate its findings to the Charlottesville City Council, with written reasons for its approval or disapproval. The conceptual design of the proposed improvements may be examined at the Department of Neighborhood Development Services, 610 East Market Street, Charlottesville, Virginia, Monday – Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. IV. COMMISSION’S ACTION ITEMS Continuing: until all action items are concluded 1. Preliminary Discussion - Entrance Corridor – 140 Emmet Street (Gallery Hotel) 2. Comprehensive Plan - reserved time for continued discussions V. FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE/ADJOURN Tuesday, January 22, 2019 - 5:00 PM Work Seminole Square Redevelopment & Session Comprehensive Plan Tuesday, February 12, 2019 – 4:30 PM Pre- Meeting Tuesday, February 12, 2019 – 5:30 Regular Minutes – September 11, 2018 – Pre- PM Meeting meeting and Regular meeting Minutes – October 9, 2018 – Pre- meeting and Regular meeting Minutes – November 13, 2018 – Pre- meeting and Regular meeting PUD –Flint Hill Anticipated Items on Future Agendas Zoning Text Amendments –Off-street parking facilities requirements along streets designated as “framework streets” (initiated May 8, 2018), Site Plan Requirements SUP –MACAA (1021 Park Street), 513 Rugby Road, 167 Chancellor PUD – Belleview Pump Station PUD February 26, 2019 Work Session - Dwelling Unit ZTA (tentative) 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 12/1/2018 TO 12/31/2018 1. Preliminary Site Plans 2. Final Site Plans a. 323 2nd Street SE– December 4, 2018 3. Site Plan Amendments a. Barracks Road Shopping Center Transformer to Underground Vault– December 4, 2018 b. Johnson Elementary Modular Classroom – December 10, 2018 4. Subdivision a. BLA – 2335 Highland Avenue – Lot 47, 48, 49 Lots A&B Highland Park – December 11, 2018 b. 1627 Oxford Road – TMP 38-88 – December 20, 2018 1 Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DOCKET December 11, 2018 – 5:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS NDS Conference Room I. COMMISSION PRE-MEETING (Agenda discussion(s)) Beginning: 4:30 pm Location: City Hall, 2nd Floor, NDS Conference Room Members Present: Chairman Lisa Green, Commissioners Jody Lahendro, Taneia Dowell, Lyle Solla-Yates, and Rory Stolzenberg Staff Present: Missy Creasy, Matt Alfele, Brian Haluska, Craig Fabio and Kari Spitler Chairman Green called the meeting to order at 4:59pm and the Commission began asking questions on the ZTA application for Dwelling Unit Clarification. Commissioner Solla-Yates asked if this request would result in a down zoning. It was noted that it would not. Ms. Robertson provided clarification on the request before the Commission. Chairman Green stated that the BZA was very focused on the “exclusive use of occupants” language when they made their determination last month and she felt what is presented on this agenda to clarify is more extensive than she expected. Commissioner Stolzenberg was concerned that the language presented could lead to different housing types being considered “boarding houses”. The Commission stated additional questions and noted that further discussion will be provided during the regular meeting. Chairman Green asked if that discussion should occur prior to the initiation. Staff noted that it can be initiated and the Commission can focus discussion during the public hearing portion of the meeting. II. COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Beginning: 5:30 pm Location: City Hall, 2nd Floor, NDS Conference Members Present: Chairman Lisa Green, Commissioners Jody Lahendro, Taneia Dowell, Lyle Sola-Yates, Rory Stolzenberg, and Mr. Bill Palmer A. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Commissioner Lahendro: Attended Tree Commission meeting on December 4. In reviewing the replacement of the tree in the mall area, the tree commission became aware that the City should redesign the mall hardscape and landscape of the area, as the current area does not relate to the new Charlottesville Technology Center project. The Tree Commission will make this suggestion to City Council. On November 17, 40 volunteers, the Tree Commission and the residents in Belmont planted 21 trees in Belmont that were requested by the residents. The Commission also discussed how Parks and Recreation and Neighborhood Development Services have some confusion on City Council’s approval of the CIP for the Cultural Landscape Report for the Downtown Mall, as the 2 objective and scope of the study is unclear and requires clarification from City Council before any decisions can be made on the project. Commissioner Solla-Yates: Attended two Housing Advisory Committee meetings and was appointed the Vice Chair of the HAC Committee and will be contributing a larger role at the meetings. The Housing Strategy may take as long as next December before there is a product. The Land Bank Ordinance language, which has been discussed as an affordable housing solution for about a year, has been revised and is set to go to City Council next Monday. Commissioner Dowell: Received notification that the Community Block Development Grant and Home Investment Partnership Funding applications are in and will be reviewed during the week of January 14. Commissioner Stolzenberg: No report B. UNIVERSITY REPORT Bill Palmer: The Master Planning Committee met in November and Hosea Mitchell attended the meeting. Notes that the E-scooters and E-bikes are available now and UVA has been in close coordination with the City on this effort and feels comfortable with where things are at this point. C. CHAIR’S REPORT Lisa Green: Attended several Capital Improvement Project meetings. The draft was sent to Council last week and a report is expected on Tuesday, December 18. Met with CLICK about the draft Land Use Plan last week to get feedback and will be presenting to Council in January. They are working on a housing strategy that will be presented next Monday, which would help in guiding Land Use. Attended the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission Meeting on December 6 and there were conversations about Go Virginia, an economic development grant program throughout Virginia for businesses and localities looking to begin startup programs. TJPDC is going to do some housing assessments regionally and thinks a regional strategy instead of just a locality strategy will be beneficial. The advisory board is still being determined and an executive committee will be elected soon. On January 5th there will also be a “Marathon Meeting” and times will be posted soon. D. DEPARTMENT OF NDS Missy Creasy: The Comprehensive Plan will be on the agenda for December 17 and Commissioners and NDS staff will help assist with questions for Council during the upcoming presentation. A work session for the Comprehensive Plan is scheduled for next Tuesday, specifically regarding the CIP. There are two January work session requests for projects. E. MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE FORMAL AGENDA Stephen Kiningham, Woolen Mills Neighborhood Association: Resides at 1310 Chesapeake Street and seeks clarification regarding the November 28 draft of the general land use map. The draft includes designation for high density on a 28 acre parcel of undeveloped greenspace along the Rivanna River and a significant portion of the parcel is FEMA floodway and includes a trail easement used by the Rivanna Trail. The change in designation is questionable because the floodway restriction makes it unlikely that the parcel could support high density development and the gradient of intensity for the parcel extends into a formerly low density residential area along Fairway Avenue and the gradient itself is unnecessary. Asks the Commission if the change was intentional because it is the only high intensity parcel in the City that is not currently developed. If it was intentional, how does the Commission anticipate it being used for high in intensity development? 3 Jess Wenger, Fry’s Springs: Resident of 13 Mobile Lane and represents an organized group of 30 households that share concerns about the proposed Special Use Permit for a sanitary sewer pump station within the neighborhood. Notes concerns about the impact of the surrounding neighborhood, including noise, smell, and operation, as well as the long term maintenance requirements for sanitary pump stations and the possibility of the new neighborhood’s homeowners association failing. A raw sewage release from an inadequately maintained sewer pump station would negatively impact the existing downstream properties and may require the City to take over the operation of the pump station to prevent human health hazards. A community meeting with the developer will be held tomorrow to discuss the details of the project. Asks the Commission to consider the potential impacts of a privately owned sanitary sewer pump station and the impacts that they may have on the existing character of the Fry Springs neighborhood. Mark Kavit: Resident of 400 Altamont Street. Last month the Commission made a political decision on the PUD for the Carlton Views Apartments and it was not a good decision because the property did not meet the requirements for a PUD. There are times when you can get things from the developer that you may not want to give, but when push comes to shove they will do what you want. Mentions concerns about the new zoning map and the high density areas and it is marked as a high density units so the only way to achieve that would be to knock down houses in the ADC district. Joan Albiston: Owner of the property at 301 Azalea Drive and would like for Commissioners to carefully consider the private sewer pump, as it will impact surrounding homeowners that have been living there for many years and could negatively impact the value of their homes. That is not the only potential issue impacting the development and should not be viewed as needing approval at another date in order for the project to move forward. F. CONSENT AGENDA (Items removed from the consent agenda will be considered at the end of the regular agenda) 1. Zoning Text Initiation – Dwelling Units Clarification Commissioner Solla-Yates moves to approve the consent agenda as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Stolzenberg. Motion is approved 5-0. III. JOINT MEETING OF COMMISSION/COUNCIL Beginning: 6:00 pm Continuing: until all public hearings are completed Format: (i) Staff Report, (ii) Applicant, (iii) Hearing 1. 918 Nassau Street a. ZM-18-00001 – (918 Nassau Street) (Hogwaller Farm Development) Chairman Green: Justin Shimp (Shimp Engineering) on behalf of Charles Hurt and Shirley Fisher (landowners) have submitted a rezoning petition for Tax Map 61 Parcels 79.17, 79.18, & 79.19, 918 Nassau Street, and a portion of Tax Map 61 Parcel 79 (Subject Properties). The rezoning petition proposes a change in zoning from the existing R- 2 Two-family Residential to HW Highway Corridor with proffered development conditions. The proffered conditions include: (i) maximum height of buildings: Any structures(s) located on the property shall not exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height, where height is the vertical distance measured perpendicularly from grade from the 4 highest point on such building or structure; (ii) future land uses: (a) the gross floor area of any singular commercial use shall not exceed 4,000 square feet. This shall not prohibit the gross floor area of multiple commercial uses from exceeding 4,000 square feet; (b) the land uses permitted on the Subject Properties are found in the HW Corridor Sec. 34-796 use matrix, but prohibits the following; Adult assisted living greater than 8 residents. Bed- and-breakfasts homestays, B&Bs, Inns, convent/monastery, nursing homes, residential treatment facility over 8 residents, shelter care facilities, amusement centers, animal boarding/grooming/kennels without outside runs or pens, art galleries, auditoriums, amphitheaters, automotive services, banks/financial institutions, bowling alleys, car washes, catering business, health clinics, veterinary clinics, private clubs, data centers, dry cleaning establishments, elementary schools, high schools, artistic instruction up to 4,000 SF, electronic gaming cafes, hotels/motels, laundromats, libraries, small breweries, movie theaters, municipal buildings, museums, music halls, offices, outdoor storage, public recreational facilities, fast food restaurants, full service restaurants, taxi stands, transit facilities, consumer service businesses over 4,001 SF, home improvement centers, pharmacies, shopping centers, shopping malls, retail stores over 4,001 SF, laboratories, and printing/ publishing facilities; (iii) affordable housing; contingent upon approval of residential density on site, the owners shall reserve ten percent (10%) of the units built on the Property for on-site for-rent affordable dwelling units (as defined herein). The units will remain affordable for a period of twelve (12) years from issuance of certificate of occupancy. For-rent affordable dwelling units shall rent at a rate making the units affordable to households with incomes at not more than 50% of the area median income (“AMI”) for the Charlottesville Metropolitan Area published annually by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”). The Subject Properties are further identified on City Real Property Tax Map 61 Parcels 79, 79.17, 79.18, 79.19, & 79.201. The Subject Properties is approximately 0.8 acres. The Land Use Plan calls for Low Density Residential. The Comprehensive Plan specifies density no greater than 15 units per acre. Chairman Green: Asks staff to focus specifically on changes that have been made since previous meetings rather than to start from the beginning on this project. Staff Report, Matt Alfele: Planning Commission originally heard this application on April 18 and asked the applicant to wait until the County made a decision on their portion, which they eventually approved. This item was then presented in front of the Commission again in October and Commissioners noted storm water concerns, in which a work session with the applicant was held on October 30 to discuss concerns with the name of the development. The Human Rights Commission was contacted regarding the name of the development as being derogatory and Ms. Creasy will present the feedback given from that meeting. Ms. Creasy: Recommendations include that the Planning Commission should engage the residents of the Hogwaller neighborhood to see what they think about the development name and if the Planning Commission feels strongly about using the name, it could be called “Waller Farms” or be called something else and have a historic plaque be platted in the area to acknowledge the neighborhood name. Continued Staff Report, Matt Alfele: Regarding the concern with the future by-right commercial retail development, the applicant updated their proffer statement to reflect a 4000 square foot gross floor maximum for any commercial use on the site. Regarding the convenience store use, staff recommended the applicant to get a zoning determination letter from the zoning administrator on the definition of a convenience store and no action was taken by the applicant. For the concern over special uses that remain over the proffered matrix, staff consulted with the City Attorney’s Office and it was determined that SUPs could be removed from the proffered use matrix and the applicant updated the proffer statement to remove all SUPs except for utilities, facilities, farmers markets and outdoor parks. Regarding the concern that not enough affordable units will be provided, the applicant updated the proffer statement relating to affordable housing. Relating to how storm water would be handled on site, staff updated that analysis. Notes that the Commission may want to keep the following density in 5 mind during discussion: under current R-2 zoning, the subject property could accommodate 4-5 detached single family homes, each up to 4 unrelated, or 3-4 attached single family homes, each with up to 4 unrelated. If the zoning is changed to highway corridor, no single family homes would be allowed and the by-right density of the highway corridor would be 0. If the property is rezoned and the SUP is approved, the density would be 32 DUA, which would allow for 30 units. The current zoning is 4-8 units. COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS Commissioner Solla-Yates: Mr. Mitchell was concerned that the storm water be treated onsite, including the county portion, instead of using offsite storm water credits. Where is staff on that plan? Mr. Alfele: One of the conditions that staff recommends is that onsite storm water be handled to the best of their ability, but there are some unknown factors with it being in the floodplain and staff wanted to leave a little wiggle room in that condition just in case there were engineering issues later on in development. Commissioner Lahendro: What exactly is the wiggle room that they have set in place? Mr. Alfele: The minimum storm water management must comply with the VSMP and there is a preference for onsite quality treatment. One other condition being proposed via state code would allow DEQ to review the whole site, which is the preference of the City, but an agreement with the County is necessary before that can go forward. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Asks for clarification on the affordable units and how they will be governed and enforce compliance with the requirements. Will they be subject to the standard operating procedures and will they have to accept housing vouchers? Mr. Alfele: Would like to leave it up to the applicant to address, but notes that staff would enforce what is proffered right now and the mechanism to do that would be to join forces with a nonprofit but that is not currently in the proffer. Applicant Justin Shimp, Shimp Engineering: Would like to discuss the enforcement of the affordable housing and notes that they can operate it and would turn in a report to the housing office every year showing that they complied. As far as the vouchers go, they are fully intending on using those. The affordable housing has also been reduced to 50% AMI. Notes that concerns regarding the floodplain construction have come up but clarifies that it is not part of the Commissioners vote because it is permitted by-right. It is not a question of if it will be build, but rather what would be built on the property. They tested the soil to be sure it would support the farm and the results show that they have only very small amounts of mitigation to do. In terms of the convenience store, they did not want to preclude that in case someone wanted to build this in the future, which would have positive impacts. It would be on a small scale with 4000 square feet and does not think it would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Applicant is supportive of the City’s position relating to storm water runoff, and notes that there is only a very small risk of flooding on the development area. Applicant would like to highlight a few conditions made in the SUP that he would like to make revisions to, which are to allow for flexibility in the how number of bedrooms allowed in each unit are broken out while keeping the maximum number of units as proposed at 42, to have an 8 foot setback to address the articulation on the street and be required to shift the plane of the building, to revise the traffic plan to use the same road between farm and residential traffic because the farm traffic would be minimal, and to make the adjustment that it does meet the Land Use map if you treat the whole 3 acres as development. Notes that he does not agree with any comments stating that the name ‘Hogwaller” is racially 6 driven and that some people like the suggestion that the Hogwaller is for “hogs” and not for people and believes the name pays honor to the history and the tradition of its name. COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS Commissioner Stolzenberg: Would like clarification on the new floodplain that was given. It looks like the topography matches the GIS but the level of the floodplain is 324 feet, as opposed to 331 on GIS. Where did the 7 foot difference come from? Mr. Shimp: It is from a flood study that was done years ago for the Woolen Mills project and there was a technical revision that is on the revised set of maps on the FEMA website. That number is the legal floodplain boundary in elevation. Commissioner Dowell: What made you decide to change the hard definition of the numbers of bedrooms and move towards having a mix? Mr. Shimp: Notes that he fully intends to build the mix, but would like to have the hard requirements removed for flexibility purposes in case there is a technical reason that wouldn’t allow him to build those specific units. Commissioner Lahendro: Asks for clarity on the new edits presented tonight and asks if staff has seen these suggestions. Is this all new information to the Commission, staff and the public? Mr. Shimp: No, staff has not reviewed them. These edits are requested amendments for the Commission to make that would give them a little more flexibility over producing a better project. Chairman Green: Asks if the applicant has a FEMA permit, or if the permit is from the City based off of FEMA maps. Mr. Shimp: Both. There is a conditional letter of map revision and they have a City floodplain development permit. Chairman Green: How would the floodplain update affect the current permit if it were to change? Would it void the permit or would it need to be updated? Mr. Shimp: It would depend but it will most likely be revalidated. However, if the elevation changed, a new floodplain permit would need to be done. The processes usually take multiple years, so he believes something will be built before that point. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Wouldn’t the reevaluation be done based on higher hundred year precipitation totals, meaning the floodplain would move up? Chairman Green: The County is working with FEMA to update the County floodplain maps. The process takes 3 years and hopefully something will have been built by then. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Asks what the thought process was when the affordable housing was changed to 50% AMI versus 80%, and are you taking the HUD AMI numbers and multiplying them by 50 and then taking 30% of income, or will you adhere to the HUD low home limits? 7 Mr. Shimp: It is interpreted as the HUD low limits and the HUD low is 50%. The attempt is to try and increase affordability as much as possible since that was voiced as a concern. Chairman Green: How many units are you anticipating? Mr. Shimp: 30, which would mean 3 affordable units would be available. Chairman Green: How will that be enforced and regulated? Mr. Shimp: A report would be turned in each year to be sure they all meet the threshold to live there. Technically, it would be a zoning issue that could be enforced if there was a complaint that they were in violation of the rule. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Asks if the affordable units would be one or two bedrooms. Mr. Shimp: Unsure but notes that they would be on the ground floor, but is open to hearing preferences from the Commission. Chairman Green: Asks Ms. Robertson how the City handles proffer violations. Ms. Robertson: A proffer is a zoning regulation. In order to pursue a violation, zoning staff would have to provide evidence that there is a violation, which would be very difficult to enforce. This proffer does not address what kind of affirmative information would be provided on an ongoing basis on how the affordability is being maintained. PUBLIC HEARING David Katz: Resident of the City of Charlottesville and thinks building new homes on a floodplain is a bad idea and suggests that the Planning Commission should vote against the project. The project will be in the 100 year floodplain, which means every year there is a 1% chance of there being a flood. Within a 30 year span, there would be a 26% chance of a flood occurring, which is a 1 in 4 chance. Notes that the area is prone to flooding. There are other environmental issues that others will address but this area is a marshland that is a natural pollutant. Disappearing marshland is a known environmental concern in the City and County. This project would be part of the City of Charlottesville and in Albemarle County and the County is not allowing any development on their side of the boundary and an invisible line in the sand does not change the features of that land. Karen Katz: Resident of the City of Charlottesville and mentions that it is ironic that the name may have more significance than we thought, as it appears they are wrestling with how to respond to a “pig in a poke.” A pig in a poke is commonly defined as an offer or deal that is foolishly accepted without being examined first. The community has found themselves threatened by the effects of unprecedented severe weather events, the land has increased exponentially as a marshland, as a sponge and a filter to manage storm water that flows from upstream. The land has continued to be recognized as unsuitable for building and the engineers have tried to turn the land into something that it is not intended to be. Commissioners are faced with the task of rezoning a site that has acted as a natural sponge and filter to absorb storm water runoff from the City and filter it before it enters Moore’s Creek and the Rivanna River, when Moore’s Creek is officially designated as an impaired waterway. This geographic disparity has troubling implications and offers an opportunity to engage in better planning development. 8 Mark Kavit: Points out that DEQ has not heard about this plan as of yesterday. Tonight the Commission is tasked with an important decision on land use, not a political decision on land use. It is the job of City Council to make political decisions. Everyone wants more land to build on and more affordable housing, but key points need to be addressed about this decision, which include not putting people and property at risk, not putting development profits before our building to ensure the safety of people and property, and not building in a floodplain where there have been 5 floods since 1936. During the flood of 1969 the residents of Nassau Street had to use boats to get around the town. Notes that Charlottesville should be proud of what we create and we don’t want to build the slums of tomorrow. Most of the world is moving away from building on floodplains and doesn’t understand why Charlottesville would consider it because the entire area is in a floodplain. Notes that Commission needs to follow the Comprehensive Plan and follow the best practices by rejecting this plan. Mentions that City Council wants to change zoning away from highway corridor for this area, so why would the Commission even consider the idea of expanding? States that the affordable housing problems will not be solved by just putting one or two units in a location. Fran Joseph: Shares a concern that she is worried about the affordable housing being placed out front in order to get an SUP or rezoning when it’s for 12 years. We need a plan that’s going to give us affordable housing for the long term. Kimber Hawkey: Resident of Belmont/Carlton and states that this does not fit in line with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comp Plan promotes having a green city, healthy air, natural areas, a healthy ecosystem, improving and protecting streams, etc., yet the Commission is considering rezoning to build high density in a natural floodplain and destroying a natural habitat that serves as a filter for Moore’s Creek and the Rivanna. Another goal is to have a robust urban forest and expand the urban tree canopy, but this plan would do just the opposite. Notes that houses and impervious surfaces make flooding worse, but trees help during flooding so more trees should be planted there. The Comp Plan also states that quality housing, viable neighborhoods, and to ensure environmental sustainability of these areas are all important and building on a floodplain is not a viable solution. The Rivanna is valuable and there is a goal to promote the river and system, but this project would eliminate a natural wetland filter and will have negative effects on Moore’s Creek. Farm runoff will further pollute the creek and ultimately affect the Rivanna. The idea of the urban farm is a good idea but the natural wetlands area is simply not a good place to put an urban farm. Rather, suggests creating a resilient local foods system by simply promoting community gardens and a farmers market to have more food independence. Michael Payne: Resident of Belmont and reiterates that the Planning Commission should seriously consider the environmental impacts. A few years ago housing was proposed by a nonprofit and it was decided that the housing was not feasible and it would have to be built on stilts for it to be viable. States that we have to figure out a way to incorporate climate change into Planning Commission decisions and city development decisions. Floodplain maps are also outdated and will only continue to accelerate, which needs to be taken into account when making floodplain impact decisions. COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION Commissioner Solla-Yates: Asks for staff to comment on the new information that was presented tonight Mr. Alfele: The floodplain information provided tonight is new information to staff. We do have a floodplain administrator that can look at the plans. 9 Chairman Green: Where does the GIS map information come from? Commissioner Lahendro: We have staff that reviews this and asks if they have reviewed the application to make a recommendation. What did staff say regarding building within the floodplain? Mr. Alfele: Staff reviewed the plan but the City is very limited on what they can do because it is not a city process. The applicant technically meets all of the federal regulations. Ms. Robertson: Clarifies that we have an overlay zoning district in our ordinance called a flood hazard overlay and there are certain things listed as being permitted within a floodplain. If the items proposed being constructed in a floodplain are allowed by our ordinance, they will have to be flood proofed or treated with standards required by federal regulations. It’s more of a verification of use from a zoning perspective to make sure the use is allowed in our overlay district, and after that it is a building permit issue to ensure the structures are compliant. Chairman Green: Regarding the Standards of Review, notes that the Commission must decide (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. Commissioner Stolzenberg: The question of where the floodplain is does fall within the standards of review because the Comprehensive Plan addresses floodplains. If the applicant was mistaken in his edited 324 feet floodplain level, would it invalidate this decision if it turns out he is wrong? Ms. Robertson: For this stage, a general idea of where the floodplain is would be appropriate and Commission may note there are some concerns. For the actual verification of the limits of the floodplain, that happens later in the development process. Ms. Creasy: The floodplain administrator is involved with this and spent a lengthy amount of time on the phone with citizens discussing the development. Right now we are just deciding a general standpoint and it will get more specified at a later date. Ms. Robertson: It can be complicated because some locations only have approximate locations for making determinations regarding what the requirements may be. Commissioner Lahendro: Does staff have any initial comments or thoughts regarding the changes that the applicant made even though there has not been adequate time for review? Mr. Alfele: There are concerns with changing the conditions that were submitted in the original SUP and these changes are not reflected in the application. States that a street wall regulation was a concern during the transition from Linden Lofts that the City Urban Designer came up with and cannot personally speak to whether that change would work or not. The concern for the traffic control was conditioned in case there were conflicts between the residential and farm use vehicles. 10 Commissioner Lahendro: Notes he is extremely uncomfortable with the applicant making significant changes without the opportunity for the Commission, staff and the public to review ahead of time and does not feel that this should be allowed. Asks if staff feels as if these changes should be allowed? Commissioner Stolzenberg: Were these conditions were part of staff’s recommendations or part of the initial application? Mr. Alfele: Staff’s recommendations are in the SUP report that came out a week prior to the meeting. The applicant looked at these recommendations and came up with his own counter and is offering that to the Commission tonight. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Regarding the stepback after the second story, will it impact how many units can be built? Mr. Alfele: The applicant is trying to say that the condition could impact the number of units. There is an easement that runs through the parking lot and the applicant could not push into that easement. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioner Dowell: Notes that it is not fair to the Planning Commission, staff or residents that people come to the night of their presentation with new information or handouts. The Planning Commission and our citizens need to have the time to review new information beforehand. As a body, the Commission should not accept handouts at meetings without first having time to review them. Commissioner Lahendro: Agrees and states again that the changes are significant and that they need to be reviewed first. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Agrees with Commissioner Dowell in general, but notes that in this particular instance there is a change in the floodplain and would separate that from these condition edits. The applicant typically views the conditions and makes a case at the podium. Ms. Creasy: Clarifies that the motion for the rezoning must come before the SUP motion. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Notes that given the housing crisis that we are in, if it is true that this property is barely in the floodplain by barely a foot or two, and that we are getting affordable units at 50% AMI, it would be a shame to deny this project on the basis of the concerns stated. Commissioner Dowell: Notes that while she appreciates the 50% AMI, 3 units will not make a big difference on the affordable housing crisis and the long term consequences of building in the floodplain have not been fully assessed. Commissioner Stolzenberg: 3 units alone may not make a difference, but they do add up. Agrees with the possible impact on Moore’s Creek and would be sympathetic and conditions could be imposed for that on the SUP. Commissioner Lahendro: Asks for clarification on which application is being voted on and if it includes the edits. 11 Chairman Green: Shares concerns about the new floodplain map. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Believes the applicant said the change would not have been reflected on the map and only on the elevation of the flood. Requests for the applicant come forward to provide clarification. Chairman Green: Does not think we should have a debate or work session, but if the Commission is okay with getting clarification. Commissioner Lahendro and Commissioner Solla-Yates both consent to this clarification. Mr. Shimp: FEMA affects the elevation, so if you look at the floodplain study there are tables that have the floodplain elevation for different cross sections. Within those, it outlines the new elevations, which match with the field survey for the floodplain. There will be steps after construction to establish the bounds and ensure the floodplain does not affect the buildings and the floodplain is 6 feet lower than the buildings proposed and barely touches the back of the property. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Asks if the applicant would be building more than 6 feet lower. Mr. Shimp: It would be approximately 6 feet of fill placed under the building. Commissioner Dowell: Notes that we continue to get applications that do not match the Comprehensive Plan and that we need to follow that plan. Commissioner Lahendro: Would like clarification that we are not voting on the changes that have been made by the applicant. Commissioner Solla-Yates: Confirms that is correct. Commissioner Solla-Yates moves to recommend approval of this application to rezone the subject properties from R-2 to Highway on the basis that the proposal would service the interests of the general public and good zoning practice. Seconded by Commissioner Stolzenberg. Motion fails 3-2. Commissioner Solla-Yates moves to recommend denial of this application to rezone the subject properties from R-2 to Highway on the basis that the proposal would not service the interests of the general public and good zoning practice. Seconded by Commissioner Dowell. Motion is approved 3-2. Chairman Green: Asks for clarification with legal at what point are there so many conditions that it no longer meets good zoning practice. Ms. Robertson: That is not a legal conclusion because it depends on circumstances of a particular case. b. SP18-00004 – (918 Nassau Street) (Hogwaller Farm Development) Justin Shimp (Shimp Engineering) on behalf of Charles Hurt and Shirley Fisher (landowners) have submitted an application seeking approval of a Special Use permit (SUP) for a portion of Tax Map 61 Parcel 79, Tax Map 61 Parcels 79.16, 79.17, 79.18, & 79.19, 918 Nassau Street (Subject Properties). The SUP application proposes a density of 32 Dwelling Units Acres (DUA) per City Code Sec. 34-740. The applicant is requesting a rezoning (see 12 petition ZM-18-00001) and a SUP for the proposed development of eighteen (18) one-bedroom and twelve (12) two-bedroom units split between two (2) three-story buildings for a total of thirty (30) dwelling units. The development is being proposed as an urban farm and will accommodate a 1,280 square foot greenhouse and a 600 square foot retail farm store. Additional parking, farm sheds (not to exceed 600 square feet), and agricultural fields supporting the development are proposed on an adjacent 7.52 acre county parcel. The Subject Properties are further identified on City Real Property Tax Map 61 Parcels 79, 79.16, 79.17, 79.18, 79.19, & 79.20. The Subject Properties are approximately 0.94 acres and has road frontage on Nassau Street. The Land Use Plan calls for Low Density Residential. The Comprehensive Plan specifies density no greater than 15 units per acre. Commissioner Solla-Yates: Asks if the SUP would still apply if the rezoning did not pass. Ms. Creasy: The vote that you take on it with the recommendation cannot be in the affirmative because it would not be applicable, but a recommendation will be sent to City Council and they could choose a different route on the rezoning, so any information the Commission would want to share with them if they choose to do that should be done at this point. Chairman Green: States that this is not the appropriate place to try and make these conditions work. Ms. Robertson: Comments on conditions 11, 12 and 13 for formatting purposes by saying that condition item 11 is intended to deal with identification of wetlands that may be on the property and it is typically written as seeking “a delineation of wetlands” and then provide documentation of the results of the delineation as part of a site plan process. On item 12, normally an SUP condition would not impose requirements on two local governments, so it could be tweaked a little bit to state that the applicant shall cooperate with any joint or cross jurisdictional implementation of the regulations. For the portion of item 13 that states that storm water management must comply with the requirements of the VSMP, points out to the applicant that there are state technical criteria that apply and if the intention is to say that onsite water quality treatment will be provided during the development, it would be better to clarify that by saying “in complying with state regulations, onsite water quality treatment will be provided.” Chairman Green: Clarifies that in the event that City Council overturns the Commission’s decision and the SUP goes through, the Commission should make a comment based off of the recommendations. Commissioner Solla-Yates moves to recommend approval of this application for a Special Use Permit for subject properties in the R-2 (application ZM18-00001 under review to rezone from R-2 to HW) zone to permit residential development with residential density with the listed conditions on pages 18 and 19 of the staff report determined with some language strengthening for the preference for onsite water quality treatment. Motion withdrawn. Ms. Creasy: Notes that the Commission cannot have a motion for approval on something that you have a recommendation for denial on the zoning for because the SUP could not come to pass. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Clarifies that the only choice is to vote to deny the SUP request. Mr. Alfele: Clarifies that currently the SUP cannot pass with the denial of the rezoning application. However, you can make recommendations that go in the memo to City Council, should they approve the rezoning and the SUP after the Planning Commission’s recommendation of denial. This would be separate from the motion, but it would be included in the report that is taken to City Council. 13 Chairman Green: Notes that without these recommendations, they would be left with no conditions. Commissioner Dowell moves to recommend denial of this application for a Special Use Permit for the subject properties in the R-2 zone. Seconded by Commissioner Solla-Yates. Motion passes 3-2. Chairman Green moves that in the event that this motion is overturned and approved by City Council, the Commission recommends the conditions on pages 18 and 19 of the staff report be taken into consideration and approved with amendments to items 11, 12 and 13 for clarity. Seconded by Commissioner Lahendro. Motion is approved 4-1. Commissioner Stolzenberg moves to make an amendment that at a minimum, storm water management must comply with the requirements of the VSMP. In addition, the applicant shall capture and treat storm water from the development onsite, including the County parcel, to the greatest possible extent while complying with restrictions on locating certain best management practices in the 100 year flood plan. Accepted by Commissioner Lahendro. Motion fails 4-1. Chairman Green: Notes that we do not know if that would be best practice to treat it onsite. Commissioner Stolzenberg moves to make an amendment to strike Condition 4 and not accept the proposed replacement and to accept the developers proposed changes to the first two edits to 2A and not the third. Motion dies. Commissioner Lahendro: Would like to hear Commissioner Stolzenberg’s thoughts behind making this recommendation. Commissioner Stolzenberg: If we keep condition 4 as is, it would conflict with the others. If it will remove units, then the entire condition becomes invalid. The developer suggested their needed flexibility and we should not be excluding it so the developer has the potential to build a larger number of units. Ms. Creasy: Notes that that amendment is different from what the application is requesting. Chairman Green: Would like to stick with her recommended conditions from the motions. Commissioner Dowell: Thinks it doesn’t matter one way or the other because the Commission is not supporting the project and notes that this is the reason why residents do not participate in public policy. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Thinks that it is important to give as much information as possible to Council. Ms. Robertson: Council will have their own public hearing where staff and the applicant can present their recommendations to council separately. If council decides to approve the rezoning and the SUP, then they can craft the conditions without the Commission’s input. Recommends voting on the main motion even though they were somewhat divided on the conditions. Chairman Green: Comments on the Hogwaller name, stating that the applicant should follow the Human Rights Commission if it were to pass because it is not about how it makes the applicant feel, but rather it is about how it makes other people feel. Also notes that FEMA is in the process of updating floodplain maps and has asked the 14 community to provide input from the County. There is a meeting regarding this on December 13 at 9am in the County Office Building. 2. ZT18-11-05: Amusement Centers A proposed amendment to the text of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, City Code sections 34-480, 34-796, and 34- 1200 to revise the definition of “amusement center” and identify the zoning classifications where this use is allowable. Staff Report, Brian Haluska: In the initiation for this change, staff discussed looking at the definitions as well as the use matrices where these particular uses are permitted. In our current code, the definition of “amusement center” is currently three electronic games in which you have to pay to activate in some fashion, or more than one billiard table in which you have to pay to use. It is currently allowed by-right in one district, the Highway Corridor, and is allowed by Special Use, and several other corridors. Staff identified three applications of the definition. Firstly, it could be a typical restaurant with games in the corner. Secondly, it would cover the classic arcade with electronic games and it is the lone purpose of the business. The third option is a hybrid between the two where they are oriented towards adults with food, seating, and a large number of modern games. In all cases, staff came to the conclusion that the games aren’t causing problems in any of these businesses. However, what could be causing problems are how the business is being managed. The concern is no longer about the problems that arise in these types of institutions, so staff recommends not having them be as highly regulated as they are and recommends moving this to a provisional use permit where a form can be filled out to have permission to use it as long as they agree to the conditions are listed in the code. The conditions being proposed are the same being used in music halls where if the business has a certain number of calls for business (4 calls) in a calendar year, then the permit can be revoked. One exception would be to keep Special Use Permits for the Corner district because of traffic concerns regarding pedestrian access. They are also proposing to strike it from the South Street Corridor because it is a more residential area and would be out of character with the area. Mr. Stolzenberg mentioned another section of the code that deals with provisional use permits in section 34-181V, and staff does not currently propose any amendments but at some point the section should be revised to include an up-to-date list of provisional use permits, but all of the rules still apply to any special use permit in the city. COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS Commissioner Dowell: Asks what applicants this amendment would impact. Mr. Haluska: It would impact two existing businesses that are not in compliance with the zoning ordinance. In addition, staff has been approached by someone interested in opening a billiards facility in one of the zones where it is not allowed at all and staff feels as if the location would be an appropriate place for it to go. Chairman Green: Asks for clarity if they are nonconforming or illegal. Mr. Haluska: They are currently illegal. Commissioner Solla-Yates: Understands that the provisional use for music halls was driven by noise ordinance violations, specifically in Belmont. Does staff foresee similar noise violations from arcades and billiards? Mr. Haluska: Not from the machines themselves, they are internal machines where the activity is enclosed. Notes that the text being proposed is identical to the one in music halls and the noise ordinance is enforced by the 15 police department. If a business did get a noise complaint operating this ordinance, it would probably be from mismanagement of crowds and if they received more than 4 complaints the permit could be revoked. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Do you think that most patrons of restaurants and bars on the Corner drive? Mr. Haluska: No. Commissioner Solla-Yates: Asks what is different about South Street from the other areas? Mr. Haluska: There is a smaller height requirement and are very close to residential areas. It may be too intensive of an allowance for some districts and it has already been cut from High Street and NCC, and they are adding South Street to the list because it is neighborhood scale. Commissioner Dowell: Doesn’t South Street have a brewery? Commissioner Stolzenberg: It’s actually just outside of the South Street district, but it is on the same street. That brewery is actually in the Water Street district. Commissioner Solla-Yates: Would it be reasonable to just to by-right usage instead of taking the provisional use method? Mr. Haluska: If there was no concern of the buildings ever being out of control in some way and notes that he doesn’t think those types of establishments would locate downtown because of parking. Typically they go near shopping malls or strip areas where there is a large amount of parking. If there are any concerns about detrimental impacts or people getting out of hand, then they could have to sign the form stating that they would comply with the rules. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Can you break out all night amusement centers if there is a worry for late night? Mr. Haluska: You could add a condition in the list that staff proposed stating limits on hours of operation. If people are concerned about the impact with alcohol service, ABC requires that to be cut off at 2am. Chairman Green: Notes that this does not apply to private clubs because the alcohol doesn’t stop and the noise could increase. Mr. Haluska: Most private clubs require special use permits within the city. Commissioner Dowell: Would like to see more activities of this nature and encourages the Commission to approve the text amendment. Chairman Green: Is it essentially being moved from an accessory use to a primary use? Mr. Haluska: As it is worded right now, it is not permissible as an accessory use, it is its own component of a business the way the definition is written. Once you get above three machines, a business would be classified as a restaurant with an amusement center on the side. Chairman Green: Did you contemplate making it an accessory use so it can be more of a family event space? 16 Mr. Haluska: Notes that it could be moved to an ancillary use where it is not the primary establishment. Concerned about the standalone arcade that its only purpose is to play games. Chairman Green: Why would we need 2:00- 6:00 am arcades? How many provisional permits in the city for bad businesses have you revoked? Mr. Haluska: The time guidelines were just taken directly from the music hall regulations. Directs the provisional permits question to the zoning administrator. Ms. Creasy: States that there are none. Mr. Craig Fabio: The current location that the applicant is seeking the code change for had a music hall permit revoked, so there is at least one. Mr. Haluska: Mr. Fabio is indicating that someone operating a business in a location had their music hall permit revoked, but that this application is for an entirely different group running a different business, just in the same location. PUBLIC HEARING Valerie Long: Encourages Commission to consider this to be a by-right use because the uses are very different than they used to be. Anytime a special use permit is required, it is extraordinarily more difficult and time consuming and becomes unlikely to achieve. It is ideal if there is more of an administrative process that can address all of the concerns internally and regulate for those issues outside of the special use permit process. Judi McMullen: Owner of an establishment that would like to pass this ruling. Notes they are trying to overcome what used to be a music hall establishment and change the atmosphere to promote a family friendly space. They do not plan to have late hours into the night, although they do plan to serve alcohol. Commissioner Solla-Yates: Asks Ms. McMullen the name of the organization she is referring to. Ms. McMullen: 917 Preston Plaza behind Sticks. Craig Fabio: Belmont resident and believes it is appropriate and provides some means of control in a situation where there could be a bad operator. The music hall permit is in place because of the Belmont neighborhood because of one bad egg. If there was a provisional use permit process in place at that time, things could have been resolved much faster. Notes that it is a means to provide protection for the community and the provisional use permit is inexpensive and easy to work with on a staff level. COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION Commissioner Stolzenberg: Would like to know to what extent the zoning matrix can be edited, or would it have to be sent back? Chairman Green: If you add it to a zoning matrix district where it is not, you would have to send it back. 17 Chairman Green: There is only one district in the proposal where there is special use, which is in the Corner district where there were traffic and parking concerns but she does not agree that traffic is a problem in the area Mr. Haluska: Clarifies that it is pedestrian traffic and there is at least one business where there are questions about lines queueing out onto sidewalks during the lunch hour. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Recognizes this but states that this use is about as intense as restaurants, which are by-right and can think of at least one location on the Corner that would qualify under these rules. Would like for the Corner to be provisional use and institute a separate rule about having queues on the sidewalk if necessary. Would like to consider making commercial and industrial uses by-right because of potential impacts that could be fixed by revoking a provisional use permit may not apply. Chairman Green: Does not agree and thinks they back up to many neighborhoods, including her own. Commissioner Dowell: Does not see organizations like Dave and Busters and Chuck E Cheese causing noise disturbances and would like some clarity on what kind of organizations would have noise issues outside of the organization. Chairman Green: That is an accessory use to a restaurant, not a standalone primary use, and that makes a difference. Notes that usually the families are not the problem, it’s the potential establishments that are open late at night that may produce loud crowds. We have to plan for all of the things that could potentially happen and thinks a provisional change is the right way to go to ensure that it does not backfire because you never know what will come forth in the future to plan for the unknown. Ms. Robertson: Reminds the Commission that it can be a pool hall as well. Commissioner Stolzenberg: We do have separate regulations regarding pool halls. Ms. Robertson: Clarifies that the definition encompasses more than just the machines. Commissioner Solla-Yates: Would like to try to predict and prevent legal issues in the wording, but cannot think of any issues that may arise within the organization. Chairman Green: Comments that inside the organization is not typically the problem, but it is all about the problems outside the organization. This is why provisional permits are a better way to go. We have zoning laws that offer protection and without enforcing them, there would be no reason for them in the first place. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Asks if the cost is an administrator review that is not discretionary Mr. Haluska: Regarding the provision use permit process, the applicant must agree to follow the rules in the code. Commissioner Stolzenberg moves to recommend approval of this zoning text amendment to amend to the Provisional Use Permit regulations (§34-1170 et seq.), the Commercial district use matrix (§34-480) and the Mixed-Use (§34-796) district use matrix of the Code of The City of Charlottesville, 1990, as amended, to amend the regulations for Amusement Centers on the basis that the changes would serve the interests of (public necessity, convenience, general public welfare and/or good zoning practice) with the following additions and modifications: change Corner district use matrix to provisional use. Seconded by Commissioner Lahendro. Motion is Approved 5-0. 18 Commissioner Stolzenberg moves to add an amendment to change only industrial corridor on River Road and Harris Street to by-right. Motion dies. 3. ZT18-11-06: Primary and Linking Street Designations in Mixed Use Zones A proposed amendment to the text of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, City Code section 34-541 to include any undesignated streets into the designated streets listing, correct any clerical errors and standardize the language used to identify streets. The following zoning districts and streets are included: Downtown Extended Corridor: East Market Street, 1st Street, 4th Street, Elliott Avenue, Levy Avenue, East Water Street, East South Street, Graves Street, Lyman Street and City Walk Way. Downtown North Corridor: 8th Street, N.E., 5th Street, NE, 1st Street, 4th Street, NE, 9th Street, NE, 2nd Street, NE, 2nd Street, NW, 7th Street, NE, 6th Street NE, 3rd Street NE, 8th Street, 11st Street NE, Locust Avenue, Lexington Avenue, East Market Street, West Market Street, East High Street, West High Street, 10th Street NE, 9 ½ Street NE, Park Street, Court Square and Altamont Circle. Cherry Avenue Corridor: 4th Street, 5th Street, Delevan Street, Estes St., Grove St., King St., Nalle St., 9th St., 6th St., 6½ St., 7th St, Roosevelt Brown Boulevard, Dice Street, Elm Street. Neighborhood Commercial Corridor: Bainbridge St., Carlton Avenue, Douglas Avenue, Fontaine Avenue, Garden Street, Goodman Street, Hinton Avenue, Holly Street, Lewis Street, Maury Avenue, Monticello Road, Walnut Street, Meridian Street, Jefferson Park Avenue and Price Avenue. High Street Corridor: 11th Street, Willow Drive, 10th Street NE, 13th Street NE, Duke Street, and Little High Street. Highway Corridor: 5th Street, Eastview Street, Monticello Avenue, Carlton Road, Hillsdale Drive, 250 Bypass, Monticello Road, Rives Street, Nassau Street, Quarry Road and Druid Avenue. Urban Corridor: University Avenue, Old Ivy Road, Wise Street and 250 Bypass. Corner District: 12th Street, 12 ½ Street, 13th Street, 14th Street, Jefferson Park Avenue, Minor Court Lane. Staff Report, Brian Haluska: This an edit to 34-541 to fix many staff frustrations with the section. It came forward because of a site plan submitted in the downtown north district that fronted on 10th Street. In this district, height is delineated by the street that it is fronting on. 10th street was not listed on either list, which led to a lot of frustration when trying to determine height requirements. Staff went through section 34-541 where there were primary and linking streets delineated and removed West and East Main Street since they were taken care of in the revision of their code. Downtown and Water Street are not on here because all streets are primary in those districts. Anywhere where there is an existing street where it was a continuation of a name that was a primary street are on the primary list and all others are on the linking list. Because they touch these roads they can cause confusion if anyone tries to develop them. All of the number and direction streets were also standardized and spelled out all of the street names. One last thing to note is that the current section says the North Downtown District but the proper name is Downtown North. Commissioner Dowell: Asks if the 10th Street on the Central City Corridor should be called 10th Street Northwest. Mr. Haluska: There is a 10th Street Northwest on the draft in the section as it is. In the revised version, 10th Street is 10th Street Northwest. Commissioner Solla-Yates: Asks what the determination is of a primary versus a linking street. 19 Mr. Haluska: They were designated when the codes were adopted in 2003 and those with a higher functional classification tend to be primary streets, but there was probably not a hard and fast rule when it was created. Chairman Green: Wouldn’t it involve transportations designations for VDOT? Mr. Haluska: No, and Streets that Work did not change this list either because it only involves the public realm. Ms. Robertson: Recalls that this was an attempt to incorporate some elements of a form-based code and primary streets were streets where you were focusing the desire to have more activity and a specific architectural presentation and linking streets were less significant in terms of activation. Chairman Green: Clarifies that this is essentially just a cleanup of the existing roads. Mr. Haluska: Correct. PUBLIC HEARING Valerie Long: Thinks that the concept of these changes make sense and help provide clarity, but asks for it to be deferred to allow time for the local development community and design professionals to work with Mr. Haluska to be sure that these are the right designations for all zoning districts. Does not believe was any public outreach or engagement on the issue and there should be. Bill Emory: If there were substantial changes to this it would be one thing, but the neighborhoods and the public have had the chance to view the Planning Commission agenda for tonight so no additional action is required for the public. The development community should not be able to sit down with Mr. Haluska to discuss these changes unless all of the people in all of the neighborhoods do as well. COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION Commissioner Solla-Yates: Notes that Ms. Long’s comments are valid and that this is not the time to be making changes on designation, but he would like to review this when zoning is redone. Commissioner Lahendro moves to recommend approval of this zoning text amendment to the intent and description of the mixed use districts (§34-541 et seq.), of the Code of The City of Charlottesville, 1990, as amended, on the basis that the changes would serve the interests of (public necessity, convenience, general public welfare and/or good zoning practice). Seconded by Commissioner Dowell. Motion is Approved 5-0. 4. ZT18-12-07: Dwelling Units Clarification A proposed amendment to the text of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, City Code Section 34-6 and 34-1200 to clarify language and uses which constitute dwelling units, clarify definitions for Dwelling unit; Dwelling, multifamily; Dwelling, single family attached; Dwelling, single family detached; Dwelling, townhouse; Dwelling, Two-family; DUA; Accessory apartment; Adult assisted living; Bed and breakfast (“B&B”); Bed and breakfast (“Inn”); Boarding 20 house; Boarding, fraternity and sorority house; Condominium, Convent, Dormitory, Family, Family day home, Hotel/motel, and Lodging and add new definitions for Rooming unit and Common Party wall. Staff Report, Craig Fabio: The amendments are a response to a recent Board of Zoning Appeals meeting where it was determined that a fraternity was to be counted as 0 dwelling units in accordance with the way the city code is written. Staff, nor the board, felt that this was an appropriate understanding of the code and clarification was needed to determine what a dwelling unit was, which led to a much larger conversation than just some definition changes. Staff stands with the proposed code this evening. Chairman Green: Notes that this was a topic of conversation during the pre-meeting and a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Clarifies to the public that the conversation from the pre-meeting was about clarifying the definition of dwelling units and the wording “consists of sleeping, bathroom and complete kitchen facilities,” the wording in question was “for the exclusive use of such occupants.” The Board of Zoning Appeals seemed to agree with that wording and deemed a fraternity house zero dwelling units. COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS Commissioner Solla-Yates: Agrees that this is a much broader approach, but asks why a broader approach is needed. Mr. Fabio: The point of the full review was to not end up back in this position again and simple definition change could have provided a lot of opportunities to find a space in the code where an interpretation could be made and end up back in front of the board. Commissioner Solla-Yates: We are currently in a housing crisis and without a housing coordinator. How will this affect our current housing crisis? Will it help or hurt us? Mr. Fabio: Staff does not think it would impact the housing crisis in any means, but in this case in particular would limit the density. Commissioner Solla-Yates: How would limiting the density affect the housing crisis? Mr. Fabio: Doesn’t know that it would impact the housing crisis whatsoever, but in a situation where a fraternity house is counted as a 0 units, if you have an allowance by code for 6 dwelling units on the property and the fraternity counts as 0, regardless of the number of occupants, it would add that many extra occupants to the established allowable dwelling for that property. Commissioner Solla-Yates: There is an additional change dealing with the definition of a dwelling unit and understands that in general boarding houses are only allowed in one zoning designation, whereas they used to be all throughout the City. Is that correct? Mr. Fabio: Yes, this was a change that occurred in 2003 to greatly limit them, but this change here would not make any changes to where they would currently be allowed. Commissioner Solla-Yates: Understands that the development community have found workarounds with the existing code to provide boarding houses where they are forbidden through creative means. Is that fair to say? 21 Mr. Fabio: It would be fair to say that it has happened in the past, and there are some current attempts to provide housing that staff does not feel meets the current code. Commission Solla-Yates: Does not believe in deceptive zoning. He believes these types of problems should be corrected. Does this timing make sense given the housing issues? Mr. Fabio: Believes that it does make sense because it doesn’t impact the current housing issues. Boarding houses may be a means to help with the housing crisis, but what is being spoken about today does not impact it at all. It clarifies some of the definitions, however where they are permitted is not impacted. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Would like to clarify that under a creative reading of the rules, one could say a 4 bedroom apartment let out to 4 leases could be classified as a boarding house. Was the intent to keep that multifamily? Mr. Fabio: The intent was for it to be multifamily and it wasn’t until early today that that creative possibility could be interpreted. If there is an opportunity for another creative workaround, perhaps we aren’t there yet. Commissioner Dowell: Asks why we are considering fraternity houses where people live not as dwelling units. Mr. Fabio: That was the determination the Board of Zoning Appeals made based on the argument that the applicant brought forth. The zoning administrator determined that the fraternity house would count as one dwelling unit and the applicant made the argument that the code does not state that, for which the board agreed. Commissioner Dowell: Where are boarding houses prohibited in the City? Mr. Fabio: Does not have the matrix on hand, but states that there are only a few locations in the City where they are permitted. Chairman Green: Recommends looking at the zoning ordinance and initiate an additional text amendment to mitigate other concerns, however clarity is still needed for the current definition. Commissioner Stolzenberg: If a limited subset of the edit is approved, could the Commission immediately initiate a new ZTA? Ms. Robertson: Initiating a new ZTA isn’t necessary, it can be done in pieces. You can act on a piece tonight and defer acting on other pieces until later. Suggests leaving the definition of a boarding house as it is currently written, and carve out a new definition later. The rest can be left as written and the other changes are more stylistic ones. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Notes concerns about that solution is that the definition of dormitory as is provides boarding house style accommodations and the definition of boarding house is a building with 3 of more guest rooms. A guest room is a portion of a building used for lodging without a complete set of living accommodations but does not include dormitories. Is there any way to fix this because it doesn’t make any sense? Mr. Fabio: The term “dormitory” is an existing definition that is being tweaked and it can be revised, although there are no dormitories within city limits currently. Ms. Robertson: Some things would technically be within city limits but they aren’t subject to our zoning authority. 22 Chairman Green: Clarifies that the Commission is considering leaving the definition as it currently is and taking out the rest for this motion. Commission is also considering leaving out the new definition for now and removing the changes to dormitory. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Recommends keeping one change to boarding house and strike “no meals are provided to outside guests.” Ms. Robertson: Notes that this could lead to people operating boarding houses with restaurants in them. Commissioner Dowell: Would like to take more time to discuss this during a work session and there is no immediate fix, regardless of making any changes tonight. PUBLIC HEARING Valerie Long: Notes that her firm represented the landowner and applicant in question before the BZA. Clarifies that the fraternity house in question has been in operation for nearly 100 years, so it is not a new proposed boarding house. It is a historic structure that they would like to renovate. Believes that this discussion could have a lot of unintended consequences that could result from making a rushed change. This change warrants broad community engagement and outreach with the development community and the neighborhood. It should not be rushed through and hopes to give everyone an opportunity to go through it in more detail. Just because something looks and functions like a residence or a dwelling unit, doesn’t mean you regulate it by density. Both nursing homes and assisted living facilities are residential structures that are not regulated by density. Justin Shimp: Comments that it is unlikely that there are a line of boarding houses that would take advantage of the density all of a sudden that would require this going through tonight. Because it is not an urgent need, there is time for more input to be had. Encourages the Commission to think about the proposal put forward on the 808 Cherry project and how that might be affected by this change. COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION Chairman Green: Does not recall many items where there has been a need for clarification when people tried to create workarounds. Ms. Creasy: It has not been as frequent as of late, but it has occurred in the past. Commissioner Dowell: Asks if the Commission can defer rather than deny the motion. Ms. Robertson: Confirms that is an option. Commissioner Stolzenberg: States that the best fall back option is to make a motion to strike only “for exclusive use of such occupants” and defer the rest of the motion. Ms. Robertson: If the Commission does this, recommended considering the changes to 34-6, which states that certain things are counted as one unit to clear the issue up. Recommends striking the language regarding the 23 exclusive use because it causes problems in other areas and hopes Commission will consider making their definition look more like the County’s definition. Notes that it does not need to be an urgent decision. Chairman Green: If it is taken back out it has to go to the neighborhoods, not just the developers, so we can get better feedback. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Asks if there are any adverse impacts to taking away the exclusive use clause Ms. Robertson: The exclusive use piece is yielding some creative solutions, which does not always yield dwelling units or accommodations for low income housing and it begs the question about why people should have to live in creative and bizarrely organized living accommodations because of frailties in the definitions. Commissioner Dowell: States that people are living in more creative dwellings because they cannot afford to live in the City of Charlottesville and it forces creative uses to be designed so low income folks can still be in the city. Thinks it should be deferred until it can be gone through in more detail. Chairman Green: States that Ms. Robertson is being very generous with her use of the word creative and doesn’t think anyone would want people to live in those situations. Commissioner Dowell: Where else would they live? Chairman Green: Low income people should not only live in the creative solutions. Commissioner Dowell: They cannot afford any other options. Asks when this would be looked at if it were to be deferred. Ms. Creasy: It would likely be February before it could be worked on. Commissioner Lahendro: Likes the approach of doing the important things that need immediate attention and then coming back at a later date to look at the broader changes. Commissioner Solla-Yates: Agrees with Commissioner Lahendro. Commissioner Lahendro: Asks for Council’s recommendation on what should be addressed tonight. Ms. Robertson: Recommends against doing anything with the boarding house if there are still questions about it. If Commission is interested in dealing with the adverse BZA decision, 34-6 would be the clearest way to deal with that. The language in the current definition of dwelling unit that is creating problems for staff is “kitchen facility for the exclusive use for such occupants” and strike out those words, which would eliminate problems that have been going on lately. Commissioner Solla-Yates moves to recommend approval of this zoning text amendment to amend and re- ordain §34-6 et seq. and portions of §34-1200 (Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance) on the basis that the changes would serve the interests of public necessity, general public welfare and/or good zoning practice, and strike “for the exclusive use of such occupants” from section 34-1200. Seconded by Commissioner Lahendro. Motion is Approved 5-0. 24 Chairman Green: Staff will bring the remaining items to a work session at its earliest convenience to discuss and gain further clarification on item 34-1200. Motion is approved 5-0. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Asks if the boarding house use matrix could be added to the ZTA. Ms. Robertson: That hasn’t been advertised with the rest of this, but at the work session the Commission should focus on the definitions, then bring back the edits and advertise a change to the matrix simultaneously. Chairman Green: Reiterates that we should not have to reinvent the wheel, but to rather look at current definitions of things that are working and work off of that. IV. COMMISSION’S ACTION ITEMS 1. Preliminary Discussion – Belleview Pump Station PUD Staff Report, Matt Alfele: The application being discussed is not complete yet, but staff would like the Commission to provide feedback as the project is getting started and let the applicant be aware of concerns that they may have. A private sanitary pump station is being proposed that would be allowed through an SUP and would be part of the Bellevue/Azalea Cottages subdivision. The SUP is not for density, but rather for private sanitary pump station. Where the subdivision is at, they cannot tie into the City’s gravity fed system. They do not abut any sewer lines and the closest gravity line would be to the south of the proposed property near Azalea Park, which would require easements. The applicant is proposing to collect sanitary sewage within the development and pump it into the City’s sewer system. Public Utilities is heavily involved with this, but would like a preliminary discussion from the Commission about the application. COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS Commissioner Dowell: If this request was not approved, how would the applicant remove the waste? Mr. Alfele: The development is connected and it isn’t completely separate, but wants to be clear that the SUP is not for this development. In theory, a developer could get the easements to tie into gravity fed and the rest would be by-right. The SUP should not be looked at in regards to the development, but only for the pump station. However, the developer would have to look at securing the easements if it wasn’t approved. Chairman Green: Asks how much land it would take up? Mr. Alfele: Does not have an exact dimension, but it would be smaller than a typical lot in the City Commissioner Solla-Yates: Can you quantify the relative cost savings of doing a pump station versus an easement? Mr. Alfele: It depends on the person owning the land of the easement and how much the easement is valued. 25 Commissioner Lahendro: Asks if anything was submitted regarding elevations, the fencing around it, how it would be secured, etc. Mr. Alfele: Nothing has been submitted, but they were talking about it being underground. If that is needed for the public hearing going forward, staff would like to know about those things. Commissioner Lahendro: Believes this is the first pump station that the City would have to take care of and asks if they are equipped to do that. Mr. Alfele: There is nothing of this scale that the City does currently and staff is waiting to hear back from Utilities to understand that further. Commissioner Lahendro: Would the city be evaluating the quality of the pump station to have the opportunity to provide input regarding how it is constructed in case it does fall into the City to take care of? Mr. Alfele: They are still gathering information on how that would look, but staff will inquire about the standards it has been built to. Ms. Robertson: Under the utilities chapter of the code, they would obtain construction plans because they aren’t able to allow connections to the City’s system if those connections would not be safe. They would work with the applicant to determine what information is needed to draw that conclusion. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Is there any recourse to get monetary compensation for the homeowner maintenance? Mr. Alfele: They talked about having a reserve in the HOA to have enough money to maintain it but it is uncharted territory. There are concerns about what would happen if the HOA were to fail. Chairman Green: If the HOA fails in 30 years, will the City have to eventually take this over? Mr. Alfele: That is a fear that Utilities has and would like to navigate whether or not it is sustainable. Commissioner Solla-Yates: There is a public interest in there not being failures and risks. Can the City just fix the sewage connection? Ms. Creasy: The City wouldn’t condemn property for private development. Ms. Robertson: Typically, the service line to a house is on private property and the rule is that the private landowner maintains the facilities on the private land. The City maintains the connection to the public street. Most pumps and service lines to a residence is the responsibility of the landowner to maintain. Chairman Green: How many lots would it encompass? Mr. Alfele: They are applying for 36 homes, but the SUP allows up to 40. If the subdivision ends and the pump station was approved, there are some larger lots that would be subdivided that are not part of the Bellevue that could tie into the private pump. 26 Chairman Green: Will the gravity fed sewer line be in the backyards of five other houses? Mr. Alfele: The 3 on the southeastern side are a BMP for their drainage and the southwestern side has the pump station. Chairman Green: Confirms that only one house would get the underground detention. Asks if the Commission can add this to the list of matrix things that need to be reviewed and asks how many private pump stations are already in the city. Ms. Robertson: The land left to be developed in the city can be a challenge, and it can be difficult to get the sewer to feed by gravity to the nearest public main. If you want to look at the zoning ordinance going forward you should determine how to look at this situation. There are currently no private pump stations, but there are some private mains that cross multiple private lots. These are challenging because it’s the private landowners responsibility to get it into the main. It is a different type of facility but it does move the sewage from a private home across other lots to a public main. Chairman Green: Asks if the requirement for the private owner to be responsible to maintain is in the City’s ordinance. Ms. Robertson: Yes, it is in the utility chapter. Chairman Green: States that maybe that is the problem that needs to be addressed because it is unreasonable. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Why wouldn’t the liability fall on the landowner that gets the pump station on it? Mr. Alfele: That is a part of the code that says there has to be a house on the lot. There can be an easement for the pump station, but whoever buys the house would need to do their research. There are some houses that do this, but this application would be on a much larger scale. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Why wouldn’t 30 individual pumps be feasible? Mr. Alfele: It would be easier to gather them all, but that would be a question for the engineer. Commissioner Lahendro: States that there is a range for how you build the pump station, some lasting longer than others. It would be in the City’s best interest to help the Commission determine the terms for how an SUP could be given and building that into the requirements. This is a fairly common thing to do, but what securities would the City want to have to ensure they are not going to be saddled with something they do not want? Mr. Alfele: Staff definitely will work with Utilities to make these determinations, but wants to hear if there are other major concerns about the project from the Commissioners. Chairman Green: States they don’t know what they are missing so they don’t know what kinds of questions to ask. Ms. Robertson: Recommends the Commission ask questions that they would want to be answered by Utilities, but to help staff determine what questions need to be answered from a planning standpoint. 27 Chairman Green: Would like to see staff provide research of similar projects and SUPS, and to provide guidance/starting points for the Commission to work off of. Would also like to know about other options aside from the HOA, as well as how the maintenance of the easements would be maintained. Commissioner Lahendro: Is interested in the presentation of what it would look like above ground, if anything. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Is particularly interested in how the City would recover the costs if the City has to take over at some point and if there would be any way to get that money back, as well as if it would it require changes to city code to enforce those. Commissioner Solla-Yates: Not a fan of the pump station aesthetically. Notes concerns because the City built a great gravity fed sewer system and would like to see it used. Would like to see if it can be done just like the rest of the City even if it costs a little more money rather than a potential long term serious risk. Commissioner Dowell: Would like to know who would cover the cost if/when it eventually fails. Chairman Green: States that if it does fail, it would likely go into the creek. Applicant – Justin Shimp, Shimp Engineering: In the last 20 years, the HOA issue has come up because of storm water management and an HOA is necessary to maintain the facilities, as well as reserve funds set aside to replace them. There is a model already built for this in the HOA. At Wintergreen, there are 15 pump stations similar to this request that are already used and some places even prefer it because they are not prone to collecting runoff and the pump can fix that. It would be better to have one single pump rather than individual pumps because if it were done individually, there would be an individual fee to cover maintenance issues. To address the cost issue, if it was set up as an HOA and the City had to take it over, if there was a problem with the pump the City would have the right to establish a special district for the houses and charge a fee for maintenance, which would help the City cover the expenses. There is a push to have it underground so the noise would not be a problem and it would look like a dog house set up in the backyard. Commissioner Lahendro: Noticed that there are underground storm water retention devices on both sides of the property. Would the HOA be maintaining these as well? Mr. Shimp: Correct. There is a reserve assessment done by the engineer that works with HOA companies and establishes a replacement lifetime. Commissioner Lahendro: Would the City have to take this over if it failed by the HOA? Mr. Shimp: States that some ordinances maintain that the City would never be responsible. The Albemarle requirement mandates that the residents pay for their storm water and they could file a lean if they didn’t pay for their storm water. States that a shared cost would probably be cheaper than individual fees if problems arise, although there would need to be rules on what can and cannot be put into the sewer to prevent individuals from costing the entire community. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Clarifies that it would be economies of scale versus tragedy in the commons. When the County puts leans on houses for storm water violations, does it include cost of enforcement? 28 Mr. Shimp: Unsure, but states that it doesn’t happen often and hasn’t personally encountered it on any of his projects. Commissioner Lahendro: Asks if the applicant can elaborate on the odor of the pumps and if you could smell it nearby. Mr. Shimp: If you were right on top of it, maybe there would be an odor. The key is for the pump to have frequent cycling to prevent odor issues. Would like to defer to the design staff for further statistics on the odor. Chairman Green: Asks if the Commission had recently seen this application where there was a plan to make combined lots. Mr. Alfele: States that the subdivision came to the Planning Commission with questions that staff could not answer. The Commission decided it was a major subdivision instead of a boundary line adjustment but the lots were nonconforming. They can move closer to conforming, but they do not have to be 6,000 square feet and they can have less than 50 feet of road frontage. However, they have to conform to all other areas of the subdivision and site plan code. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Is the pump sized at 49 houses for spare capacity or are there plan to expand past the 36 houses? Mr. Shimp: There is a safety factor built into the numbers and the extra is for the lots around the area that could be subdivided further but would have no sewer. Because of this, the request from Utilities was to make it large enough to accommodate them so they don’t have to make their own pump later on. Chairman Green: Confirms that there are 40 lots. Commissioner Solla-Yates: How difficult is it to buy an easement? Mr. Shimp: You cannot compel someone to buy an easement and they don’t have to. The City does have condemnation power but they aren’t usually used. Commissioner Lahendro: Are the roads public? Mr. Shimp: Yes, the roads, water and gas are public. The sewer would be the only thing private. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Will the generator be periodically tested to be sure it still works? Mr. Shimp: There is usually a test cycle run once a week for 15 minutes. There would be an auto-dialer to alert City Utilities and cut the water off if something were to go wrong, which is common. Commissioner Solla-Yates: Asks if people want this change Mr. Shimp: States that most people probably won’t even know it exists Chairman Green: That may be true, but only until they get the bill for it and have the extra fee 29 Commissioner Lahendro: Notes that he would like to know that the applicant and Utilities are working together throughout the entire design process. Asks Mr. Shimp if there are any questions for the Commission or anything else he would like to address. Mr. Shimp: Notes that the fundamental elements are sound, smell and appearance, all of which are things that he would like to include in the report to ensure that they are non-impactful. Chairman Green: Recommends having a member of Utilities present during the public hearing to clarify points. Asks if the applicant if he has tried speaking with anyone to see if an easement is possible? Mr. Shimp: Has not had any involvement with it, but the developer sent letters to all neighbors down the hill and offered them an amount of money for the easement. One of the City’s requirements was to make a good faith effort to determine that no one would sell their easement. They have heard back from one person that said no, but still waiting to hear back from the other 6 properties. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Asks if the “dog house” would be lit in some way and asks about the structure of the generator. Mr. Shimp: There would be a small light similar to a yard light outside in case it needs to be checked. There would also be a red light that would flash if something needed attention. As for the generator, there is a control panel on one side with the gauges and the other side would have vents for airflow. It would be similar to a breaker box in the house. In the event of a power outage, it would be covered by the generator because it’s running on gas. Commissioner Lahendro: Would a security fence need to be put around the generator? Mr. Shimp: No, it would be a like a little house with a lock on it to keep it closed up. Notes that there will be a neighborhood meeting tomorrow to discuss the project further and a public hearing might be scheduled for the spring. 2. Comprehensive Plan – reserved time for continued discussions Chairman Green: Commission will meet with Council on Monday for review. The work session on December 18 will be on the CIP and the Emmet Street Streetscape project. V. Adjournment 10:39 pm –Commissioner Stolzenberg moves to adjourn until the second Tuesday in January 2019. City of Charlottesville City Manager’s Office MEMO TO: Planning Commission FROM: Ryan Davidson, Senior Budget and Management Analyst CC: Mike Murphy, Acting City Manager Leslie Beauregard, Assistant City Manager Alex Ikefuna, Director, N.D.S. City Council DATE: January 3, 2019 SUBJECT: F.Y. 2020 – 2024 Proposed Capital Improvement Program Presented for the Planning Commission’s consideration is the Proposed F.Y. 2020 - 2024 Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.). The proposed C.I.P. contains revenues and expenses totaling $35,338,006 in F.Y. 2020, an increase of 51.0% from the Adopted F.Y. 2019 amount. The 5-year total for the F.Y. 2020 - 2024 Proposed C.I.P. is $125,588,651, an increase of 10.9% from the 5-year total projected in the F.Y. 2019 - 2023 Adopted C.I.P. The General Fund contribution to the C.I.P. in F.Y 2020 is proposed at $7,075,164 a $1.7 million dollar increase from F.Y 2019. The amount of revenue proposed to come from bond sales for F.Y. 2020 is projected to increase by $7.19 million from the F.Y. 2019 amount, and the 5-year total amount of revenue from bond sales in the F.Y. 2020 – 2024 C.I.P. is projected to increase by $9.95 million from what was projected in the F.Y. 2019 – 2023 Adopted C.I.P. Some of the new projects and projects that are proposed for increases in the F.Y. 2020 – 2024 C.I.P. include: Public Housing redevelopment; Friendship Court infrastructure improvements and redevelopment phase I; Charlottesville City Schools priority improvement projects; City and Schools HVAC replacement; Bypass fire station; new sidewalks and sidewalk repair; City/County joint parks projects at Darden Towe; Downtown Mall infrastructure repairs; City Yard environmental remediation; and Citywide ADA improvements – sidewalks and curbs. As has been the case in recent years, preparing for this five-year plan was most challenging. What is being presented to the Planning Commission reflects what we know at this time regarding the City’s total revenue and expenditure needs for F.Y. 2020. Until staff has a complete picture for the total budget, including how City revenues are projected to perform in F.Y. 2020 and how expenditure needs will be balanced with 1 available revenue, the 5 year C.I.P. will remain a work in progress and could see adjustments between now and when the Proposed Budget is presented to City Council in March. The proposed C.I.P. as presented continues to balance the need to address many of the City’s growing capital needs, while staying within our current debt policy limit: Debt service as a percentage of the general fund total expenditure budget has a ceiling of 10%, with a target of 9%. While the CIP as proposed is projected to exceed the 9% target in FY 2023 it remains under the 10% ceiling in all years. Staff has been and will continue to analyze very closely the City’s debt limit, and more specifically what the City can afford to borrow for capital needs, in order to inform future debt discussions with City Council. Staff looks forward to the upcoming discussion with the Planning Commission on this draft 5 year plan. If you have questions or need more information before the Planning Commission meeting, please don’t hesitate to contact Ryan Davidson, Senior Budget and Management Analyst (davidson@charlottesville.org). Materials for January 8th P.C. Public Hearing In preparation for the January 8th Planning Commission Public Hearing, attached is information on the Proposed F.Y. 2020-2024 Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.). Staff will give a short Power Point presentation followed by a question/answer session. Attachment I – F.Y. 2020-2024 Proposed C.I.P. Attachment II – Proposed F.Y. 2020 C.I.P. Revenue and Expenditure Description Summary Attachment III – F.Y. 2020-2024 Unfunded C.I.P. Projects List Attachment IV – Neighborhood CIP Requests Attachment V – School Facilities and City Facilities Capital Project Detail Attachment VI – Project Request Forms Attachment VII – Capital Improvement Program Code Requirements 2 Attachment I F.Y. 2020 – 2024 Proposed C.I.P. Proposed Capital Improvement Program FY 2020-2024 Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Total FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 Revenues Transfer from General Fund 5,374,766 7,075,164 7,175,164 7,425,164 7,675,164 7,925,164 37,275,820 Transfer from General Fund - Mall Vendor Fees 0 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 625,000 Transfer from CIP Contingency 2,200,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 FY18 Year End Appropriation - Affordable Housing 0 3,201,082 0 0 0 0 3,201,082 Redevelopment Reprogramming of Existing Capital Funds 0 1,872,833 0 0 0 0 1,872,833 Contribution from Albemarle County (CATEC) 75,000 75,000 500,000 90,000 62,500 0 727,500 Contribution from Albemarle County (Central and Gordon 137,500 175,000 0 0 0 0 175,000 Ave. Library) Contribution from Schools (Small Cap Program) 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,000,000 PEG Fee Revenue 47,500 47,500 47,500 47,500 47,500 47,500 237,500 CY 2019 Bond Issue 15,367,176 0 0 0 0 0 0 CY 2020 Bond Issue 0 22,566,427 0 0 0 0 22,566,427 CY 2021 Bond Issue 0 0 21,596,179 0 0 0 21,596,179 CY 2022 Bond Issue 0 0 0 18,338,482 0 0 18,338,482 CY 2023 Bond Issue 0 0 0 0 7,861,638 0 7,861,638 CY 2024 Bond Issue 0 0 0 0 0 10,111,190 10,111,190 TOTAL AVAILABLE REVENUES $23,401,942 $35,338,006 $29,643,843 $26,226,146 $15,971,802 $18,408,854 $125,588,651 Expenditures BONDABLE PROJECTS EDUCATION Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Project FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 Total Lump Sum to Schools (City Contribution) 1,109,162 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 6,000,000 City Schools HVAC Replacement 503,928 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 3,750,000 CCS Priority Improvement Projects 1,000,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 6,250,000 CHS Roof Replacement 0 0 0 120,000 1,200,000 0 1,320,000 SUBTOTAL $2,613,090 $3,200,000 $3,200,000 $3,320,000 $4,400,000 $3,200,000 $17,320,000 FACILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Project FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 Total Lump Sum to Facilities Capital Projects 1,045,491 1,045,491 1,545,491 1,045,491 1,045,491 1,045,492 5,727,456 City Facility HVAC Replacement 200,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 1,250,000 City and Schools Solar PV Program 100,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 375,000 4th Street Yard Fuel Tank Replacement 200,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Avon Street Filling Station Replacement 520,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Energy Performance Contact (Audit) 0 150,000 0 0 0 0 150,000 SUBTOTAL 2,065,491 $1,520,491 $1,870,491 $1,370,491 $1,370,491 $1,370,492 $7,502,456 1 12/12/2018 PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Project FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 Total General District Court 0 3,181,014 3,181,014 0 0 0 6,362,028 Police Portable Radio Replacement 342,621 0 0 0 0 0 0 Replacement Fire Apparatus 1,298,586 0 995,500 0 0 1,152,415 2,147,915 Bypass Fire Station 0 3,700,000 0 0 0 0 3,700,000 SUBTOTAL $1,641,207 $6,881,014 $4,176,514 $0 $0 $1,152,415 $12,209,943 TRANSPORTATION AND ACCESS Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Project FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 Total Undergrounding Utilities 1,300,000 1,700,000 1,430,000 0 0 0 3,130,000 New Sidewalks 380,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 2,000,000 Sidewalk Repair 424,360 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 2,500,000 West Main Improvements 3,250,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 0 0 12,000,000 SIA Immediate Implementation 250,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,000,000 Small Area Plans 50,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 Street Milling and Paving 1,577,838 1,000,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 6,000,000 Parking Structure 0 0 4,875,000 5,125,000 0 0 10,000,000 ADA Pedestrian Signal Upgrades 240,000 240,000 240,000 240,000 240,000 240,000 1,200,000 Downtown Pedestrian Intersection Lighting 94,000 94,000 0 0 0 0 94,000 Minor Bridge Repairs 212,180 218,545 225,101 231,854 238,810 245,974 1,160,284 State Revenue Sharing 0 413,218 0 0 0 0 413,218 SUBTOTAL $7,778,378 $8,865,763 $13,220,101 $12,046,854 $2,928,810 $2,935,974 $39,997,502 PARKS AND RECREATION Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Project FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 Total McIntire Park Master Plan Implementation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tonsler Park Master Plan Implementation 750,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pen Park Tennis Court Renovations 295,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 City/County Joint Parks - Darden Towe 427,988 928,963 193,370 0 0 0 1,122,333 City/County Joint Parks - Ivy Creek 292,100 20,000 0 0 0 0 20,000 Washington Park Basketball Court Renovations 150,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Riverview Park Restrooms 0 245,000 0 0 0 0 245,000 SUBTOTAL $1,915,088 $1,193,963 $193,370 $0 $0 $0 $1,387,333 HOUSING PROJECTS Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Project FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 Total Public Housing Redevelopment 500,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 15,000,000 SUBTOTAL $500,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $15,000,000 TOTAL BONDABLE PROJECTS $16,513,254 $24,661,231 $25,660,476 $19,737,345 $11,699,301 $11,658,881 $93,417,234 2 12/12/2018 NONBONDABLE PROJECTS EDUCATION Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Project FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 Total School Small Capital Improvements Program 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 1,500,000 SUBTOTAL $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $1,500,000 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Project FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 Total Economic Development Strategic Initiatives 150,000 0 0 150,000 150,000 150,000 450,000 SUBTOTAL $150,000 $0 $0 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $450,000 TRANSPORTATION & ACCESS Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Project FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 Total State Bridge and Highway Inspections 121,137 0 0 121,137 121,137 121,137 363,411 CAT Transit Bus Replacement Match 4,600 0 0 134,000 139,510 114,400 387,910 Intelligent Transportation System 97,850 100,786 103,810 106,924 110,132 113,436 535,088 City Wide Traffic Engineering Improvements 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 750,000 Neighborhood Transportation Improvements 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000 Citywide ADA Improvements - Sidewalks and Curbs 150,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,000,000 Bicycle Infrastructure 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,000,000 NDS Permit Tracking Software Replacement 250,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cultural Landscape Study 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right of Way Appurtenance 150,000 15,450 15,941 129,000 129,000 129,000 418,391 Wayfinding Initiatives 0 0 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 100,000 Traffic Sign Retro Reflective Compliance 0 115,715 119,186 122,762 63,222 0 420,885 ADA Ramp Corrections 0 131,000 134,930 138,978 0 0 404,908 SUBTOTAL $1,223,587 $962,951 $998,867 $1,377,801 $1,188,001 $1,102,973 $5,630,593 PARKS & RECREATION Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Project FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 Total Parks and Recreation Lump Sum Account 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,000,000 Parks and Schools Playground Renovations 109,073 112,000 112,000 112,000 112,000 112,000 560,000 Trails and Greenway Development 100,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Downtown Mall Tree Preservation Planning 100,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Urban Tree Planting 50,000 50,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 350,000 Parkland Acquisition 95,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parkland and Trails Acquisition and Development 0 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 1,250,000 Refurbish Parks Restrooms 50,000 50,000 50,000 0 0 0 100,000 Meadowcreek Valley Trail Railroad Tunnel - Design 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Downtown Mall Infrastructure Repairs 0 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 625,000 SUBTOTAL $754,073 $787,000 $812,000 $762,000 $762,000 $762,000 $3,885,000 3 12/12/2018 STORMWATER INITIATIVES Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Project FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 Total Neighborhood Drainage Projects 125,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000 SUBTOTAL $125,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $250,000 TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Project FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 Total Communications Technology Account/Public Access 47,500 47,500 47,500 47,500 47,500 47,500 237,500 City Wide IT Strategic Infrastructure 100,000 100,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 1,100,000 SUBTOTAL $147,500 $147,500 $297,500 $297,500 $297,500 $297,500 $1,337,500 HOUSING PROJECTS Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Project FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 Total Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund 3,399,204 0 0 0 0 0 0 Supplemental Rental Assistance 0 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 4,500,000 Housing Rehabilitation 0 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 2,500,000 Friendship Court Infrastructure Improvements 0 1,540,000 0 2,026,500 0 2,562,500 6,129,000 Friendship Court Redevelopment - Phase I 0 4,400,000 0 0 0 0 4,400,000 SUBTOTAL $3,399,204 $7,340,000 $1,400,000 $3,426,500 $1,400,000 $3,962,500 $17,529,000 OTHER GOVERNMENTAL PROJECTS Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Project FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 Total Home Energy Conservation Grant Program 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 625,000 Senior Center at Belvedere 600,000 600,000 0 0 0 0 600,000 PVCC Advanced Technology Center 64,324 64,324 0 0 0 0 64,324 City Yard Environmental Remediation 0 300,000 0 0 0 0 300,000 SUBTOTAL $789,324 $1,089,324 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $1,589,324 TOTAL NONBONDABLE PROJECTS $6,888,688 $10,676,775 $3,983,367 $6,488,801 $4,272,501 $6,749,973 $32,171,417 TOTAL PROJECT EXPENDITURES $23,401,942 $35,338,006 $29,643,843 $26,226,146 $15,971,802 $18,408,854 $125,588,651 DEBT SERVICE PERCENTAGE 7.29% 7.58% 8.28% 9.09% 9.45% 4 12/12/2018 Attachment II Proposed F.Y. 2020 C.I.P. Revenue and Expenditure Description Summary Proposed F.Y. 2020 C.I.P. Revenue and Expenditure Description Summary Revenue Summary Total proposed revenues for F.Y. 2020, $35,338,006, are broken down as follows: 1) The General Fund transfer to the Capital Fund is proposed at a total of $7,075,164. 2) Transfer from the General Fund - Mall Vendor Fee revenue of $125,000, to offset the cost of Downtown Mall Infrastructure Repairs. 3) Funding from the FY18 Year End Appropriation of $3,201,082 for Affordable Housing Redevelopment. 4) Reprogrammed $1,872,833 in existing capital project dollars. 5) A contribution from Albemarle County of $250,000 for the County’s portion of expenses related to facility improvements at C.A.T.E.C. and the Central Library. 6) The annual $200,000 contribution from the Charlottesville City Schools for their Small Capital Improvement Program. There is a corresponding expenditure for this purpose. 7) P.E.G. Fee revenue of $47,500 which is received as part of the franchise agreement with Comcast. 8) The $22,566,427 in bond revenue, part of a bond issuance that will take place during C.Y. 2019 to pay for those projects deemed bondable. Expenditure Summary Bondable Projects Total expenditures for the F.Y. 2020 Bondable projects, $24,661,231, are broken down as follows: Education 1) Lump Sum to Schools Proposed F.Y. 20 – $1,200,000 This sum is the yearly appropriation to the City Schools for their Capital Program. Some of the items proposed to be covered by this appropriation include: Central Office ADA 1 12/12/2018 improvements; Clark restroom renovations; School facility master planning; and Walker building envelope restoration. The balance for the lump sum to schools account as of December 11, 2018 is $1,039,684. 2) Schools H.V.A.C. Replacement Plan Proposed F.Y. 20 – $750,000 Facilities Maintenance has developed a 20-year plan for the replacement of H.V.A.C. equipment. Each piece of equipment has a predictable life cycle, beyond which failure becomes imminent. All aging equipment will be replaced with the most energy-efficient option available on the market, resulting in direct and lasting cost savings. The balance for this project as of December 11, 2018 is $621,632. 3) C.C.S. Priority Improvements Projects Proposed F.Y. 20 – $1,200,000 School's Facility Improvement Planning Committee (FIPC) met and selected the following project “themes”, as the top CCS project priorities. And then on September 1, 2016, the School Board reviewed and formally approved the “themes” and the phasing plan. *Classroom Modernization *Corridor Improvements *Daylighting *Auditorium Renovations *Cafeteria Renovations On September 21, 2017, the School's Facility Improvement Planning Committee (FIPC) met and selected Classroom Modernizations as the highest priority project. The Committee recommended that work begin in the 4th grade classrooms, at all six elementary schools. The general scope of work could include: new flooring, ceiling replacement with new LED light fixtures, furniture (flexible), paint – including accent colors & white board paint (dry erase) for select walls, casework/cubbies/classroom storage/coat racks, daylighting- windows/solar tubes/light shelves/etc., technology upgrades, acoustic treatments, window treatments, minor electrical & HVAC work. The balance for this project as of December 11, 2018 is $253,880. Facilities Capital Improvements 1) Lump Sum to Facilities Capital Projects Proposed F.Y. 20 – $1,045,491 In F.Y. 2018, Facilities Capital Projects requested a lump sum of $1,045,491 in order to fund improvements and repairs to various City owned facilities. These include: C.A.T.E.C. building automation system replacement; Central Library interior finishes upgrades; City Hall interior finishes; Police Department entryway and canopy design; roof inspections; and any other repairs deemed to be necessary in order to preserve the City’s properties. The balance for lump sum to facilities account as of December 11, 2018 is $2,234,614. 2) City Building H.V.A.C. Replacement Plan Proposed F.Y. 20 – $250,000 Facilities Maintenance has developed a plan for the replacement of H.V.A.C. equipment in City Facilities. Each piece of equipment has a predictable life cycle, beyond which failure becomes imminent. All aging equipment will be replaced with the most energy- efficient option available on the market, resulting in direct and lasting cost savings. The balance for this project as of December 11, 2018 is $364,952. 2 12/12/2018 3) City and Schools Solar P.V. Program Proposed F.Y. 20 – $75,000 This project is the phased installation of solar photovoltaic panels on the roofs of various City and school facilities. Upon completion of the first system the City will begin to generate some of the electricity need to run its facilities and with energy costs rising at an average of 8% per year, the City will realize immediate savings. The Public Works Facilities Maintenance division has positioned itself to design and self-install solar P.V. systems at approximately half the cost of outsourcing enabling a quicker return on investment (R.O.I.) for the project. The balance for this project as of December 11, 2018 is $348,238. 4) Energy Performance Contract (Audit) Proposed F.Y. 20 – $150,000 An energy performance-based contract is a strategy to significantly reduce energy costs of our building portfolio through energy conservation and/or operational efficiency measures. The funding request is for an Investment Grade Audit (IGA) that provides a breakout of energy conservation measures and a financial pro forma. The team will review the results of the IGA and select the scope of project(s) to design/implement. Public Safety and Justice 1) General District Court Proposed F.Y. 20 – $3,181,014 Funds represent the first portion of the City’s share of the costs of a joint General District Court facility with Albemarle County to be located in Court Square. Under the agreement, Albemarle and Charlottesville will undertake a redevelopment of the Levy Building site, located at 350 Park Street. The Levy Building will be renovated for use by the County Commonwealth’s Attorney Office and a new 3-story building connected to the Levy Building will accommodate court sets for the City General District Court and County General District Court. In total, the redevelopment will provide 60,730 gross square feet, at an estimated cost of $30 million. The City will contribute approximately $6.8 million toward the project, based on its use of the new facility. The balance for this project as of December 11, 2018 is $500,000. 2) Bypass Fire Station Proposed F.Y. 20 – $3,700,000 A Fire Station Location Study and Facilities Needs Assessment was completed in November, 2016. After accounting for current station deviancies and various constraints surrounding "optimal" fire station locations, the Study recommended the redevelopment of both the Bypass Station and the Ridge Street Station at their current locations, with the Bypass Station being the highest priority. This request is for the redevelopment of the Bypass Fire Station into a roughly 10,000 square foot updated facility. The balance for this project as of December 11, 2018 is $2,217,885. 3 12/12/2018 Transportation and Access 1) Undergrounding Utilities Proposed F.Y. 20 - $1,700,000 This project provides funding to allow the City to take advantage of strategic opportunities to partner with developers and other City projects to underground utilities on public rights-of-way. In past years, this has worked out to essentially a doubling of funds used to underground electric, phone and cable lines. The State CTB has recently awarded the City successful applications for several major transportation projects, including the Downtown Mall area, the Strategic Investment Area, Emmet Street, Barracks Road, and High Street. However these funds cannot be spent on betterment improvements like undergrounding overhead utilities. These funds would allow for undergrounding of utilities in conjunction with these improvement projects. The balance for this project as of December 11, 2018 is $1,814,304. 2) New Sidewalks Proposed F.Y. 20 - $400,000 This funding continues to remedy the gaps that remain throughout the sidewalk infrastructure of the City. Priority is given to completing the sidewalk network around schools, parks, business centers and community amenities such as libraries, post offices, etc. Sidewalk construction often includes upgrade of ADA ramps, installation of drainage systems, minor road improvements and other items to ensure that the best possible alignment and location is chosen. Project locations will be approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. For more information on this project please visit the following website: http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and-services/departments-h-z/neighborhood- development-services/sidewalks The balance for this project as of December 11, 2018 is $523,052. 3) Sidewalk Repair and Improvements Proposed F.Y. 20 – $500,000 This project funds the repair of the City’s existing sidewalks. Sidewalk repairs are necessary to keep existing infrastructure safe and hazard free and are necessary for completion of the pedestrian network which in turn, is needed to balance sound transportation alternatives. When the tripping hazards, gaps, and broken sidewalks are repaired it helps to minimize the liability of the City. This project also includes approximately $200,000 - $250,000 per year to provide for the repair, upgrade, and/or replacement of existing A.D.A. ramps, primarily those ramps on streets scheduled for paving as required by ADA law. The balance for this project as of December 11, 2018 is $1,061,859. 4) West Main Improvements Proposed F.Y. 20 - $4,000,000 Funding of a significant urban design and streetscape improvement project for the West Main Street Improvements that will include changes to the street profile, undergrounding utilities, green infrastructure, trees and street furniture. For more information on this project please visit: http://gowestmain.com/ The balance for this project as of December 11, 2018 is $10,647,529. 4 12/12/2018 5) S.I.A. Immediate Implementation Proposed F.Y. 20 - $200,000 This funding is intended to facilitate completion of projects outlined in the Strategic Investment Area Plan completed in December, 2013. Examples of capital projects in the plan include 2nd Street Extension to Ix Building with improved streetscape, daylighting of Pollacks Branch, improved connectivity and walkability, and improvement to the Monticello Avenue streetscape. For more information on this project please visit the following website: http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and-services/departments-h-z/neighborhood- development-services/strategic-investment-area-7079 The balance for this project as of December 11, 2018 is $772,429. 6) Street Milling and Paving Proposed F.Y. 20 – $1,000,000 These funds will be used to repair street problems that occur during the year, such as potholes, and support additional street milling and paving projects that are a major part of maintaining the City’s aging infrastructure. This is also part of a dollar match for the over $2,000,000 received from V.D.O.T. The balance for this project as of December 11, 2018 is $2,944,424. 7) Small Area Plans Proposed F.Y. 20 - $100,000 The Comprehensive Plan identified several specific areas of the city where planning and design issues or investment opportunities may warrant additional study through the development of specific small area plans in the coming years. The small area planning process is intended to examine areas anew and holistically, with the full engagement of the public, elected and appointed officials and planning professionals. The resulting small area plans will provide the basis for future planning, urban design, investment decisions, and possible changes to zoning and the future land use plan. The Planning Commission selected the Cherry Avenue corridor as a top priority with Hydraulic/29 and Woolen Mills as the next considerations. The balance for this project as of December 11, 2018 is $317,477. 8) ADA Pedestrian Signal Upgrades Proposed F.Y. 20 - $240,000 These funds seek to comply with requirements of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to provide access to the sidewalk and street crossing network. A study of the city's signalized intersections conducted by Timmons Group in 2015 identified over $1.1 million dollars in deficiencies related to pedestrian access - including curb ramp improvements and access to pedestrian pushbuttons. This project aims to increase ADA access at those intersections. The balance for this project as of December 11, 2018 is $377,892. 9) Downtown Pedestrian Intersection Lighting Proposed F.Y. 20 - $94,000 This request is for funding to install pedestrian lighting at 15 intersections that were identified in an earlier joint study conducted by the City and UVA. The Downtown Intersections identified were at Market Street and its intersection with 2nd Street SW, 1st Street N, 2nd Street NE, 3rd Street NE, 4th Street NE, 5th Street NE, 6th Street NE, 7th Street NE, 8th Street NE, and 2nd Street SW, and at Water Street and its intersection with 5 12/12/2018 2nd Street SW, 1st Street S, 2nd Street SE, 3rd Street SE, 4th Street SE, and 5th Street SE. The balance for this project as of December 11, 2018 is $94,000. 10) Minor Bridge Repairs Proposed F.Y. 20 – $218,545 This project is the continuation of the required maintenance of the various bridges throughout the City. This request is for lump sum C.I.P. project money to rehab/maintain citywide bridge projects. Work may include repairs to substructure (generally includes parts underneath and out of sight) and superstructure (generally includes the deck, railings, and 'visible to motorists' parts) elements. The balance for this project as of December 11, 2018 is $1,730,662. 11) State Revenue Sharing Proposed F.Y. 20 – $413,218 The Virginia Department of Transportation offers a Revenue Sharing Grant Program that will match one state dollar for every local dollar spent on eligible transportation projects - within funding constraints and priority requirements. The City has received award of $413,218 in state funding for FY20 and this request represents the City’s match for those funds. Parks and Recreation 1) City/County Joint Parks – Darden Towe Proposed F.Y. 20 – $928,963 This will establish a funding stream for those recreational properties and facilities that are jointly operated by the City and Albemarle County, specifically Darden Towe Park. The establishment of such funding will permit the systematic and proactive replacement and renovation of these facilities. FY 20 projects would include synthetic turf and lighting of 4 rectangular fields. Costs reflected represent only the City's portion of the anticipated cost of the projects. The current cost share agreement with the County is based upon total aggregated population of the City and County and appropriate percentages. The current formula is City 31.7 %, County 68.3 %. The balance for this project as of December 11, 2018 is $427,988. 2) City/County Joint Parks – Ivy Creek Proposed F.Y. 20 – $20,000 This will establish a funding stream for those recreational properties and facilities that are jointly operated by the City and Albemarle County, specifically Ivy Creek Natural Area. The establishment of such funding will permit the systematic and proactive replacement and renovation of these facilities. FY 20 projects would include ADA compliant paving of internal park trails. Costs reflected represent only the City's portion of the anticipated cost of the projects. The current cost share agreement with the County for capital improvements at Ivy Creek is 50% / 50%. The balance for this project as of December 11, 2018 is $292,100. 6 12/12/2018 3) Riverview Park Restrooms Proposed F.Y. 20 – $245,000 The project would install permanent restroom facilities at Riverview Park. Currently, portable toilets are provided at this location, which continue to be heavily utilized, requiring service twice per week. This will be a concrete modular unit like we have installed in Azalea and Rives Parks. Housing Projects 1) Public Housing Redevelopment Proposed F.Y. 20 – $3,000,000 This project would be to begin to set aside funding for the future redevelopment of the City’s public housing sites. This funding is the first year of a 5 year City projected commitment of $15 million for the redevelopment of the public housing sites. The balance for this project as of December 11, 2018 is $668,967. Non-bondable Projects Total expenditures for the F.Y. 2020 Non-Bondable projects, $10,676,775, are broken down as follows: Education 1) Schools Small Capital Improvements Proposed F.Y. 20 – $300,000 This sum is to cover the some of the small capital improvement projects within the various City Schools. This expenditure item is offset by a corresponding dedicated revenue from the Schools. The balance for this project as of December 11, 2018 is $673,234. Transportation and Access 1) Intelligent Transportation System Proposed F.Y. 20 – $100,786 The Intelligent Transportation System (I.T.S.) is comprised of traffic signal related hardware and software that communicates and coordinates with traffic signals citywide from the Traffic Operations Command Center. The system is also comprised of three weather stations related to street surface conditions during weather emergencies, and four (4) variable message boards located on major city entrances. Coordinated signal corridors controlled from the Control Center include Emmet Street, Main Street, Avon Street, Preston Avenue, and Ridge/5th. The project funds maintenance and upgrades of the system, including field and command center hardware and software, as well as on- going costs for utilities such as phone lines. The balance for this project as of December 11, 2018 is $177,836. 2) City Wide Traffic Engineering Improvements Proposed F.Y. 20 – $150,000 The request is for lump sum CIP project money to address various traffic engineering issues as they arise. Projects would include traffic control enhancements, reconfiguring intersections, retiming and coordinating traffic signals, addressing parking concerns, mitigating traffic safety problems, and other creative retrofitting to existing traffic 7 12/12/2018 operations in lieu of building new roads. Potential projects are coordinated with other state and federal agencies as well as other city departments. The balance for this project as of December 11, 2018 is $232,216. 3) Neighborhood Transportation Improvements Proposed F.Y. 20 – $50,000 The proposed Neighborhood Transportation Improvements CIP budget request seeks to implement larger neighborhood improvements that would consume 50% or more of the annual Traffic Engineer's Traffic Improvements fund. Neighborhood Associations advocate for neighbors' requests to address certain corridors or intersections that impact a significant portion of their community. They generally address connectivity and safety issues within the transportation network. Neighborhood transportation improvements for JPA Pedestrian Improvements and Forest Hills have been submitted in previous years and we anticipate adding others, such as Locust Ave, pending results of the pilot project The balance for this project as of December 11, 2018 is $57,111. 4) Citywide A.D.A. Improvements - Proposed F.Y. 20 – $200,000 Sidewalks and Curbs This project would provide handicapped accessibility at various locations throughout the City allowing the City to meet federally required guidelines for handicapped access. Upgrades include but are not limited to curb cuts and A.D.A. ramps, crosswalks, bulbouts, enhanced pedestrian signal equipment for signalized intersections, sidewalk obstruction removal, etc. The balance for this project as of December 11, 2018 is $70,203. 5) Bicycle Infrastructure Proposed F.Y. 20 – $200,000 This project implements the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, which addresses various bicycle access and safety issues on City streets, as well as other related bicycle infrastructure issues. Potential projects will be vetted through the Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Committee as well as at Traffic Meetings to include N.D.S., police, fire, parks/trails planner, and public works. Projects would include re-striping pavements, reconfiguring intersections, additional bicycle. For more information on this project please visit the following website: http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and-services/departments-h-z/neighborhood- development-services/transportation/bicycle-and-pedestrian/bicycle-pedestrian-master- plan The balance for this project as of December 11, 2018 is $421,681. 6) Right of Way Appurtenance Proposed F.Y. 20 – $15,450 Request is to establish a flexible lump sum account to address unfunded needs for the repair and replacement of ROW appurtenances, such as guardrail, handrails, and other safety and security features. The balance for this project as of December 11, 2018 is $141,500. 7) Traffic Sign Retro Reflective Compliance Proposed F.Y. 20 – $115,715 It is anticipated that a large portion of Right-of-Way signage in the City is out of compliance with FHWA regulations regarding retro-reflectivity. A third-party survey 8 12/12/2018 must be performed, identifying the nature, compliance status, condition and priority of each sign, which is scheduled to occur in the fall of 2018. There are approximately 12,000 to 15,000 street signs City wide. Assuming that 75% of those signs are out of compliance, the expected cost for compliance is approximately $405,000. Bringing all of those signs into compliance will take approximately 3.5 years to complete. This funding represents the first of 3.5 years of funding necessary to achieve compliance. 8) ADA Ramp Corrections Proposed F.Y. 20 – $131,000 The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Transportation (DOT) require all ADA ramps that are affected by street resurfacing operations be upgraded (or installed) to meet current standards. In September 2010, the Department of Justice issued regulations with revised accessibility standards for Titles II and III of the Americans with disabilities ACT (DOJ 2010 Standards). Compliance with the DOJ 2010 Standards is required on or after March 15, 2012. Since 2012, there have been a number of City streets that have been resurfaced which has resulted in approximately 131 ramps that need to be adjusted to meet current requirements. Parks and Recreation 1) Parks and Recreation Lump Sum Account Proposed F.Y. 20 – $200,000 The Parks and Recreation Lump Sum Account were created to provide Parks and Recreation with the flexibility to prioritize those smaller projects to accomplish the most pressing needs. Funding will include repairs to restrooms, enhancement and updating of interior spaces, compliance with ADA regulations, concersion to green energy systems and larger cyclical mainatence projects such as refinishing of gym floors, recoating of pool tubs and replacement of roofs in recreational facilities and parks. The balance for this project as of December 11, 2018 is $361,540. 2) Parks and Schools Playground Renovations Proposed F.Y. 20 – $112,000 The Parks and Recreation Department maintains twenty-nine (29) playgrounds across the City. This project includes the replacement of the City Parks playground equipment and of playground equipment at Charlottesville City School Parks, to ensure user safety and comply with current codes. This project will provide improved safety for the residents who use playgrounds daily. The balance for this project as of December 11, 2018 is $445,716. 3) Urban Tree Planting Proposed F.Y. 20 – $50,000 The protection of the Urban Tree Canopy has a direct affect upon air quality, stormwater management and quality of life for City residents and is a highly held value among residents of the City. These funds will also be used for the procurement of replacement trees and the planting of new trees in areas of where invasive species are prevalent and along riparian buffers to enhance water quality and stormwater management strategies. The balance for this project as of December 11, 2018 is $9,725. 9 12/12/2018 4) Parkland and Trails Acquisition Proposed F.Y. 20 – $250,000 and Development These funds will be used to pursue land acquisition opportunities to preserve open space, protect natural resources and improve riparian buffers and provide future trail connections. This will also provide funding for the development of the City’s trails and greenways. Green infrastructure and open space conservation are often the cheapest way to safeguard drinking water, clean the air and achieve other environmental goals. Prior to FY20 Parkland Acquisition and Trails development were separate projects. They were combined in FY20 to allow Parks and Recreation to prioritize the greatest needs on these projects and provide some additional funding to address those priorities. 5) Refurbish Parks Restrooms Proposed F.Y. 20 – $50,000 This funding will assist in addressing renovation issues of outdoor facility restrooms which are presently outdated and tired and provide users with a negative impression of our parks system in high traffic park areas. Specific components include: materials and finishes, ventilation, lighting and fixture updates. Restrooms in need of renovation include: Pen Park, Belmont Park, Greenleaf Park, Washington Park and McIntire Park. Restrooms will be effectively gutted and totally renovated with additional upgrades such as constant ventilation being installed where not present. The balance for this project as of December 11, 2018 is $50,000 6) Downtown Mall Infrastructure Repairs Proposed F.Y. 20 – $125,000 Downtown Mall infrastructure repair will create a funding source for major repair and maintenance initiatives on the mall, activity which is currently not funded from any source. Examples of work would include runnel repair or renovation, crossing repairs, repairs to section from Omni to Water Street, reworking/repairing larger fields of pavers that have failed or are failing, light relocation or replacement, upgrading electrical systems to include more efficient lighting fixtures, banner and flag bracket replacement and repairs, twice a year cleaning and sanding and similar activities. A transfer from the General Fund of the revenues collected from the vendor and cafe fees paid annually to the City by merchants on the Mall is being proposed to offset the cost of this project. Stormwater Initiatives 1) Neighborhood Drainage Projects Proposed F.Y. 20 – $50,000 These funds are used to partner with City property owner funding to solve neighborhood drainage and flooding issues on residential properties that have never been budgeted on their own merit before. Cost participation by City residents makes the City funds go further. The balance for this project as of December 11, 2018 is $583,660. 10 12/12/2018 Technology Infrastructure 1) Communications Technology Account/ Proposed F.Y. 20 – $47,500 Public Access Television This funding will allow the City to continue upgrading and improving its cable network services and programming to the citizens by providing technology equipment and maintenance of that equipment to the Public Access Offices at C.A.T.E.C.; providing technology and equipment to Channel 10 located in City Hall. This funding is tied to the P.E.G. Fee Revenue. The balance for this project as of December 11, 2018 is $163,425. 2) City Wide IT Strategic Infrastructure Proposed F.Y. 20 – $100,000 Information Technology systems and software needs have grown from sporadic workgroup and departmental specific functions to integrated organization-wide technology platforms for analysis and decision-making. These important technology investments need to be reviewed outside of department specific needs, in a holistic and comprehensive manner, that takes into account the strategic direction and overall business needs of the City as whole. This project would establish a separate funding stream for City wide strategic technology needs. The projects funded by the Citywide IT Strategic Infrastructure account would support enhancement needs, such as the expansion of resources and emerging technologies, and projects/systems that would improve efficiency and effectiveness of our services and employees. The balance for this project as of December 11, 2018 is $100,000. Housing Projects 1) Supplemental Rental Assistance Proposed F.Y. 20 – $900,000 These funds continue the City’s support for the Charlottesville Supplemental Rental Assistance Program, or C.S.R.A.P., which provides monthly tenant-based rental assistance for Extremely Low-Income households. Prior to F.Y. 20 funding was designated from the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund for these purposes. 2) Housing Rehabilitation Proposed F.Y. 20 – $500,000 This would provide a continued source of funds for the housing rehabilitation projects that were previously funded through the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund. 3) Friendship Court Infrastructure Improvements Proposed F.Y. 20 – $1,540,000 This is a request for the costs of infrastructure construction related to the phased redevelopment of Friendship Court into a mixed-use, mixed-income neighborhood. The final redevelopment will be approximately 450 residential units in addition to an early childhood center and other commercial spaces that will serve the community. This C.I.P. funding will support the work necessary to build streets, pedestrian ways, utility infrastructure, stormwater controls, and work in the current and future R.O.W. 4) Friendship Court Redevelopment - Phase I Proposed F.Y. 20 – $4,400,000 11 12/12/2018 This funding is for the redevelopment of Friendship Court which will be approximately 450 residential units in addition to an early childhood center and other commercial spaces that will serve the community. The four phases of redevelopment will create an equitable income mix of tiered affordability, including the necessary replacement of the existing 150 homes at Friendship Court serving extremely low income households (30% AMI and below), the creation of at least 150 additional affordable units for low- and very-low income households (40-60% AMI), and the integration of approximately 150 new market rate units serving middle income households. This funding represents a commitment from the City’s to fill a portion of the estimated gap for the cost of redevelopment. Other Governmental Commitments 1) Home Energy Conservation Grant Program Proposed F.Y. 20 – $125,000 The Home Energy Conservation Grant Program is a grant/loan program for residential owner-occupied housing that would fund energy conservation measures for the recipients by either providing a grant to low-income families, or a low interest loan to non low- income families, as incentive for energy conservation. The intent of the program is to provide savings on utilities; to facilitate low-income families to be able to afford energy saving measures; and to reduce the usage of nonrenewable energy. Participants first receive a home energy audit to identify the biggest culprits of energy waste and to determine an appropriate scope of work. Any homeowner in the City of Charlottesville whose income is less than 80% A.M.I. is eligible to participate in the program. The City of Charlottesville has partnered with the Local Energy Alliance Program (LEAP) to carry out the Home Energy Conservation Grant program. The balance for this project as of December 11, 2018 is $125,000. 2) P.V.C.C. Advanced Technology Center Proposed F.Y. 20 – $63,324 This request is for funds to construct a 45,000 square foot advanced technology center which will house credit and non-credit programs in advanced manufacturing (engineering technology and mechatronics), information systems technology (cyber security, networking and programming) and viticulture and enology. Graduates of these programs will earn degrees, certificates and industry certifications that will prepare them for high- tech and high-demand jobs that will meet the needs of regional employers. Locality funding request is for the site work: Locality share of $1,000,000 total site work estimate. The contribution is requested proportionately (by enrollment) between seven localities in PVCC’s service region. Based on this plan, the City’s contribution (19.3% of enrollment) is estimated to be $192,972. The balance for this project as of December 11, 2018 is $32,162. 3) Senior Center at Belvedere Proposed F.Y. 20 – $600,000 This funding represents the City’s contribution to the construction of a new Senior Center facility to be located in the Belvedere neighborhood. The facility will be more than 50,000 sq. feet of space designed for healthy aging activities and consistent with healthy aging best practices. This is the second year of a two year commitment, for a total contribution of $1.2M. 12 12/12/2018 For more information on this project please visit the following website: https://seniorcenterinc.org/the-center-at-belvedere The balance for this project as of December 11, 2018 is $600,000. 5) City Yard Environmental Remediation Proposed F.Y. 20 – $300,000 The City Yard at 4th St NW is the site of a former Manufactured Gas Plant (MGP), the nearly 100-years of operations of which have left various byproducts and contamination on-site. While there is no clear State mandate or authority to address the on-site waste, its presence is and will continue to be a real or perceived liability that may limit or preclude transfer of ownership and redevelopment. This request is for funding to completed the investigation and design phase of the remediation. 13 12/12/2018 Attachment III F.Y. 2020 – 2024 Unfunded C.I.P. Projects List FY 2020-2024 Capital Improvement Program Unfunded List In Order of Amount Unfunded Project Title Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested 5 Year Total Notes/Comments FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 Central Library Renovation - - 761,248 5,714,382 5,814,772 12,290,402 Since this is a joint City/County project, this should be reflected in both jurisdictions CIP plans. Currently, this project is not expected to be in the Albemarle County proposed capital budget either. Ridge Street Fire Station - Redevelopment - 785,000 10,100,000 - - 10,885,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. West Main Streetscape Improvements 2,250,000 6,700,000 1,500,000 - - 10,450,000 Represents the difference between amount requested and amount proposed in FY20-24 CIP. Dairy Road over Route 250 Bridge Replacement 250,000 250,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 6,500,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. McIntire Park Master Plan Implementation 3,000,000 3,000,000 - - - 6,000,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Washington Park Rec Center Replacement - - 500,000 4,750,000 - 5,250,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. SIA Infill Sidewalk Construction 1,700,000 - 3,200,000 - - 4,900,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Revenue Sharing Grant Match Funds - 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 4,000,000 Represents the difference between amount requested and amount proposed in FY20-24 CIP. Traffic Signal Infrastructure Replacement 700,000 721,000 742,630 764,909 787,856 3,716,395 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Tonsler Park Master Plan Implementation 3,500,000 - - - - 3,500,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Street Reconstruction (Milling and Paving) - 750,000 810,000 871,800 935,454 3,367,254 Represents the difference between amount requested and amount proposed in FY20-24 CIP. New Sidewalks 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 3,000,000 Represents the difference between amount requested and amount proposed in FY20-24 CIP. City/County Joint Parks Ivy Creek - 3,000,000 - - - 3,000,000 Represents the difference between amount requested and amount proposed in FY20-24 CIP. This is a joint City/County project and this portion of the project is not expected to be in the Albemarle County proposed capital budget either. School HVAC Projects 419,046 454,118 490,242 527,450 565,774 2,456,629 Represents the difference between amount requested and amount proposed in FY20-24 CIP. 1 12/11/2018 Project Title Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested 5 Year Total Notes/Comments FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 EMS Apparatus Replacement 719,150 377,553 1,152,415 2,249,118 To be evaluated as part of a larger holistic EMS evaluation and discussion. Undergrounding Utilities 1,670,000 400,000 - - - 2,070,000 Represents the difference between amount requested and amount proposed in FY20-24 CIP. CCS Priority Projects 1,000,000 1,000,000 650,000 250,000 (1,250,000) 1,650,000 Represents the difference between amount requested and amount proposed in FY20-24 CIP. Sidewalk Repair 500,000 250,000 272,500 295,675 319,545 1,637,720 Represents the difference between amount requested and amount proposed in FY20-24 CIP. Meadow Creek Valley Trail Railroad Tunnel 150,000 1,315,000 - - - 1,465,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Stribling Avenue Sidewalk - 125,000 125,000 600,000 600,000 1,450,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Monticello Trail/Interstate 64 Tunnel - 100,000 150,000 1,200,000 - 1,450,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. City Yard Remediation - 1,000,000 - - - 1,000,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Elliot Avenue Streetscaping 1,200,000 - - - - 1,200,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Parks & Recreation Lump Sum 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,000,000 Represents the difference between amount requested and amount proposed in FY20-24 CIP. Parkland Acquisition 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,000,000 Represents the difference between amount requested and amount proposed in FY20-24 CIP. Crowe Rec. Center ADA Renovations 1,000,000 - - - - 1,000,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Need to evaluate as part of a larger discussion over the continued usage and operations of the facility. Citywide ADA Improvements - Sidewalks & Curbs 100,000 106,000 112,120 118,362 124,729 561,211 Represents the difference between amount requested and amount proposed in FY20-24 CIP. Melbourne Road Trail - 545,000 - - - 545,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Police Department Site and Facilities Needs Study 500,000 - - - - 500,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. NDS Fee Schedule Update 500,000 - - - - 500,000 Not considered to be a capital project. If determined to be a priority another source of funding will need to be identified. 2 12/11/2018 Project Title Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested 5 Year Total Notes/Comments FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 Downtown Mall Tree Active Lifecycle Management 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Assessment and planning to be completed with existing funds and request to be resubmitted once assessment is completed. GIS - Centric Enterprise System 250,000 250,000 - - - 500,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Market Street Parking Garage Structural Maintenance - 35,000 450,000 - - 485,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Initial assessment to be completed with existing funds and request to be resubmitted once assessment is completed. Yorktown Drive Sidewalk 90,000 366,500 - - - 456,500 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Neighborhood Drainage 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 375,000 Represents the difference between amount requested and amount proposed in FY20-24 CIP. Green Infrastructure Opportunities 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 375,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Parks Lighting Replacement 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 375,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Onesty Family Aquatic Center Youth Play Structure - 356,600 - - - 356,600 Given other funding needs and projected Replacement revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) - - 350,003 - - 350,003 Represents the difference between amount requested and amount proposed in FY20-24 CIP. Carver Recreation Center Office Expansion/Renovation - 50,000 270,000 - - 320,000 Should be evaluated and prioritized as part of the City Facilities Lump Sum, or Parks and Recreation Facilities Repair funding. Citywide Traffic Engineering Improvements 56,145 59,330 62,610 65,514 68,698 312,297 Represents the difference between amount requested and amount proposed in FY20-24 CIP. Economic Development Strategic Initiatives 150,000 150,000 - - - 300,000 Funding reduced in CIP while department spends down existing fund balance in the account. Represents the difference between amount requested and amount proposed in FY20-24 CIP. Key Rec. Center Restroom/Locker Room Upgrades 50,000 250,000 - - - 300,000 Should be evaluated and prioritized as part of the City Facilities Lump Sum, or Parks and Recreation Facilities Repair funding. Forest Hills Spray Pad Shade Structure 25,000 245,000 - - - 270,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. City Building HVAC* 33,250 41,747 50,500 59,514 68,801 253,812 Represents the difference between amount requested and amount proposed in FY20-24 CIP. 3 12/11/2018 Project Title Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested 5 Year Total Notes/Comments FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 SIA Implementation 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000 Funding reduced from SIA and added to Small Area Plans project. Blight and Code Enforcement Fund 150,000 - 50,000 - 50,000 250,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Wayfinding 50,000 75,000 25,000 75,000 25,000 250,000 Represents the difference between amount requested and amount proposed in FY20-24 CIP. Meadowcreek Golf Course Irrigation Renovations 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Meadowcreek Golf Course Cart Trail Repaving 125,000 125,000 - - - 250,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Bridge Inspections 121,137 121,137 - - - 242,274 Existing fund balance to be used to fund FY20 and FY21 amounts. Represents the difference between amount requested and amount proposed in FY20-24 CIP. Meadowcreek Golf Course Bunker Renovations 200,000 - - - - 200,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Meadow Creek Valley Trail - Lower Portion Rio Rd. to 187,500 - - - - 187,500 Given other funding needs and projected Holmes Ave. revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Moore' s Creek Trail - 5th Street - - 155,000 - - 155,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. City Wide IT Strategic Infrastructure 150,000 - - - - 150,000 Represents the difference between amount requested and amount proposed in FY20-24 CIP. Neighborhood Transportation Improvements - 50,000 50,000 50,000 - 150,000 Represents the difference between amount requested and amount proposed in FY20-24 CIP. Historic Preservation Program - Historic Surveys 50,000 - 50,000 - 50,000 150,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Park Master Planning 50,000 - 50,000 - 50,000 150,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Jordan Park Steel Beam Bridge 140,000 - - - - 140,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Solar PV Program 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 125,000 Represents the difference between amount requested and amount proposed in FY20-24 CIP. Washington Park Pool Shade Structure Replacement 125,000 - - - - 125,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Downtown Mall Infrastructure Repairs 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 125,000 Represents the difference between amount requested and amount proposed in FY20-24 CIP. 4 12/11/2018 Project Title Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested 5 Year Total Notes/Comments FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 Urban Tree Planting and Preservation 25,000 - 25,000 25,000 25,000 100,000 Represents the difference between amount requested and amount proposed in FY20-24 CIP. River Bridge Design - State Farm to Riverview Park - 100,000 - - - 100,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Schenk's Greenway - County Property Section - 100,000 - - - 100,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. ADA Ramp to River Trail - Free Bridge 97,500 - - - - 97,500 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Meadowcreek Gardens Entry Paving 85,000 - - - - 85,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Citywide Lighting Study 75,000 - - - - 75,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Meadowcreek Golf Course Tee Box Leveling 75,000 - - - - 75,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Meadowcreek Golf Course Exterior Lighting Installation 75,000 - - - - 75,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Meadowcreek Trail - Brandywine to Hillsdale - 75,000 - - - 75,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Moore' s Creek Trail - Sunset AVE to OLR - 75,000 - - - 75,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. FY20-24 Schools Lump Sum (57,563) (23,290) 12,011 48,371 85,822 65,351 Represents the difference between amount requested and amount proposed in FY20-24 CIP. Disc Golf Suspension Bridge 65,000 - - - - 65,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Refurbish Parks Restrooms - - 50,000 - - 50,000 Represents the difference between amount requested and amount proposed in FY20-24 CIP. River Trail Extension 50,000 - - - - 50,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Technology Assessment - SAP Upgrade/Replacement 50,000 - - - - 50,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Parks & School Playground Renovations 345 3,715 7,187 10,762 14,445 36,454 Represents the difference between amount requested and amount proposed in FY20-24 CIP. Total for all Requests 23,176,510 25,859,410 25,546,051 19,901,739 13,963,311 108,447,020 5 12/11/2018 Attachment IV Neighborhood C.I.P. Requests FY 2020-2024 Neighborhood Capital Improvement Program Project Requests Project Title Requesting Neighborhood Responsible Department(s) Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested 5 Year Total NOTES FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 JPA Pedestrian Safety Improvements (Harris Fry's Spring NDS 200,000 200,000 400,000 A project is being reviewed for sidewalk between Azalea and Road to Old Lynchburg Road) Harris. To extend a project past Harris, each owner would need to sign over private property to obtain ROW needed for a project. JPA-Cleveland-Sunset Crosswalk/Pedestrian Fry's Spring NDS 50,000 50,000 Design for a project in this area is underway Safety Improvements Stribling Avenue Sidewalks and Traffic Calming Fry's Spring NDS 150,000 150,000 150,000 450,000 A CIP request for the sidewalk was already submitted by NDS for the 2020 CIP Yorktown Drive Sidewalk Greenbrier NDS 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 A CIP request for the sidewalk was already submitted by NDS for the 2020 CIP Alderman Sidewalk Lewis Mountain NDS - - - - - - This is on the current sidewalk priority list. Complete Sidewalk on Ivy Road (2120 Ivy Road) Lewis Mountain NDS - - - - - - There is a current effort to review this site for improvement with the use of ADA funds Belmont/SIA Sidewalk Belmont Carlton NDS/Redevelopment 1,674,200 - - 3,122,900 - 4,797,100 A CIP request for the sidewalks on this list was already submitted by Redevelopment for the 2020 CIP Neighborhood Improvement Near and In Public PHAR NDS & Parks and Rec. - - - - - - 1. 8th ST and West Main - ped striping work done on Housing Sites Monday Oct 15 2. Road Improvements at CRHA sites - request not specific so unable to assess 3. South 1st St speed bump - would need to proceed through current Traffic Calming process. 4. Stop light at Elliot and S 1St - There is a streetscape project included in the 2020 CIP requests for consideration. No stop light is warranted. 5. Parks and Recreation managed the work that replaced or repaired all of the playgrounds at CRHA locations in 2015. There was a one year contract for maintenance following installation which expired in 2016 and all operating manuals, etc. were passed along to CRHA staff at that time. Parks & Rec. has not performed any additional work to the playgrounds in the interim as they are technically CRHA property. Additionally, Parks & Rec. staff developed a scope of work and a cost estimate to replace all of the basketball court surfaces and install new goals at all of the CRHA locations. This was completed around the same time (2015 or so). The previous Executive Director of CRHA committed to funding that project through their capital reserve, however that action was apparently never taken. The original cost of that work was estimated to be approximately $300,000. Today, it is estimated that cost would be 40-50% higher. 1 12/12/2018 Project Title Requesting Neighborhood Responsible Department(s) Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested 5 Year Total NOTES FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 Crosswalk for Brandywine Dr. at Yorktown Greenbrier NDS & Public Works - - - - - - Would be evaluated as part of the Yorktown sidewalk project. Striping and Crosswalk awareness sign possible. Storm Drains on Minor Road Lewis Mountain NDS & Public Works - - - - - - Request for review should be submitted through the Neighborhood Drainage Program. Pedestrian Level Lighting North Downtown NDS & Public Works - - - - - - Additional information will be needed to review further. Traffic Bollards - Franklin and East Market St. Woolen Mills NDS & Public Works 2,000 2,000 It is not recommended to install a hazard to mitigate a hazard and staff is not aware of any standard that would support this type of installation in the right of way. The wall placement is due to Council dictating where the sidewalk was to be built. Installing a bollard only creates an additional hazard and maintenance issue. Meadow Creek Valley Greenway Trail Greenbrier Parks and Recreation 400,000 500,000 300,000 1,200,000 The cost figures submitted in the neighborhood’s submission do not completely align with known anticipated costs for each segment of trail along the Meadow Creek Valley. Additionally, some of the work is currently under construction or will be under construction prior to the end of the calendar year. We are preparing a detailed document for distribution to the Neighborhood Association with specifics on each segment. We should have that completed in the next couple of weeks, if not sooner. Lighting for City Owned Neighborhood Gardens JPA Parks and Recreation - - - - - - More of an operational request/issue as opposed to CIP and can be undertaken outside of the budget process. Oakhurst Circle Landscaping and overgrowth JPA Parks and Recreation - - - - - - More of an operational request/issue as opposed to CIP and removal can be undertaken outside of the budget process. Repaving of Meadowbrook, Hilltop and Hessian Meadowbrook Hills/Rugby Public Works - - - - - - Will be evaluated as part of the street survey that will occur Roads this fall with the results and associated scores in hand by the end of March. Once we have the Pavement Condition Index scores, we’ll be able to reprioritize the paving list and then we’ll know exactly where these streets fall within the paving list. If they score low enough to receive funding, will meet with the neighborhood reps to talk about the drainage issues in attempt to resolve both problems at once. Flashing Lights at Pedestrian Mid-Block Crosswalk Lewis Mountain Public Works - - - - - - Study has been done and warrants were not met. on Alderman Road Replace Existing Streetlights with LED Lights Lewis Mountain Public Works - - - - - - This should be a City wide request. Would require establishing a list of existing street lights that are not LED, establishing a standard LED fixture and possibly photometric plans to ensure that light spillage is not excessive beyond the ROW line. Cost for upgrading to LED could range from $100- $400 per fixture depending on the standard chosen. JPA Retaining Wall Reconstruction Fry's Spring Public Works & NDS 50,000 50,000 Project is currently under investigation. Estimated Total for all Requests 2,626,200 950,000 550,000 3,222,900 100,000 7,449,100 2 12/12/2018 City of Charlottesville FY 2020 - 2024 Capital Improvement Program Request Form Instructions Neighborhood CIP Request Form The information presented below will help guide you through the completion of the Neighborhood CIP Request Form. The Neighborhood CIP Request form is a simple one-page form for the neighborhoods to submit to their capital budget ideas to the City as part of the FY 20-24 budget process. These initial capital budget idea request forms are due to the Budget Office by September 24th. The Budget Office Staff will use this form to help gather information about the capital budget project ideas and direct them to the appropriate department. CIP Project Application Explanation (1) Project Name – For all new projects list the name of the project, and for any existing projects currently in the City’s 5 year CIP, please give the name of the project as it appears in City’s CIP for current and/or prior fiscal year(s). (2) Requesting Neighborhood – List the name of the Department which is responsible for this project. (3) Neighborhood act Information – Please provide the name, email and phone number of the individual to contact if there are any questions about the capital budget idea or if additional information is needed by staff on the project. (4) FY20-24 CIP Requested Project Funding – For all projects list the amount being requested from the City for each fiscal year from FY 2020 through FY 2024. The column titled Requested 5 Year Total will calculate automatically so please do not insert data in this cell. (5) Project Description – Provide a brief description of the project. Including a general description of the project; and if the proposed project leverages outside funding in any way please indicate that as well. (7) Alignment with City’s Strategic Plan – Please list the Adopted Strategic Plan Goal(s) with which this project request aligns. More information on the City of Charlottesville Strategic Plan can be found at the following link: www.charlottesville.org/strategicplan. (8) Comprehensive Plan – Please list the City of Charlottesville Comprehensive Plan Chapter and Goal with which this project request aligns. More information on the City of Charlottesville Comprehensive Plan can be found at the following link: www.charlottesville.org/index.aspx?page=3523. 1 City of Charlottesville FY 2020 - 2024 Capital Improvement Program Neighborhood CIP Request Form (1) Project Name (2) Requesting Neighborhood (3) Neighborhood Contact Information (4) FY20 - 24 CIP Requested Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Requested 5 Project Funding FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 24 Year Total - (5) Project Description (6) Alignment with City's Strategic Plan www.charlottesville.org/strategicplan (6) Alignment with City's Comprehensive Plan www.charlottesville.org/index.aspx?page=3523 12/12/2018 1 Attachment V School Facilities and City Facilities Detail Capital Projects Schools Lump Sum Plan Date: October 2, 2018 LUMP SUM PROJECTS Funding/Revenue For Lump Sum Large Cap Projects: Approved Approved Approved Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected FY 2016 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 City CIP Appropriation -- includes partial funding for Small Cap Program: $1,045,491 $1,076,856 $1,109,162 $1,142,437 $1,176,710 $1,212,011 $1,248,371 $1,285,822 3% increase/year CCS Gainshare contribution - Nov 2015 $100,000 CHS Fieldhouse - supplemental funding - May 2018 $121,775 Small Cap transfer - CHS Black Box (Oct 2016) $50,000 Transfer forward FY17 close-out….to FY18 $210,089 Transfer from FY18 to FY16 - Walker North Atrium project $35,000 ($35,000) Transfer from P-00916 - CHS Fieldhouse $100,000 Previous Year-End Carry Forward: $64,813 $162 $10,007 $294,169 $91,606 $273,316 $115,327 ($131,302) Total Available Lump Sum Funds: $1,295,304 $1,473,882 $1,119,169 $1,436,606 $1,268,316 $1,485,327 $1,363,698 $1,154,520 Large Cap Lump Sum Projects FY 2016 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 P-00949-01 Auditorium Improvements (seating & finishes) - Burnley Moran and Johnson $225,000 Buford & Walker Auditorium - seating & finishes $300,000 Buford & Walker - Fire Enclosures @ Stairwells $220,000 P-00993-02 Buford Building Envelope Restoration $450,000 Buford Electrical (11 panel replacements) $75,000 CHS / MLK-PAC Electrical (70 panel & 3 switchboard replacements) $490,000 P-00882-02 CHS Black Box - catwalk safety improvements $260,619 P-00882-05 CHS Scene Shop & Storage - safety improvements $94,346 CHS Roof Replacement (FY22-design & FY23-construction) (membrane over existing) $120,000 $1,200,000 Submitted for CIP P-00882-08 CHS Stadium Master Plan $1,185 P-00949-03 CHS Field House (FY17-design & FY18-construction) $996,775 CHS Turf Field Replacement (FY23-design & FY24-construction) $40,000 $800,000 Submitted for CIP Central Office 1 (Dairy Road) - ADA Improvements (corridor & restrooms) $175,000 P-00949-04 Central Office 1 (Dairy Road) - conference room $59,733 Clark Building Envelope Restoration $350,000 P-00993-03 Clark Restroom Renovations $65,000 $435,000 P-00882-06 Facility Condition / Limited ADA Assessments $59,980 $65,000 School Facility Master Planning $150,000 P-00949-02 Interior Painting -- Systemwide Fac Maint $72,367 Johnson - New Pedestrian Lighting $80,000 P-00882-02 J/V Fire Protection - fire sprinkler system $539,012 P-00993-01 Modular Classrooms - Systemwide $200,000 Venable Building Envelope Restoration & site drainage improvements (includes Annex) $35,000 $500,000 Venable Elevator Replacement $200,000 Walker Building Envelope Restoration (includes CO1) $475,000 Walker Electrical (11 panel replacements) $75,000 P-00882-07 Walker North Atrium Enclosure $230,000 Small Cap Program Funding (Partial) Allocation $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 Actual/Estimated Lump Sum Project Expenditures $1,295,142 $1,463,875 $825,000 $1,345,000 $995,000 $1,370,000 $1,495,000 $1,130,000 Year-End Balance $162 $10,007 $294,169 $91,606 $273,316 $115,327 ($131,302) $24,520 Government Lump Sum Projects Date: 10/2/2018 Approved Approved Approved Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 Annual Funding for Large Cap $ 1,045,491 $ 1,045,491 $ 1,045,491 $ 1,045,491 $ 1,545,491 $ 1,045,491 $ 1,045,491 $ 1,045,491 Ryan to add another $500K in FY21 Transfer CP-016 $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Transfer FY13 balance to FY17: $ 560,505 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Transfer FY15 balance to FY17: $ 214,791 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Transfer FY15 balance to FY17: $ 26 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Transfer FY16 balance to FY18: $ 192,300 Transfer CATEC "land take account" balance to FY17 (P-00845): $ 144,700 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - FR001 transfer to FY18 (Preston Morris): $ 37,000 Transfer from Gen Fund Savings (Fund 105) PS Street and Sidewalk Cost Center $ 300,000 Transfer By-Pass FS Renovation from P-00922-05 to P-00988 $ (500,000) Albemarle County reimbursement: $ 96,021 $ 19,676 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Available Lump Sum Funds: $ 1,661,534 $ 1,594,467 $ 1,045,491 $ 1,045,491 $ 1,545,491 $ 1,045,491 $ 1,045,491 $ 1,045,491 Previous Year Carry Forward $ 100,737 $ 418,285 $ 198,776 $ 299,267 $ 105,758 $ 106,249 $ 65,740 P-00922 P-00948 P-00992 Project # Large Cap Lump Sum Projects Approved FY 17 Approved FY 18 Approved FY 19 Proposed FY20 Proposed FY21 Proposed FY22 Proposed FY23 Proposed FY24 P-00948-09 Avon Yard - Salt Barn $ 300,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - P-00922-01 CATEC - chiller replacement $ 175,582 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - CATEC - heating & ventilation unit replacements (5) in shop areas $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 130,000 $ - $ - CATEC - electrical: replace 23 original circuit breaker panels $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 180,000 $ - P-00948-02 CATEC - interior painting $ - $ 31,200 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - P-00992-01 CATEC - asphalt parking lot milling & paving $ - $ - $ 150,000 $ - $ - CATEC - roof replacement $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,000,000 $ - $ - $ - Ryan to add another $500K in FY21 CATEC - building automation system (BAS) - controls replacement $ - $ - $ - $ 190,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - Central Library - interior finishes $ - $ - $ - $ 350,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - P-00992-02 Central Library - restroom renovations & ADA upgrades - Phase II $ - $ - $ 275,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - P-00922-06 City Hall - second floor conference room $ 110,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - City Hall Complex (CH, Michie & PD) - building envelope $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 450,000 $ 80,000 $ - P-00948-10 City Hall - space planning & implementation $ - $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - City Hall Annex - elevator replacement $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 225,000 $ - $ - $ - P-00948-08 City Hall Annex - IT renovation $ - $ 80,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - City Hall Annex - Interior Finishes in DSS on 2nd, 3rd, 4th Floors $ - $ - $ - $ 310,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - Facility Condition Assessments - Government $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 85,000 $ - Facility Condition Assessments - City/County $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 20,000 $ - Gov't Facility Master Planning $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 150,000 $ - $ - $ - P-00922-02 Fire: Ridge Street Station - kitchen & dormitory renovations $ 405,451 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - P-00948-01 Gordon Avenue Library - children's section & main level restroom renovations $ - $ 375,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - P-00922-03 Gordon Avenue Library - parking lot improvements $ 16,461 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Jessup House - building envelope restoration, window replacements & chimney repairs $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 54,000 $ - $ - $ - Market Street Parking Garage - structural rehabilitation $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 35,000 $ 450,000 $ - $ - Submitted for CIP P-00922-04 McGuffey Art Center - building envelope and window restoration $ 663,303 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - P-00948-04 McIntire Building (aka Historical Center) - roof replacement $ - $ 58,151 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Michie - roof replacement $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 186,000 $ - P-00992-03 PD Interior Renovations (b-ment & 3rd floor) OR New Facility Prelim Design & Research $ - $ - $ 475,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - P-00992-04 Preston-Morris Building - window & exterior door replacements $ - $ - $ 40,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - P-00948-06 Preston-Morris Building - Interior $ - $ 167,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - P-00948-07 Public Works Admin Building - interior finishes - Phase II $ - $ 65,568 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - P-00992-05 Public Works Admin Building - Training Room $ - $ - $ 85,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Public Works Admin Building - interior finishes - Phase III $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 350,000 $ - Public Works Admin Building - interior finishes - Phase IV $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 275,000 Public Works Warehouse - Loading Dock & Site Improvements $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 225,000 Public Works Fleet Garage & Warehouse - Fire Supression System & Alarm $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 350,000 P-00992-?? Public Works Fleet Garage - Improvements $ - $ - $ 225,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - P-00922-09 Roof Inspections $ 15,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - P-00992-06 Roof Inspections $ - $ - $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 P-00922-08 Treasurer's Office - public service counter casework & security upgrades $ 175,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Temp Salary for PM $ 80,000 $ 80,000 $ - $ - $ - Actual/Estimated Lump Sum Project Expenditures $ 1,560,797 $ 1,276,919 $ 1,265,000 $ 945,000 $ 1,739,000 $ 1,045,000 $ 1,086,000 $ 515,000 End of Year Remainder $ 100,737 $ 418,284.92 $ 198,775.92 $ 299,266.92 $ 105,757.92 $ 106,248.92 $ 65,739.92 $ 596,230.92 Attachment VI Project Request Forms City of Charlottesville FY 2020 - 2024 Capital Improvement Program Project Request Form Instructions CIP Project Application Explanation (1) Project Title – For all new projects list the name of the project as you want it to appear in SAP. For existing projects please give the name of the project as it appears in SAP for the current and/or prior fiscal year(s). (2) Estimated Project Start Date – Provide the date on which it is estimated the project will begin incurring expenditures for design, construction, and/or purchase – whichever comes first. (3) Estimated Project Completion Date – Provide the date on which it is estimated that project construction will be completed and no new expenditures incurred. If the project is a recurring yearly project you should list the completion date as “Ongoing”. (4) Departmental Priority Number – Rank the priority of the project relative to the other projects being submitted. This will need to be coordinated with all department staff submitting Request Forms. (5) Total Projects Submitted – Provide the number of projects submitted for consideration. This will need to be coordinated with all department staff submitting Request Forms. (6) Project Description – Provide a detailed description of the project that is being requested, including any relevant history or background information on the project. (7) Projected Project Costs – For all projects list the amount requested from the City for each fiscal year from FY 2019 through FY 2028. The column titled 10 Year Total will calculate automatically so please do not insert data in this cell. Please fill in information for all 10 years. Any data in years 6-10 is for internal use only, but the information is required on the form. (8) Funding Source - Record the amounts of funding to be received from each different source (City, State, Federal, Albemarle County, Other) in the appropriate row so that all sources of funding are properly identified. If the project will not receive any outside funding place the entire project amount in the row labeled City. The 10 Year Total for all funding amounts should equal the 10 Year Total for Projected Project Costs. The column titled 10 Year Total will calculate automatically so please do not insert data in this cell. (9) Projected Operational Costs – Please fill out this section thoroughly, if upon completion the project will require ANY increase/decrease in operational costs. If the 1 completed project will require additional facilities maintenance efforts please coordinate with Paul Oberdorfer in the Public Works Department. If the completed project will require additional grounds maintenance efforts, please coordinate with Brian Daly in the Parks and Recreation Department. If the completed project will require additional Street and/or Sidewalk maintenance efforts please coordinate with Steve Mays in the Public Service Division. Personnel  Please list the number of additional FTEs or additional hours required to staff or maintain this project. Place the increase in the year it would be necessary.  List the estimated salaries for all additional Full-Time personnel under F/T Personnel costs and the estimated salaries of all Temporary/Seasonal personnel under the line titled Temporary Personnel Costs.  The FICA line and Other Benefits Line will calculate automatically once data is entered into the F/T Personnel Cost and Temporary Personnel Cost rows. Operating  If additional operating expenses will be required as a result of this project please list all operating related expenses in this area. Several examples of potential operating expenses have been listed – Utilities, Supplies, Maintenance, Fixed Costs, and Other. Feel free to add new categories if applicable to your project.  Lifecycle Replacement – If the project will result in new/additional infrastructure, facility, or equipment please calculate the lifecycle replacement cost here. The Lifecycle Replacement cost in this instance refers to the estimated cost to upgrade or replace the asset (infrastructure/equipment/facility) spread over the useful life of the facility. For example – if the project will create a facility that needs to be upgraded every 10 years at an estimated upgrade cost of $100,000, then you would list the annual life cycle cost as $10,000 per year ($100,000/10 years = $10,000 per year). Equipment  If additional equipment will be required for operations/maintenance of this project please list those costs under the appropriate line – either Vehicles or Other Operating Equipment. (10) Projected Revenues – Please list all sources of revenue that will result from this project’s completion. Examples would be, but are not limited to, Admission Fees, Annual Passes, Special Event Revenue, etc. If there is revenue in the Other section please specify the type and source of revenue (this could include intergovernmental revenue, increased tax collection, merchandise sales, etc.). (11) Summary – These rows will calculate automatically based upon the information entered in the Projected Project Costs, Funding Source, Projected Operational Cost, and Projected Revenues categories, and will provide a summary of the Total Project Expenses, Total Revenues, and the Net Cost to the City. 2 (12) Alignment with City’s Strategic Plan – Please list and provide a brief explanation as to how the project most directly aligns with an Adopted Strategic Plan Goal and Objective with which this project request most directly aligns at the very least. If the project aligns with a specific Initiative in the Strategic Plan, list and provide an explanation of that that as well. More information on the City of Charlottesville Strategic Plan can be found at the following link: www.charlottesville.org/strategicplan. (13) Alignment with City Comprehensive Plan – In the text box you need to answer the question of whether or not the project conforms to the City of Charlottesville Comprehensive Plan. If yes then you need to identify the specific chapter and goal in the City’s Comprehensive Plan that this project addresses or is related to. Also if the project directly meets one of the identified Planning Commission Comprehensive Plan Priorities (included as attachment) please specify which priority it meets. More information on the City of Charlottesville Comprehensive Plan can be found at the following link: www.charlottesville.org/index.aspx?page=3523. (14) Alternative Scope – List any and all alternative methods for completing the project, such as, spreading the project over more than one fiscal year, using different materials, or only completing a portion of the original project request. Also list any effects of completing the project under the alternative methods. (15) Location Map and Other Supporting Documentation – Attach any pictures, maps, plans, or other supporting documentation that would help provide a clearer understanding of the project and may illustrate or better emphasize the need for the project. (16) Project Evaluation Criteria – Provide a preliminary score on the project based on each of the below criteria. The Total Score will calculate automatically. 1) Legal Mandate 4 The project is required by an immediate legal mandate or directly addresses a current legal mandate. 0 The project is not required by an immediate legal mandate or does not directly address a current legal mandate. 2) Strategic Plan Alignment 1 The project directly addresses one or more of the City Strategic Plan Measures or Initiatives. 0 The project does not directly address a Strategic Plan Measure or Initiative. 3) Level of service provided by the City 1 The project improves and/or increases the level of service provided by the City. 0 The project does not improve and/or increase the level of service provided by the City. 4) GOAL 1: An Inclusive Community of Self-sufficient Residents 3 1 The project addresses or contributes to workforce development, affordable housing, or issues of race and equity. 0 The project does not address workforce development, affordable housing, or issues of race and equity. 5) GOAL 2: A Healthy and Safe City 4 The project fully eliminates or prevents an existing health, environmental, or safety hazard. 2 The project partially eliminates or prevents an existing health, environmental, or safety hazard. 0 The project does not eliminate or prevent an existing health, environmental, or safety hazard. 6) GOAL 3: A Beautiful and Sustainable Natural and Built Environment 2 The project improves or maintains the City’s existing infrastructure. 0 The project does not protect or preserve the City’s existing infrastructure. 7) GOAL 4: A Strong, Creative and Diversified Economy 1 The project will directly stimulate economic development or redevelopment of properties and/or encourage increased economic development in the City’s corridors. 0 The project will not encourage increased economic development in the City’s corridors. 8) GOAL 5: A Well-managed and Responsive Organization 2 The project reduces operational costs or generates new revenue. 0 The project will not reduce operational costs or generate new revenue. 9) GOAL 5: A Well-managed and Responsive Organization 1 The City funding for the project will leverage outside funding for project completion (e.g., from grant, state, federal, other governmental). 0 The City funding for the project will not leverage outside funding for project completion. (17) Other Considerations – In this area highlight reasons for criteria scoring and any other factors that should be taken into consideration when reviewing this project, such as, but not limited to:  If the project is required by a legal mandate;  If the project will remedy existing safety issues;  If the project ties into another existing City project(s) or if the project will be done in partnership with another non-City organization(s); or,  If there are any restrictions on any grants or donations to be received for the project. 4 Capital Improvement Program Final Project Request Form 5‐ YEAR PROGRAM SPAN: Fiscal Year 20‐24 Project Title: Departmental Priority Number: Estimated Start Date: Total Projects Submitted: Estimated Completion Date: Project Description: PROJECTED PROJECT COSTS FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 10 YEAR TOTAL Design ‐ Construction & FFE ‐ Subtotal ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ FUNDING SOURCE FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 10 YEAR TOTAL City ‐ State ‐ Federal ‐ Albemarle County ‐ Other: (Specify)__________ ‐ Total ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ PROJECTED OPERATIONAL COSTS Personnel FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 10 YEAR TOTAL # of Additional FTE ‐ F/T Personnel Costs ‐ Temporary/Seasonal Personnel ‐ Costs FICA (7.65%) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Benefits (38% of F/T salary) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Subtotal ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Operating FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 10 YEAR TOTAL Utilities ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Supplies ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Maintenance ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Fixed Costs (IT, HVAC, etc.) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Other Operational Expenses ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Lifecycle Replacement ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Subtotal ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Equipment FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 10 YEAR TOTAL Vehicles ‐ Other Operating Equipment ‐ Subtotal ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ TOTAL OPERATING COST ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ PROJECTED REVENUES Revenues FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 10 YEAR TOTAL Admission Fees ‐ Annual Passes ‐ Special Event Revenue ‐ Other (Specify):_________ ‐ Subtotal ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ SUMMARY FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 10 YEAR TOTAL Total Expenses ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Revenues ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Net Cost to City ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Operational Cost Recovery #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Year in which total design and construction costs recovered 1 12/12/2018 Capital Improvement Program Final Project Request Form 5‐ YEAR PROGRAM SPAN: Fiscal Year 20‐24 ALIGNMENT WITH CITY STRATEGIC PLAN www.charlottesville.org/strategicplan ALIGNMENT WITH CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN www.charlottesville.org/index.aspx?page=3523 ALTERNATIVE SCOPE LOCATION MAP AND OTHER SUPPORTTING DOCUMENTATION RPOJECT EVALUATION CRITERIA: 1. Legal Mandate 0 6. Goal 3 0 2. Strategic Plan Alignment 0 7. Goal 4 0 3. Level of Service Provided by the City 0 8. Goal 5 ‐ Financial Impact 0 4. Goal 1 0 8. Goal 5 ‐ Outside Funding 0 5. Goal 2 0 Total Score: 0 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Include explanations for the above criteria (e.g., legal mandate information, safety hazard background). 2 12/12/2018 Attachment VII Capital Improvement Program Code Requirements Code of Virginia § 15.2-2239. Local planning commissions to prepare and submit annually capital improvement programs to governing body or official charged with preparation of budget A local planning commission may, and at the direction of the governing body shall, prepare and revise annually a capital improvement program based on the comprehensive plan of the locality for a period not to exceed the ensuing five years. The commission shall submit the program annually to the governing body, or to the chief administrative officer or other official charged with preparation of the budget for the locality, at such time as it or he shall direct. The capital improvement program shall include the commission's recommendations, and estimates of cost of the facilities and life cycle costs, including any road improvement and any transportation improvement the locality chooses to include in its capital improvement plan and as provided for in the comprehensive plan, and the means of financing them, to be undertaken in the ensuing fiscal year and in a period not to exceed the next four years, as the basis of the capital budget for the locality. In the preparation of its capital budget recommendations, the commission shall consult with the chief administrative officer or other executive head of the government of the locality, the heads of departments and interested citizens and organizations and shall hold such public hearings as it deems necessary. 1 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: January 8, 2018 APPLICATION NUMBER: SP-1800010 Project Planner: Heather Newmyer, AICP Date of Staff Report: December 18, 2018 Applicant: Go Store It River, LLC Applicants Representative: Justin Shimp, P.E. of Shimp Engineering Current Property Owner: Go Store It River, LLC Application Information Property Street Address: 901 River Road (“Subject Property”) Tax Map/Parcel #: Tax Map 49, Parcel 98 Total Square Footage/ Acreage Site: approximately 2.203 acres or 95,963 square feet Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Plan): Business and Technology Current Zoning Classification: Industrial Corridor District (IC) Tax Status: Parcel is up to date on taxes paid. Completeness: The application contains all of the information required by Zoning Ordinance Secs. 34-41(d), and 34-158(a) and (b). There are no existing dwelling units on the site, and there are multifamily units proposed by this development. Graphic materials illustrating the context of the project are attached to this staff report (Attachment 4, 5). The pre-application meeting required by Sec. 34-41(b)(1) was held on September 21, 2018. The community meeting required by Sec. 34-41(c)(2) was conducted on November 7, 2018, at the following location: Park Street Christian Church (1200 Park Street). Background The applicant for the current special use permit request under review (#SP18-00010) put forward a series of special use permit requests (#SP17-0002 (withdrawn); #SP18-0001 (withdrawn)) and a by-right site plan (#P18-0127 (withdrawn)) prior to submitting the current application before Planning Commission. Below is a brief outline of each application to show the history of this application process and the alterations the applicant has made along the way in effort to address both City Council/Planning Commission and neighborhood concerns. #SP17-00002 was a request for the use of a self-storage company at the Subject Property that went before Planning Commission as a Public Hearing at their October 11, 2017 meeting and a regular item to be voted on at their October 24, 2017 special meeting. The topics of discussion that the Commission focused on were: • The use of a self-storage company did not create enough activity as some of the neighborhood residents have expressed they would want whereas another use could generate more jobs, activity and serve the neighborhood better • The use of a self-storage company does not meet the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Goal of mixed use The Planning Commission provided a recommendation for denial (5-1; Santoski) on October 24, 2017. The applicant formally withdrew this special use permit request prior to moving forward to City Council. #SP18-00001 was submitted as another request for a self-storage company at the Subject Property with modifications in efforts to address Planning Commission and neighborhood concerns. SP18-00001 went before Planning Commission as a Public Hearing at their March 13, 2018 meeting. The major difference between the SP17-00002 application and the SP18-00001 application was the provision for office and retail space on the first floor where the previous application included only the self-storage use (the proposed 3-story building allocated 102,235 SF to self-storage and the remaining 5,600 SF to office and retail space). The topics of discussion the Commission focused on were: • Whether the amount of space allocated towards office and retail was enough to comply with the Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use Designation: Business and Technology • Underutilization of parcel versus what potentially could locate on the Subject Property 2 • Other uses that could create more jobs but weighing that against impact on surrounding neighborhood • Massing along Belleview versus potential for gathering space for residents who want to gather near Rivanna River The Planning Commission provided a recommendation for denial (6-0) on March 13, 2018. The applicant formally withdrew this special use permit request prior to moving forward to City Council. The Locust Grove neighborhood weighed in throughout both of the above mentioned special use permit processes and while many comments were made, below is a summary of the overall concerns: • Desire for a use that provides more tax revenue and more job creation than the proposed use • Desire for this property to redevelop as a more neighborhood oriented use (including a mix of uses, residential and commercial, neighborhood amenity and more attention to the Subject Properties’ close proximity to the Rivanna River) #P18-0127 was submitted by the applicant on June 27, 2018 proposing to construct a three- story multifamily building containing 45 residential units that fronted on River Road and a four- story auto parts and equipment sales warehouse building located at the rear of the site. The applicant noted the proposed uses were an attempt to provide the neighborhood with a different mix of uses with a residential element. A site plan conference for this project was held on July 18, 2018 where members of the neighborhood provided suggestions and concerns. Below is an overall summary of those suggestions and concerns: • Concerned with the traffic generated by the auto parts and equipment sales warehouse building • Many neighbors were in favor of the residential element of the project but desired there be a neighborhood amenity/community space included on-site. Suggestion to include a neighborhood amenity at the corner of River Road and Belleview Avenue. • Concern the developer is not providing water quality treatment on-site in light of the property’s proximity to the Rivanna River; but, instead, is proposing to purchase nutrient credits. 3 The applicant formally withdrew this preliminary site plan and submitted the special use permit request #SP18-00010 and preliminary site plan that coincides with the special use permit application that is currently before Planning Commission. The current special use permit provides a residential element that has an increased density, a small retail space and a smaller scale self-storage unit than the ones proposed in previous special use permit requests where the applicant has argued this use provides less traffic than the proposed auto warehouse use in the most recently withdrawn site plan #P18-0127. The remainder of the staff report will provide further details and analysis on the special use permit request #SP18-00010. Applicant’s Request Shimp Engineering on behalf of Go Store It River, LLC (owner) has submitted an application seeking approval of a Special Use Permit (SUP) request for the property located at 901 River Road with road frontage on River Road and Belleview Avenue. The proposal requests to allow for increased residential density as well as a self-storage company, pursuant to City Code Sections 34-480, where self-storage is allowed via a special use permit and density in excess of 21 dwelling units per acre (DUA) is allowed (up to 64 DUA) via a special use permit if residential density is associated with a mix-used development as indicated in Sec. 34-458. The proposal indicates a total of 54 residential units which equates to 25 DUA calculated with respect to entire development site (2.203 acres) as defined per Sec. 34-458. The property is further identified on City Real Property Tax Map 49 Parcel 98 (“Subject Property”). The Subject Property is zoned IC (Industrial Corridor District). The site is approximately 2.203 acres or 95,963 square feet. The preliminary site plan, dated October 23, 2018 (Attachment 3) proposes to demolish the existing building and construct a four-story multifamily building containing 54 residential units (67,888 SF gross floor area (GFA)) with 1,500 square feet of retail space on the first floor that fronts on River Road and a four-story self-storage building (61,050 SF GFA) located at the rear of the site. The Comprehensive Plan designates the land use of the Subject Property as Business and Technology. 4 Vicinity Map Context Map 1 5 Context Map 2 – Zoning Classifications KEY - Gray: Industrial Corridor (IC) District; Orange: R-2 – Tow-Family, Low-Density Residential; Magenta: Central City Corridor Mixed Use District (CC); Light Blue Hash Mark: Entrance Corridor Overlay Context Map 3 - General Land Use Plan, 2013 Comprehensive Plan KEY – Maroon: Business & Technology; Purple: Mixed Use; Yellow: Low Density Residential; Red: Neighborhood Commercial 6 Application Components: Project proposal narrative (Sec. 34-41(d)(1)): Attachment 2 Building massing diagram and elevations (Sec. 34-157(a)(4)): Attachment 2 Project site plan (Sec. 34-157(a)(1): Attachment 3 Applicant’s Comprehensive Plan Analysis: Attachment 2 Applicant’s public facilities impact statement: Attachment 2 Applicant’s LID Worksheet (Sec. 34-157(a)(3)): Attachment 1 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. Sec. 34-157(a)(1) Whether the proposed use or development will be harmonious with existing patterns of use and development within the neighborhood. The properties immediately surrounding the subject property are described as: Direction Use Zoning North Auto Repair/Servicing Business IC South Other Retail Stores CC East Hardware Store IC West Single-Family Dwellings R-2 The pattern of development along River Road in closest proximity to the Subject Property is characterized by automobile uses (Larry’s Auto & Truck Repair, 1313 Belleview Avenue; Autozone, 910 River Road), hardware stores, a pharmacy (CVS, 1341 Long St), and agriculture supply store (Tractor Supply, 921 River Road). The properties along River Road that are surrounding the Subject Property are zoned Industrial Corridor District (IC) save the two properties that front onto Long St, which are zoned Central 7 City Corridor (CC) Mixed Use District. Directly behind the Subject Property are properties zoned R-2 (Two-family, low-family residential). Staff Analysis: The proposed use of the Subject Property is a 4-story self-storage company (61,050 GFA) located at the rear of the site and a 4-story multifamily building containing 54 residential units fronting on River Road (67,888 GFA with 1,500 square feet of retail space on the first floor at corner of Belleview Avenue and River Road). The Subject Property sits directly between properties that are zoned CC to the south and properties zoned IC to the north. The inclusion of a mix of uses (residential with a commercial element/neighborhood amenity and commercial use at the back of the site) increases the number of uses on the Subject Property, providing a transition from the existing industrial properties north of the Subject Property to properties zoned for mixed use (CVS, 1241 Long Street and Tractor Supply, 921 River Road) south of the Subject Property. The added residential element provides additional housing to the area and attempts to provide a mixed use development in an area that currently is predominately industrial. This could be a positive transition and trend for the River Road corridor in the future. Please note: Because the Subject Property is adjacent to low-family residential to the rear of the property, the proposed development, should the SUP get approved, will have to comply with Sec. 34-457(b)(5)(c): “Along the frontage with any low density residential district, side and rear buffers shall be required, ten (10) feet, minimum, consisting of an S-3 type buffer (refer to section 34-871).” A proposed S-3 type buffer is shown at the rear of the site, adjacent to the low density residential district, on the Landscape Plan (Attachment 3). Sec. 34-157(a)(2) Whether the proposed use or development and associated public facilities will substantially conform to the city's comprehensive plan. The applicant includes within the project proposal narrative (Attachment 2) a section regarding its consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Analysis: The 2013 Comprehensive Plan’s General Land Use Plan specifies the Subject Property and its surrounding properties as Business and Technology. Business and Technology areas, according to the Comprehensive Plan, “permit small scale offices that cater to start-up businesses and technological development, as well as commercial 8 activity that does not generate the amount of traffic that can be found in more consumer oriented commercial areas.” Staff believes the proposed use conforms to the Comprehensive Plan’s intent for the Business and Technology area in that a self-storage company is a commercial activity that does not generate the amount of traffic that can be found in consumer oriented commercial areas. The trips associated with the self-storage company (61,050 SF) are approximated at total daily trips: 93 trips per day, where the AM Peak Hour: 12 trips and PM Peak Hour: 12 trips. This can be compared to a home improvement store of approximately 30,000 SF which approximates 1,380 vehicle trips/day (AM Peak Hour: 37; PM Peak Hour: 70); this use similar to the Tractor Supply store that is adjacent to the Subject Property. Note: The overall trips associated with the self-storage company, small retail and residential portion of the proposed project are approximated at total daily trips: 481, where AM Peak Hour: 36 trips and PM Peak Hour: 45 trips. Staff does not believe the uses conform to the portion of the Business and Technology’s intent to permit “start-up businesses and technological development.” However, staff also recognizes the overall product of the proposed is a mixed use development that conforms to other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan listed below. Below are specific areas of the Comprehensive Plan for which the development is in compliance: a. Land Use Goal 2 – Mixed Use, “Establish a mix of uses within walking distance of residential neighborhoods that will enhance opportunities for small group interaction throughout Charlottesville” Goal 3.2. Enhance existing neighborhood commercial centers and create opportunities for others in areas where they will enhance adjacent residential areas. Provide opportunities for nodes of activity to develop, particularly along mixed-use corridors. Staff Analysis: The special use permit request includes a 1,500 SF retail space located on the first floor of the multifamily building located at the corner of River Road and Belleview that can serve as a neighborhood amenity for the adjacent Locust Grove neighborhood and the residents of the proposed multifamily building. 9 In addition, the proposed project improves pedestrian connections and provides for increased activity connecting the adjacent neighborhood to new commercial and residential activity on the Subject Property that is located in close proximity to one of the City’s public amenities: the Rivanna Trail. Staff believes the mix of uses improves the quality of the site, diversifies the site, better activates the street and establishes uses that are in walking distance of the adjacent neighborhood. Staff believes this short-term redevelopment could act as a stepping stone towards meeting some of the City’s long term goals for this area and act as a shift in development focus towards: mix of uses that include a residential element, more attention to pedestrian improvements, etc. for when future redevelopment occurs. Goal 2.3 Enhance pedestrian connections between residences, commercial centers, public facilities, amenities and green spaces. Staff Analysis: There is currently no sidewalk on either of the roads (River Road and Belleview Avenue) the Subject Property fronts on. One of the Locust Grove Neighborhood’s long-standing interests is the need for a pedestrian connection from their neighborhood to the commercial activity along River Road, Long St and for those families traveling to one of the City’s public amenities: the Rivanna Trail. In conjunction with a proposed development on the Subject Property comes the opportunity to provide the missing pedestrian connection to the existing sidewalks on adjacent properties and to provide a link to a greater connection to commercial amenities and the Rivanna Trail. The proposed development includes a sidewalk five (5) feet in width along Belleview and a sidewalk six (6) feet in width along River Road. In addition, the following improvements are proposed: • Six (6) feet wide curbside buffer with street trees located between the sidewalk and River Road • A bulb out to extend at the corner of the intersection of River Road and Belleview Avenue While the proposed pedestrian connections comply with the above mentioned Comprehensive Plan Goal, staff has noted areas in the current proposed site plan where there could be enhanced connection between adjacent properties and improved ADA access. As such, staff has recommended two conditions to ensure quality pedestrian connections. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator has noted 10 the proposed sidewalk connections on the subject property should connect to the neighboring properties. Depicted on the current site plan (Attachment 3), there are gaps in the sidewalk network immediately adjacent to the site that could be filled to promote ADA and pedestrian access to transit. Staff has included a condition that requires the Developer to as part of the proposed pedestrian connections, backfill these gaps and ensure the sidewalks along Belleview Avenue and River Road connect to adjacent properties (1304 Belleview Ave (TM 49 P 99); 921 River Road (TM 49 P 95)). In addition, staff has included a recommended condition that requires the Developer to upgrade the north side of Belleview Avenue to include curb ramps to facilitate ADA access. Please see the Staff’s Recommendations section at the end of this report for a complete list of staff’s proposed conditions. It should be noted that regardless of if the proposed development required a special use permit (SUP) or not, any new development would be required to provide new sidewalk meeting current City standards (five (5) feet in width) via the City Zoning Ordinance (Sec. 34-897 – Pedestrian walkways and Sec. 34-1124 – Vacant lot construction – Required sidewalks, curbs and gutters). However, the proposed development exceeds the current sidewalk requirements provided for in the City’s Zoning Ordinance in that it provides, in addition to the required sidewalk, the above mentioned improvements that comply with the City’s Streets That Work Guidelines. This is detailed below under Transportation. b. Transportation Goal 1 – Complete Streets Streets That Work Plan The applicant’s Streets That Work narrative is included in Attachment 2. The Streets That Work Plan, adopted by City Council September 6, 2016, categorizes Charlottesville’s framework streets into six street typologies, which are based on Complete Street principles. Framework streets are the most direct routes through the city that connect places, neighborhoods, and districts and also serve as emergency vehicle routes. Non-framework streets are considered local streets and make up the majority of the street network. Local streets have no specific associated typology due to the variation of context, right-of-way width, as well as the community’s expressed desire to replicate as nearly as possible the feel of older local streets. The Streets That Work Plan notes design elements on Local Streets should not exceed the dimensions specified for Neighborhood B streets. Chapter 3: 11 Street Network and Typologies of the Streets That Work Plan include design parameters for the street typologies. Chapter 3 is included as Attachment 6 of this staff report for reference. To access the full Streets That Work Plan, follow this link: http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and-services/departments-h- z/neighborhood-development-services/streets-that-work/streets-that-work-plan. Staff Analysis: The Subject Property fronts on River Road which falls into the Industrial street typology and Belleview Avenue which is considered a non- framework, Local street. River Road: The highest priority elements included in the Industrial street typology are 11’-12’ travel lanes, 5’-6’ clear walk zone for sidewalks and 3’-6’ curbside buffer zones. The proposed development has provided for the highest priority elements with appropriate dimensions: a new 6’ sidewalk along River Road, a 6’ curbside buffer with street trees while maintaining a 12’ travel lane along River Road. Belleview Avenue: The Subject Property also fronts on Belleview Avenue which is considered a non-framework, Local Street. The Streets that Work Plan notes design elements on Local Streets should not exceed the dimensions specified for Neighborhood B streets. A minimum of five (5) to six (6) feet of clear walk zone width for sidewalks is recommended for Neighborhood B streets. Sidewalks and on- street parking are noted as the highest priority street elements within the Neighborhood B typology. The proposed development has included a new 5’ sidewalk along Belleview Avenue. The plan indicates there being 40’ of existing right-of-way on Belleview Avenue, where curb to curb width is shown on the plan as approximately 27’-28’, which would allow for approximately 10’-10.5’ travel lanes and 7’ on-street parking on one side, both of these dimensions complying with the Streets That Work Guidelines. Under existing conditions, cars utilize on-street parking along Belleview Avenue (many of the cars of which are a result of the auto repair business adjacent to the Subject Property). Because of the real need for on-street parking specific to this area, on-street parking being one of the highest priority elements according to Streets That Work and there being limited right-of-way along Belleview Avenue, staff has recommended a condition that requires the applicant to ensure there is on- street parking maintained on one side of Belleview Avenue. Please see the recommended conditions under the Staff’s Recommendations section of this report. This would require the Developer to alter his proposed improvements on Belleview 12 that are currently shown on the site plan (Attachment 3) in order to provide the highest priority elements. The proposed improvements encroach in the already limited right-of-way space, eliminating the majority of space needed for on-street parking on the south side of Belleview Avenue. In previous proposals for the Subject Property, the site plan was designed in such a way to allow for the needed on-street parking plus the new five-foot wide sidewalk. Staff’s proposed condition ensures the Developer will fall back on the original design that aligns with Streets That Work principles. c. Housing Below are specific areas of the Comprehensive Plan’s Housing chapter for which the development is in compliance: Goal 8.3 Encourage housing development where increased density is desirable and strive to coordinate those areas with stronger access to employment opportunities, transit routes and commercial services Goal 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 Staff Analysis: The proposed redevelopment of the Subject Property includes an infill residential element in an industrial area that currently does not have this type of housing. It provides for multifamily housing stock that is different than the longstanding existing single-family housing adjacent to the industrial corridor, placing increased density in an area closer to commercial services and improved pedestrian connectivity. Below are specific areas of the Comprehensive Plan for which the development may not be in compliance: a. Environment Goal 1 – Urban Landscape & Habitat Enhancement, Value the Rivanna River as a major asset in the life of our city and region and restore it to a healthy condition within our ecosystem in order to improve habitat, watershed health and water quality Goal 4 – Water Resources Protection 13 Goal 4.5 Reduce and/or eliminate stormwater runoff impacts from sites that lack adequate stormwater treatment by incentivizing reductions in overall imperviousness and encouraging retrofits on developed properties to address stormwater management Staff Analysis: Included in Attachment 1 is a completed Low Impact Development (LID) sheet where the applicant claims 0 points. There was previous discussion with the neighborhood where the neighborhood urged the applicant to instead of purchasing credits, providing water quality treatment on-site in light of the Subject Property’s proximity to the Rivanna River. The applicant, in previous project proposals, included treatment on-site which was commended by staff. However, in this latest proposal, the applicant indicates nutrient credits will be purchased in place of an on-site water quality treatment option. Staff has recommended that the Developer be required to provide on-site water quality treatment by using one of DEQ’s approved BMP’s. This condition is intended to be in replacement of the applicant buying off-site credits. b. Housing Goal 3.2 Incorporate affordable units throughout the City, recognizing that locating affordable units throughout the community benefits the whole City. Staff Analysis: While staff recognizes the proposed development does not trip the affordable housing unit requirements found in Sec. 34-12 because the residential portion of the project does not exceed 1.0 floor-area ratio (FAR), or an equivalent density based on units per acre, staff does believe given the need for affordable housing in the City that including affordable units on-site as defined in Sec. 34-12(c) would strengthen the proposal and provide a multifamily housing development that better accommodates renters representative of a greater range of price points. Staff recommends the applicant consider this as part of their application. Sec. 34-157(a)(3) Whether proposed use or development of any buildings or structures will comply with all applicable building code regulations. Staff Analysis: The proposed development will conform to all applicable building code regulations. Building plans are not yet available for review, but demolition of the 14 existing structure, and construction of the proposed new structure, cannot proceed without separate applications/ review conducted by the City’s Building Code Official. Sec. 34-157(a)(4) Potential adverse impacts, including, but not necessarily limited to: a) Traffic or parking congestion Parking: The proposed number of parking spaces (76) meets and exceeds City parking requirements for self-storage, commercial space and residential uses (required: 65 spaces) (See Attachment 3, Preliminary Site Plan). Staff Analysis: In addition to the proposed development meeting parking requirements on-site, the building and parking is regulated in such a way that it: • Provides for a landscape plan that exceeds the 10% landscape coverage requirement (proposed 16% coverage), with the inclusion of the required landscape buffer between the rear of the Subject Property and adjacent low- density single family residences. However, the proposed interior parking landscaping is not in compliance with the code but this will be dealt with and accommodated through site plan review. Traffic: The applicant includes a “potential adverse traffic impacts” section within their project proposal narrative (Attachment 2) and notes a self-storage company, small commercial space and multifamily residential building generates approximately 45 vehicle trips in the peak hour. Staff Analysis: Staff believes the mix of uses proposed will have less of a traffic impact along the corridor given the estimated number for vehicle trips per day (481 vehicles per day) is lower than adjacent uses and other potential by-right uses. In addition, staff notes the applicant has provided for an entrance onto Belleview Avenue that limits exiting to right-only in response to the neighborhood’s concern of there being an entrance off of Belleview Avenue that could potentially encourage drivers to travel through the Locust Grove neighborhood. 15 b) Noise, lights, dust, odor, fumes, vibration, and other factors which adversely affect the natural environment Staff Analysis: Staff does not anticipate there will be significant noise generated from a self-storage company or the multifamily building as they both are lower traffic generators in respect to those in close proximity and operate on normal business hours. The additional use of a small-scale commercial coffee shop is the only scenario in which staff could see longer business hours being applied. If Planning Commission has concern with longer business hours, it is in their purview to limit business hours as a proposed special use permit condition if desired. Other factors which adversely affect the natural environment: The Subject Property backs up to a low-residential neighborhood and is required to provide per Sec. 34- 457(b)(5)(c) and Sec. 34-872(a)(3) a S-3 type buffer between the use and low density residential district. The preliminary site plan (Attachment 3) accounts for this buffer on Sheet C6. c) Displacement of existing residents or businesses Staff Analysis: The lot is an existing one-story brick building where no business is currently located as well as vehicles stored on-site. Staff assumes this is an overflow of the adjacent auto repair business and has not been informed by the applicant of a plan for where these cars should locate. This is important as there is already an issue with parking along Belleview Avenue even with the proposed plan to maintain on- street parking on one side of the street. d) Discouragement of economic development activities that may provide desirable employment or enlarge the tax base Staff Analysis: The development provides new businesses to a lot that is currently underutilized. e) Undue density of population or intensity of use in relation to the community facilities existing or available Staff Analysis: The proposed development not have an adverse effect on community facilities. 16 f) Reduction in the availability of affordable housing in the neighborhood Staff Analysis: The affordable housing ordinance does not apply to this proposed special use permit (SUP) given the proposed residential element of the project does not trip Sec. 34-12 of the City’s Ordinance. However, staff asks the applicant to consider including affordable units as part of the residential portion of the project as mentioned in the above Comprehensive Plan analysis section of the report. g) Impact on school population and facilities Staff Analysis: While the proposed multifamily building has potential to have impact on school population or facilities, the majority of the unit types proposed are one- bedroom with the remainder being studio or two-bedroom, all of which tailor to young professionals. h) Destruction of or encroachment upon conservation or historic districts Staff Analysis: 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 Staff Analysis: The proposed project will comply with federal, state and local laws. This is ensured through final site plan approval. j) Massing and scale of project The proposed self-storage building has four stories with a gross floor area (GFA) of approximately 61,050 SF (building footprint of 13,875 SF) and a 54 unit residential building with a GFA of approximately 67,888 SF that includes 1500 SF or retail space (building footprint of 16,972 SF). Staff Analysis: The applicant did not provide a specific building height calculation in compliance with Sec. 34-1100(a) for either of the proposed buildings, but just noted the buildings would not exceed four stories (or 50’). The applicant will need to provide building height calculation, however the elevations provided in Attachment 2 show compliance with maximum height requirements. 17 Overall, buildings of this height, mass and scale is appropriate in this location. Sec. 34-457 states a maximum of 4 stories (50’) is allowed, where the proposed building is within the maximum building height of this zoning district. Staff also notes the self-storage building has a lower height to the rear of the property in closest proximity to the neighborhood given the elevation difference (See West Elevation on Sheet A2.0 of Attachment 2). In addition, the landscape plan displays required buffers at the rear of the property and additional trees along Belleview Avenue. The 1500 SF space noted as a potential coffee shop located at the corner of River Road and Belleview serves to break up the mass of the apartment building and provides street activation for nearby residents walking by. However, the City’s Urban Designer has asked the applicant to consider breaking up the mass of the remainder of the residential building through methods such as more varied setbacks or varied building façade materials. Sec. 34-157(a)(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; Zoning History In 1976 the property was zoned “M-I” Restricted Industrial In 1991 the property was maintained as “M-I” Restricted Industrial The property is currently zoned Industrial Corridor (IC) District. The intent of the Industrial Corridor district is to provide areas for light industrial activity that is directed to assembly and technological businesses rather than heavy manufacturing. This district provides opportunities for large scale commercial uses and manufacturing or industrial type uses that are more compatible with the neighborhoods that surround the manufacturing properties. Regulations provide for buffering from incompatible uses, but encourage these important employment centers to locate within the district. Staff Analysis: Staff believes this use is appropriate within the zoning district as it is not a heavy manufacturing use and provides a low-impact in regards to traffic. The proposed use includes buffering that is compliant with the zoning district. Sec. 34-157(a)(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 18 Staff Analysis: The proposed project must comply with standards set forth within the zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations and other applicable city ordinances/regulations prior to final site plan and building permit approvals. Sec. 34-157(a)(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. Staff Analysis: The Subject Property is not located in a design control district. PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED Per Sec. 34-41(c)(2), the applicant held a community meeting on November 7, 2018 (a City Planner attended as a NDS representative). Neighborhood concerns gathered from the community meeting on November 7, 2018 are listed below. • General traffic concern • Provide buffer in between sidewalk and road along Belleview if space allows • Consider providing a crosswalk across River Rd (Staff note: Consult with Traffic Engineer and Bicycle Pedestrian Coordinator to see if crosswalk safe/determine location if safe/warranted) In addition, a site plan conference for this project was held on December 5, 2018. The applicant has been asked to consider the concerns and consider including suggestions as part of the site plan revision moving forward as part of the City Staff site plan comment letter sent. • General traffic concern • Concern of height of storage building in relation to adjacent property to the rear of site Additional public comment received via e-mail from the public included in Attachment 4. 19 STAFF’S RECOMMENDATIONS If Planning Commission moves that the application be approved, staff recommends it be approved with the following conditions: 1. The sidewalk improvements along River Road and Belleview Avenue will include connections to existing sidewalk networks on adjacent properties: Tax Map 49 Parcel 99 and Tax Map 49 Parcel 95. The sidewalk improvements will be reviewed and approved by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator and ADA Coordinator and incorporated into the final site plan prior to final site plan approval. 2. The Developer will provide curb ramps on the north side of Belleview Avenue to facilitate access. The curb ramps will be reviewed and approved by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator and ADA Coordinator and incorporated into the final site plan prior to final site plan approval. 3. The sidewalk improvements along Belleview Avenue will be designed as a standard five- foot wide sidewalk that smoothly connects to existing sidewalk, allows for on-street parking to be maintained on the south side of Belleview Avenue while maintaining two- way travel lanes. The design and construction plan for the sidewalk improvements will be approved by the City Engineer, and the final site plan shall incorporate the approved design and construction plan in accordance to the Streets That Work Plan. 4. The Developer will provide on-site water quality treatment by using one of DEQ’s approved BMP’s (proprietary or non-proprietary), where the BMP is detailed on the site plan and approved by Engineering prior to final site plan approval. POSSIBLE MOTION(S) 1. I move to recommend approval of SP-1800010 subject to: • The four (4) conditions presented in the staff report • [alternative conditions, or additional condition(s)….list here] OR, 2. I move to recommend denial of SP-1800010. ATTACHMENTS 1) Special Use Permit Application received October 23, 2018 2) Special Use Permit Project Proposal Narrative received November 5, 2018 Includes Project narrative, Conceptual Plan, Building Elevations, Landscape Plan 20 3) Preliminary Site Plan dated October 23, 2018 4) Streets That Work Plan Excerpt 5) Preliminary Site Plan City Staff Comment Letter dated December 28, 2018 6) Public Comments Received 21 City of Charlottesville Application for Spec~al Use Permit Project Name: io l '2.\ver ~ad Address of Property: ~ 0\ ~\y.ey g.oad Tax Map and Parcel Number(s): _'-i. .~._-_q _8______________ Current Zoning District Classification: \ L, Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: bu&\ ~ !lnd feuVlf\O\Oj '1 Is this an amendment to an existing SUP?_M J If "yes", provide the SUP#:_ _ _ _ _ __ Applicant: _......................"""'-.......,~~~.-.---.~------------- Address: °\ \ 2- HieY-t St. C/n CU" ~bVi\l-e, I Vi'\= Zh 90 1-: €, . Phone: ('io") 2.Z:=t -5l"i0 Email: 'JuE>f\n e skl\rop--enj nee,yin3.CO\v\ Applicant's Role in the Development (check one): Owner Owner's Agent ti2~ Contract Purchaser Owner of Record: CAD otoye, ~ ~~ I LL( ... Address: !\ lPOS vCAVrtt:e,\e S\vcl ~~ .L\W _Cktaxhi\& 1?J (; 2W2.-°l Phone: Email: _.rA :.:~CA:.;..Y\;...® ~.a.:.·,uu.:ig,,\:.M.11.u.Jo.&.q:~..x-.~~~- Reason for Special Use Permit: (S-1-.-\?i~L.) 0 Additional height: feet ? 5"" It' ~ Additional residential density: " units, or _ _ units per acre <54 Authorize specific land use (identify) .s-e\f rtO(Qae CtOMJ)lAOleS D Other purpose(s) (specify City Code section):_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ (1) Applicant's and (2) Owner's Signatures (1) Slgnature,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Print _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date _ _ __ Applicant's (Circle One}: LLC Member LLC Manager Corporate Officer (specify} _ _ _ _ __ Other (specify): _ _ _ _ _ __ (2) Signature Jb.Jl ~ Print {)l'l1 e ~- ~ \.f'a l ..-'\ Date Owner's (Circle One}: LLC Member LLC Manager Corporate Officer (specify) _\J_e.;..:•~~_....;.......;...;...:._ Other (specify): 110--A:;l~ 1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT SHIMP ENG I NEER I NG~ CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING c:__, Shimp Engineering 912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 October 23, 2018 Ms. Heather Newmyer Neighborhood Development Services 610 E Market St Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SUP 2018·_ _ _ Transmittal Letter TMP 49-98 Dear Heather, Please find the conceptual plan, narrative statement, and additional required materials noted on the pre-application form included in this submittal for a special use permit for 901 River Road. Required meetings as noted on the pre- application form with traffic engineer, Brennen Duncan and Housing Coordinator Stacy Pethia occurred on October 3, 2018. During the meeting with Ms. Pethia it was determined no affordable units are required to be provided as a condition of special use permit approval, per Sec. 34-12. Mr. Duncan determined there was no need, at this time, to conduct a full Traffic Impact Analysis. The property owner is requesting the SUP for this project but please contact Shimp Engineering, P.C., serving as owner's project designer, for project correspondence. Contact information for Shimp Engineering is included in the application. Please find hard copies of required application documents included in this submittal. A site plan dated October 23, 2018 was submitted in conjunction with this SUP request. If you require any additional information to complete your review of this special use permit request, please let me know at your earliest convenience. I look forward to working with you throughout this process. Respectfully, Kelsey Sehl Kelsey@shimp-engineering.com Attachments: SUP Conceptual &Application Plan ~oTT~\91> City of Charlottesville -~t Pre-Application Meeting Verification ~GINJA-~ .>, ff: Project Name: qo1 fiWL ¥..J ---------------~----------- Pre-Application Meeting Date:....;;~~-- · _l_li_U_t,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Applicant's Representative: ~~ · ___ b.._tJ_&!_iow_.Y._.~-·- - - - - - - - - - Planner: ~~,Pt\C..Y Other City Officials In Attendance: The following items will be required supplemental information for this application and must be submitted with the completed application package: 1. S\0!.e~ ~+- WteL Mataa..\-i\Jf-1 (S£C · ~ -'"1-\U)(c:t)) 901 River Road SUP Pre-Application Meeting September 21, 2018 Supplemental Information required per Sec. 34-41(d): 1. Streets That Work Narrative (Sec. 34-41(d){9)) 2. Project Proposal Narrative - detailed written statement of proposal, its public need & b2nefit, how project satisfies intent of zoning district (Sec. 34-41(d)(l)) 3. Comprehensive Plan Analysis (Sec. 34-41{d)(2}) 4. Maps- showing existing conditions (pedestrian connections) versus future connections (Sec. 34- 41(d)(4}) Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)- As required by the Traffic Engii1eer, a full Traffic Impact Analysis including: a. Multimodal impacts b. Traffic operations at River Rd/250 signal, River Rd/Belleview, Belleview/Coleman c. Stop warrant analysis for both intersections d. Trip distribution to assess where traffic will be going to and coming from Contact Brennen Duncan, Traffic Engineer, with ,;,riy follow up questions (duncanb@charlottesvHle .•:u.:g, 434-970-3993) . ~ vtS[f N'.l \ot.11.L ruq~"«lll. bl.~,,[t ot-#ii' ~ ~ .Q;? _ T IH-1d< ~I~ ~oTTBst> City of Charlottesville -~t Application Checklist ~·;.;,{ a: GINIA.· \: Project Name: ~0 l E,i good 'le( I certify that the following documentation is ATTACHED to this application: if 34-lSS(a)(l): a site plan (ref. City Code 34-802(generally}; 34-1083(communications facilities) ~34-158(a)(3): Low-Impact development (LID) methods worksheet (required for developments that include non-residential uses, and developments proposing 3 or more SFDs or TFDs) ~ 34-158(a)(4): a building massing diagram, and building elevations (required for applications proposing alteration of a building height or footprint, or construction of any new building(s)) [2f" 34-158(a)(5) and 34-12: affordable housing data. (i) how many (If any) existing dwelling units on the property are an "affordable dwelling unit" by the city's definitions? (ii) Will e> Special Use Permit Neighborhood Meeting Letter October 24, 2018 Dear Ms. Newmyer, A notification letter to property owners concerning the neighborhood meeting for the 901 River Road Special Use Permit was delivered to a U.S. Post Office receptacle on October 24, 2018. The neighborhood meeting is set to be held on Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 7 p.m. at Park St. Christian Church. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any further questions in regards to the neighborhood meeting. Please find the letter that was mailed to property owners attached. Respectfully, TROY 0000 Notary Public ..___ Commonwealth of Virginia 7560003 .,......,,,. My Commission Exp ires 04/30/2021 .,~.- Charlottesville, Virginia The foregoing instrument was acknowledged, before me on this day//i a!/1 fJ?. by ~ ~· ' , ....--· -/Wt)&v City of Charlottesville Owner'• .l.11thorizations (Kai lleqa.lnd) RfPt of Entry- Property Owner Permission I, the undersfped, hereby anint the City of Chartottesvllle, Its employees and officials, the rl&ht to enter the property that Is the subject of this application. ror the purpose of pthering lnformltion for the review of this Special Use Permit application. awner: {ro S-hv-LJ.t f,-;\tt,, LLG .,.. 1-0,iJJj/K lf(ll&nname): ~ 9ivf... PllntNlme: ~-,!I 1i°' Co.rm\ &niJ uc Owner's Agent I, the undenlped, hereby certify that I hive authorized the followln& named indlvidu1I or entity ta serve as my lawful apnt., for the purpose of m1kln1 appllcatlon for this spedll use permit. and fur 111 related purposes, lndudlnl, without llmltatfon: to make dedslon5 and representltlons that wit be blndl• upon my property and upon me. my successors and asp. Nlme of lndlvldullAtHt: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Owner:--~------------~----Da~:-~--~ lr(lflnnamel: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ PrintN.n11: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ardeane: OWner'r. U.C MemMr LLC M1napr Corporate OfRca (lpldfv):_ _ _ _ __ Olher(ll*fflcJ: _ _ _ __ 5 City of Charlottesville Disclosure of Equitable Ownership Section 34-8 of the Code of the City of Charlottesville requires that an applicant for a special use permit make complete disclosure of the equitable ownership "real parties in interest") of the real estate to be affected. Following below I have provided the names and addresses of each of the real parties in interest, including, without limitation: each stockholder or a corporation; each of the individual officers and direc- ' tors of a corporation; each of the Individual members of an LLC (limited liability companies, professional limited liability companies): the trustees and beneficiaries of a trust, etc. Where multiple corporations, companies or trusts are Involved, identify real parties in interest for each entity listed. Name BIVl 6 ""~ s+o"J {. Address $"l 65 c.,, ··~ '{. !ll v ~. r sv.1t, '1 >-o Name 1., v e.J +ors I l. t (.. ' Address C~r,." lo"l -t ( r V L ;J. g)-oq Name.____________ Address_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Name_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Address _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Attach additional sheets as needed. Note: The requirement of listing names of stockholders does not applv to a corporation whose stock is traded on a national or local stock exchange and which corporation has more than five hundred (500) shareholders. Applicant: _ _ _ _ _ _ __ By: Slgnature..... ~ ---~- .l:J.__ . · - - - - - P r i n t .{}(}h'1t I &w.- I+'"• t (, Date jt)/J- )..jf g Its: vr " C~1 tJ. \ Crn "'f 1 L- LC 6 City of Charlottesville Fee Schedule Project Name: 'jQ \ g_\ytr eoQ\c\ Application Type Quantity Fee Subtotal Special Use Permit \ $1800 i ~BuO Special Use Permit (Family Day Home for 6-12 $500 ' Children) Malling Costs per letter $1 per letter Newspaper Notice Payment Due Upon Invoice TOTAL ~ \i iooo Office Use Only Amount Received: Date Paid Received By: Amount Received: Date Paid Received By: Amount Received: . Date Paid Received By: Amount Received: Date Paid Received By: 7 LID Measure LI D Chcck l1)t Points Points Compensatory Plantinp (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. 2 or30% S points or l 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) Bloretentfon. Percent of site treated must exceed 80%. Biofilter surface ar- 8 points or 1 point for each ea must be i!: 5% of impervious drainage area. 10% of site treated. Rain gardens. All lots, rain garden surface area for each lot~ 200 ft.2. B 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. ~~---1r----~~~~~~~~-t-~~~-11 Green rooftop to treat i!: 50% of roof area 8 points Other LID practices as approved by NOS 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 NOS Director. Total Points Date _l"-6-f--'... /t&....,f_.Jg __ SUP Conceptual Plan 901 River Road TMP 49-98 23 October 2018 Sheet 1 of 10 Crossfit of Blueridge Mountain View Charlottesville Motors Baptist Church Tire Inc Distribution Be Larry’s lle v SITE iew A Auto ve Parts nu Charlottesville Bank of America e Truck Repair d oa rR Tractor Papa John’s & ve Supply Co. Ri Doodles Diner NTB Car Wash Ice r National Tire ve Cream Ri and Battery a nn va CVS Autozone Ri e Th Burnley Moran Ro ute Elementary School 25 0B INDEX OF SHEETS yp as s McDonalds 1 - Cover & Context Map et 2 - Project Narrative re St 3 - Project Narrative & Traffic Table gh Hi Speedway E Goodwill & Dunkin Exxon & 4 - Existing Conditions Doughnuts Wendy’s 5 - Conceptual Plan Shell Gas 6 - Sidewalk Connections Station 7 - Residential Building Elevation University Med Tire & Auto Express 8 - Residential Building Elevation 9 - Self-Storage Building Elevation Jiffy Riverview Lube 10 - Landscape Plan Park Trail Rivanna Trail Pantops Shopping Center Food Lion Taco Bell Virgina ABC Liqour Store Existing SUP Conceptual Plan TMP Acreage Comp Plan Designation Proposed Use Zoning 901 RIVER ROAD Industrial TMP 49-98 490098000 2.2 Business & Technology Self-storage, residential, commercial Corridor 23 October 2018 Project Narrative Sheet 2 of 10 Project Proposal: Consistency with chapter of the 2013 adopted designates River Road as a Go Store It River, LLC, the Comprehensive Plan: Comprehensive Plan: 3.3 achieve “Business and Technology property owner of TMP The proposed project is consistent a mixture of incomes and uses Corridor.” Incorporating residences 490098000, requests a Special with the following goals of the land in as many areas of the City as into this area of the city offers Use Permit in accordance with use chapter of the 2013 adopted possible; 8.3 encourage housing the opportunity for residents Sec. 34-158 of Charlottesville Comprehensive Plan: 2.3 Enhance development where increased to walk to future employment Code to allow for self-storage pedestrian connections between density is desirable and strive opportunities along River Road as companies and residential density residences, commercial centers, to coordinate those areas with it develops into a mixed-use area of 25 dwelling units per acre. public facilities, and amenities stronger access to employment that is aligned with the vision for a The project proposal is for 54 and green spaces; and 3.2 opportunities, transit routes and Business and Technology Corridor. apartments, a self-storage building, Enhance existing neighborhood commercial services; and 8.5 and small-scale retail use intended commercial centers and create promote redevelopment and Affordable Housing Data: to service the neighborhood. opportunities for others in areas infill development that supports The property has no existing where they will enhance adjacent bicycle and pedestrian-oriented dwelling units. The GFA of the Existing Conditions: residential areas. Provide infrastructure and robust proposed residential uses is The property is currently used for opportunities for nodes of activity public transportation to better approximately 66,388 SF and the commercial vehicle parking and to develop, particularly along connect residents to jobs and GFA of proposed non-residential has a vacant commercial structure mixed-use corridors. The sidewalk commercial activity. The proposed uses on site, which includes a on-site. The 2.20 acre property is improvements along Belleview development is consistent with retail space in the residential zoned Industrial Corridor, allowing Ave and River Road will increase Goal 3.3 by promoting a mixture of building and a separate self- assembly plants, gas stations, pedestrian connectivity to and uses and by incorporating housing storage building, is 63,000 SF. and automobile repair shops by- around the site; additionally, along an existing industrial corridor The residential square footage right. The property is adjacent to the sidewalk improvements will that currently has none. This does not exceed 1.0 FAR and so commercial uses on the southwest service the greater Locust Grove proposal is consistent with Goal in accordance with Sec. 34-12, side of the property, commercial Neighborhood by creating a 8.3 because elected officials have affordable residential units are not uses across Belleview Ave and pedestrian connection between the made it apparent this is an area required to be provided on or off River Road, and residential uses residential areas to the northwest they, and the community, would site. to the west adjacent to the rear of the site to the commercial like to see residential density. property boundary. and proposed mixed-use activity The site has convenient access Compliance with USBC along River Road. The proposed to transit stops and is in close Provisions: The property fronts along River development will align with Goal proximity to commercial uses The proposed development is new Road, an industrial corridor in 3.2 by creating the opportunity and employment opportunities in construction and will comply with the City that lacks pedestrian for a new mixed-use center in an Downtown Charlottesville. The all USBC provisions. connectivity and complete street area of the City that is lacking project achieves Goal 8.5 by elements like landscaped buffers. neighborhood commercial and redeveloping a parcel that has retail services and mixed-use been most recently used as a areas. parking storage lot for commercial vehicles. The project is consistent with the following goals of the housing The future land use map SUP Conceptual Plan 901 RIVER ROAD TMP 49-98 23 October 2018 Project Narrative Sheet 3 of 10 Potential Adverse Environmental Compliance with Streets that sidewalk width will accommodate Impacts: Work: the needs of neighborhood The development of the parcel In compliance with Charlottesville’s residents without compromising in accordance with current Streets that Work Plan, the the quaint feel of the local road. stormwater regulations will improve development will adhere to the the condition of stormwater highest priorities outlined in the The development will complete management on the site, because design elements of Industrial pedestrian connections adjacent no formal stormwater management Streets for improvements along to the site along River Road and infrastructure currently exists River Road. The Streets that Work Belleview Avenue where currently on this site. Proper stormwater Plan recommends sidewalks no sidewalks exist. The sidewalk management infrastructure on along industrial type streets to additions serve as a connection the site will mitigate any adverse have a 5’-6’ clear walk zone and between the Locust Grove impacts of stormwater runoff from a 3’-6’ curbside buffer zone. The neighborhood and River Road, the site into the Rivanna River, design will feature a 6’ sidewalk as well as contribute to greater ultimately reducing any negative along River Road and a 6’ buffer. pedestrian connectivity to the impacts on the Chesapeake Bay The 6’ sidewalk will provide existing trailhead of the Rivanna from development of the site and sufficient space for comfortable Trail. This pedestrian connection protecting the Chesapeake Bay use of the right of way by various ultimately creates a more cohesive Watershed. users including strollers, children, connection between the Locust and exercisers. The buffer will Grove residential neighborhood Potential Adverse Traffic include medium size street trees; and the Rivanna River Greenway Impacts: tree inclusion in industrial street Trail. Traffic impacts from development design is of highest priority as it are not expected to be significant. creates aesthetic, ecological, and The proposed development is psychological benefits. In addition expected to generate 36 trips in to the aforementioned benefits, the morning peak hour and 45 street trees will establish a buffer trips in the evening peak hour. between pedestrians and street There are proposed traffic calming traffic, an additional safety feature. measures like the proposed bump- A bulb out will extend from the out on the corner of the property at corner of the intersection of River the intersection of Belleview Ave Road and Belleview Avenue. This and River Road. A summary of the will slow traffic making a right turn trip generation information is listed from Belleview Avenue onto River in Table A. Road and will slow traffic making Table A: Trip Generation a left turn from River Road onto local road, Belleview Avenue. AM PM Construction of a 5’ sidewalk will Use Description ITE Qty Daily in out Total in out Total complete pedestrian connections Mini Warehouse 15161,500 SF 93 6 6 12 6 6 12 along Belleview Avenue. This Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) 22154 units 293 5 12 17 13 9 22 Retail 8141,500 SF 95 3 4 7 5 9 11 Total 481 36 45 SUP Conceptual Plan 901 RIVER ROAD TMP 49-98 23 October 2018 Existing Conditions Sheet 4 of 10 Graphic Scale: 1”=40’ SHIMP ENGINEERING, P. ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - PROJECT MANAGE SUP Conceptual Plan 901 RIVER ROAD TMP 49-98 23 October 2018 Conceptual Plan Sheet 5 of 10 ALTH OF WE W V IE ON 4 IR C OMM V GI JUSTIN M.E NI A SHIMP R 45183 Lic. No. R FOF E S S R PR EE N O GI 5 EN IONAL PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 15 15 12 901 River Road PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 13 12 Graphic Scale: 1”=40’ SUP Conceptual Plan 901 RIVER ROAD TMP 49-98 23 October 2018 Context: Connection Sheet 6 of 10 This graphic shows existing and proposed sidewalk connections in relation to the site. EXISTING PROPOSED SITE SUP Conceptual Plan 901 RIVER ROAD TMP 49-98 Roof (level) 384' - 2 1/4" 23 October 2018 Residential Building Elevation 9' - 1 1/2" Fourth Floor 375' - 0 3/4" Sheet 7 of 10 10' - 8 1/4" Third Floor 364' - 4 1/2" 10' - 8 1/4" Second Floor 353' - 8 1/4" 10' - 8 1/4" First Floor 343' - 0" South East Elevation 3 1/8" = 1'-0" Roof (level) 384' - 2 1/4" 9' - 1 1/2" Fourth Floor 375' - 0 3/4" 10' - 8 1/4" Third Floor 364' - 4 1/2" 10' - 8 1/4" Second Floor 353' - 8 1/4" 13' - 2 1/4" First Floor 343' - 0" Amenity 340' - 6" Belleview Ave. Elevation 2 1/8" = 1'-0" Roof (level) 384' - 2 1/4" 9' - 1 1/2" Fourth Floor 375' - 0 3/4" 10' - 8 1/4" Third Floor 364' - 4 1/2" 10' - 8 1/4" Second Floor 353' - 8 1/4" 13' - 2 1/4" First Floor 343' - 0" Amenity 340' - 6" River Rd. Elevation 1 1/8" = 1'-0" CHARLOTTESVILLE APARTMENTS DATE PROJECT # SET SHEET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 07.02.2018 218028 SD SET EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS © 2017 Cline Design Associates, PA expressly reserves its common law copyright and A1 other property rights in these plans. These plans are not to be reproduced, changed, or copied in any form or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to any third party without first obtaining the expressed written permission and consent of Cline Design Associates, PA. This graphic is for illustrative purposes only and is subject to change. SUP Conceptual Plan 901 RIVER ROAD Roof (level) TMP 49-98 384' - 2 1/4" 23 October 2018 9' - 1 1/2" Fourth Floor 375' - 0 3/4" Residential Building Elevation Sheet 8 of 10 10' - 8 1/4" Third Floor 364' - 4 1/2" 10' - 8 1/4" Second Floor 353' - 8 1/4" West Elevation 3 1/8" = 1'-0" South Elevation 2 1/8" = 1'-0" Roof (level) 384' - 2 1/4" 9' - 1 1/2" Fourth Floor 375' - 0 3/4" 10' - 8 1/4" Third Floor 364' - 4 1/2" 10' - 8 1/4" Second Floor 353' - 8 1/4" 10' - 8 1/4" First Floor 343' - 0" South West Elevation 1 1/8" = 1'-0" CHARLOTTESVILLE APARTMENTS DATE PROJECT # SET SHEET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 07.02.2018 218028 SD SET EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS © 2017 Cline Design Associates, PA expressly reserves its common law copyright and A2 other property rights in these plans. These plans are not to be reproduced, changed, or copied in any form or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to any third party without first obtaining the expressed written permission and consent of Cline Design Associates, PA. This graphic is for illustrative purposes only and is subject to change. SUP Conceptual Plan 901 RIVER ROAD TMP 49-98 373.66' Illuminated Channel Letter 23 October 2018 Storage Building T.O. Brick Parapet Signage 6'-0" 2'-0" 371.66' T.O. Brick Parapet ROVER STORAGE Brick Running Bond - Typical Elevation 385.66 T.O. Low Eave Kawneer Trifab451 storefront window with clear anodized aluminum frame 10'-8" 375.00' Illuminated interior unit doors behind windows Sheet 9 of 10 T.O. Low Eave MBCI FW120-2 panel vertical - 10'-4" signature 200 MBCI PBR panel vertical - signature 200 373.66 T.O. Slab Brick Running Bond, Typical 10'-4" Standing seam metal awning - Iron Ore, Typical Double Brick Soldier Course 363.33' T.O. Slab 10'-4" Kawneer Trifab451 storefront window with clear anodized aluminum frame Single Brick Soldier Course and Brick Rowlock 353.00' T.O. Slab Brick Running Bond, Typical Double sliding glass doors, typical for 3 A2.03 3/32" Carolina Ceramics Brick Company 373.66' 373.66' 9931 Two Notch Rd. T.O. Brick Parapet T.O. Brick Parapet Columbia, SC 29223 6'-0" 2'-0" (803) 788-1916 371.66' 371.66' carolinaceramics.com T.O. Brick Parapet T.O. Brick Parapet ROVER STORAGE Brick Running Bond - Typical 385.66 385.66 T.O. Low Eave T.O. Low Eave MBCI Designer Series panel vertical - signature 200 10'-8" Illuminated interior storage unit doors behind windows Burgundy Velour 375.00' 375.00' T.O. Low Eave T.O. Low Eave Kawneer Trifab451 storefront window with 10'-4" clear anodized aluminum frame 49'-8" 373.66 373.66 T.O. Slab T.O. Slab 10'-4" Pebble Beach Velour MBCI FW120-2 panel vertical - signature 200 363.33' 363.33' T.O. Slab T.O. Slab Materials Legend 10'-0" MBCI Designer Series panel Retaining Wall Signature 200 color "Charcoal Gray" 353.00' 353.00' T.O. Slab T.O. Slab MBCI PBR panel Signature 200 color "Light Stone" MBCI FW120-2 panel Signature 200 color "Ash Gray" A2.08 3/32" A2.06 3/32" Metal Awning ESS branding color: "Iron Ore" Glazing at Windows Clear Insulated Glass Storefront Windows Anodized Aluminum 373.66' T.O. Brick Parapet 371.66' PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS T.O. Brick Parapet 385.66 T.O. Low Eave 375.00' T.O. Low Eave 49'-8" 373.66 T.O. Slab 363.33' T.O. Slab PROPOSED DESIGN OCTOBER 2018 353.00' T.O. Slab A2.09 3/32" Drawings shown not to scale SUP Conceptual Plan 901 RIVER ROAD TMP 49-98 ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - PROJECT MANAGEMENT SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. 23 October 2018 Landscape Plan Sheet 10 of 10 ALTH OF WE V EW ON IR I C OMM GI EV NI A JUSTIN M. SHIMP R Lic. No. 45183 R O R PR EE F S S IONAL FE N O GI EN LANDSCAPE PLAN 901 River Road PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA Drawings shown not to scale CHAPTER Street Network and Typologies 3 Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies Charlottesville Streets That Work Design Guidelines 25 East High Street The previous chapter looked at the multiple, essential functions that Charlottesville’s streets have, and Mileage and Road Classifications introduced basic design considerations for each of these Charlottesville has 168.6 miles of roads within its functions. This chapter examines the streets themselves, boundaries.13 These roads are assigned to one of several looking both at the network as a whole and at the possible functional classifications within a hierarchy characteristics of different street types used to determine according to the character of motor vehicle service each the typologies in these guidelines. roadway provides. Arterials and collectors carry the highest traffic volumes over longer distances, while local streets carry fewer vehicles shorter distances. Table 5 shows the 3.1 Street Network miles of road within each classification in Charlottesville. Overview Road Classification (VDOT) Interstate Miles 0.4 With few exceptions, the street network in Charlottesville Principal Arterial 15.5 is built out and future road construction is limited to local Minor Arterial 13.1 streets providing residential access. Some arterial roads Collector 16.7 like Preston Avenue, 5th Street and Emmet Street have multiple travel lanes in each direction, but most streets Local 122.9 within city limits have one lane in each direction, although Total 168.6 the lanes are not always separated by pavement markings Table 5: Miles of Charlottesville Roads by VDOT Classification in residential neighborhoods. There are a few one-way streets around the downtown area and in the residential neighborhoods surrounding the West Main Street corridor. 13 City of Charlottesville, GIS data, April 2014. 26 Charlottesville Streets That Work Design Guidelines Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies Posted Speed Limits Projected Future Traffic The posted speed limits in Charlottesville range from a The 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) for minimum of 15 mph in some school zones to a maximum the Thomas Jefferson Planning District which includes of 45 mph along 5th Street, portions of the 250 Bypass and the City of Charlottesville and the surrounding counties of Seminole Trail/29N. Most arterials have posted speed Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson, assesses limits of 35 mph, while collectors and local streets have the future demand for travel throughout the region. The posted speed limits of 25 mph. Travel Demand Model used to establish a baseline and make recommendations for the LRTP shows that several roads Traffic Volumes within and around Charlottesville will experience minor to severe congestion in the future as the regional population Charlottesville’s principal arterial roadways carry a continues to grow. These roads are mapped in Figure 6. disproportionate amount of the traffic in and through the city. Seventy-four percent of roads in Charlottesville have Minor congestion refers to roads operating at 85 to 100 an average annual daily traffic (AADT) count below 1,000, percent capacity, where drivers would likely experience which is relatively low.14 The roads with the highest traffic delays at peak times. Congested roads are expected to carry volumes are shown in Table 6. more volume than they are designed to accommodate, and drivers will experience delays throughout the day.15 Number of AADT AADT Road Name Segment Through Travel VDOT, 2012 VDOT 20148 Lanes 250 Bypass 29 N/Seminole Trail 6 59,000 60,000 to North City Limits Hydraulic Road 250 Bypass 4 42,000 37,000 to Dairy Road Barracks Road 29 N/Emmet Street 4 31,000 29,000 to 250 Bypass Grady Avenue Preston Avenue 4 21,000 20,000 to Market Street Dice Street Ridge Street 2 22,000 20,000 to Main Street Gillespie Avenue E High Street 2 19,000 18,000 to 250 Bypass South City Limits 5th Street 4 18,000 17,000 to Cherry Avenue South City Limits Monticello Avenue 2 15,000 14,000 to Meridian Avenue Monticello Avenue Avon Street/9th Street NE 2-4 14,000 13,000 to High Street Jefferson Park Avenue W Main Street 2 13,000 12,000 to McIntire Road Table 6: Average Annual Daily Traffic on Charlottesville’s Major Roads Note: One travel lane has a capacity of 10,000 vehicles per day. 15 Charlottesville Albemarle MPO Long Range Transportation Plan. 14 City of Charlottesville GIS data, April 2014. http://www.tjpdc.org/LRTP/PDF/document/Chapter6.pdf Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies Charlottesville Streets That Work Design Guidelines 27 Figure 6: 2040 Local Congestion Map. 28 Charlottesville Streets That Work Design Guidelines Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies West Main Street 3.2 Street Typologies Sorting streets into categories helps designers make city that connect places, neighborhoods, and districts; they preliminary decisions about the various elements of street also serve as emergency vehicle routes. These streets form design. These Guidelines present new categories, called the basic structure of the street network, and their defining street typologies, which are based on Complete Streets characteristics provide the basis for each of the street principles, not just motor vehicle level of service. typologies. The first step in developing typologies for Charlottesville’s While framework streets carry the majority of traffic streets was identifying the city’s framework streets. volumes in the city, the majority of street miles in the city is Framework streets are the most direct routes through the comprised of (non-framework) local streets. Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies Charlottesville Streets That Work Design Guidelines 29 Rio RL ET OL Colthurst IN M SE Montvue DR Dunlora DR GR n E R IN TS R D E RI E AN EN Hessian Hills GU YW IGH B Whole HE S ND RD OK Foods R A Canterbury RO B Market WB Hills DO EN K EA W GR OO M OV D LN E RD RD T n Darden N IRY S Charlottesville T School ST n ON DA High School ET LM of Business BA M IL LI AR RR EM M NG AC T ON S K BL RD VD D RUGBY A YR VE NO John GB R TH RU HILL DR AVE Paul Jones Arena GR AD RD IV Y AV RD Y ST AN SE RD E RD RO RM Bellair RK IR E Locust Grove Y E n ALD PA GB NW PR NT E ST Albemarle AV RU NW E I ON ST MC Offices ST AV LO H ST CU nN 14T E GS LO H T University 10T of Virginia UVA WM Downtown E HIGH ST Hospital A IN VE R ST Pedestrian D EA UM EM Pantops DI Mall ST AR AD TA GAR KE S RRY AVE R ETT T ME CHE S T ST E n DG Belmont RI SH M Woolen A R OC SW Mills K R Martha JEFFERSON P ST D n n D Jefferson MO H EL R 5T LIO Hospital T TA NTICELL N VE TO C AR L AR Frys KA O Spring VE AV HA E RR nIS RD ST O N AV Oak Hill Charlottesville, Virginia Street Typology Downtown Street Typology Industrial Mixed Use A Mixed Use B Neighborhood A Neighborhood B Streets That Work Local 0.5 Miles 0 0.25 Date: 5/20/2016 User: gomerso Path: H:\5000\5408.08 - Charlottesville St Design Charette\GIS\MXD\201604_April\Charlottesville_TopTen_Priorities_LETTER_Portrait.mxd Figure 7: Charlottesville Street Typology Map 30 Charlottesville Streets That Work Design Guidelines Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies The defining characteristics of each framework street An overview of all seven street types and their existing, include adjacent land uses, design character (setback, defining characteristics is provided in Table 7. Appendix height, location of parking, etc), the number of travel C contains a comprehensive list of street segments for each lanes, the presence of center turn lanes or medians, typology, graphics of each street typology, tables showing sidewalks and bicycle facilities, and on-street parking. recommended design parameters. Framework Streets Mixed Use Mixed Use Neighborhood Neighborhood Local Downtown Industrial A B A B Miles 4.4 12.7 3.4 2.4 14.7 11.5 119.5 Percentage of Total <3% 8% 2% <2% 9% 7% 71% Miles in City Number of Travel 4 or more 2 2 2 2 2 2 Lanes One or None or Sidewalks Both sides Both sides Both sides Both sides Varies both sides one side Median Yes No No No No No No Center Turn Yes Sometimes Sometimes No No No No Lanes Dedicated Bicycle Yes Yes Sometimes No Yes No No Facilities On-street No Sometimes Yes Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes Parking Residential, Commercial, Commercial, Commercial, Land Uses Mixed Use Residential Residential Commercial, Mixed Use Mixed Use Industrial Mixed Use Table 7: Charlottesville Street Typology Characteristics Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies Charlottesville Streets That Work Design Guidelines 31 3.3 Cross-Sections The following section presents the proposed streetscape Following the Existing cross section, two future scenarios elements and dimensions for each street typology through are presented: text, graphics and tables. For each typology, there is a brief 1. The Retrofit cross section shows one example of how narrative that describes existing conditions and a list of the recommended street elements can be applied to the representative streets in the City. existing right-of-way. With most of the city built out, A generic Existing cross section is included to show the most street projects will be retrofit projects dealing with typical conditions along these streets within a right-of-way a constrained right-of-way. comparable to those found in Charlottesville. 2. The Unconstrained cross section reflects the amount of right-of-way required to include all of the desired street elements for a particular typology. These cross sections are provided to inform the vision for Charlottesville’s streets although opportunities for implementation are quite rare. Tables listing all of the desired street elements and parameters for their use is included at the end of each typology section. Note: Many of the cross sections show trees located in the buffer zone between the sidewalk and roadway, and do not take into account conflicts with underground or overhead utilities. Consult the Utility section of Chapter 4 for required spacing around utility lines. Where plantings or furniture in the buffer zone Typical location of underground utilities. is unattainable, a tradeoff should be made for another street element. Roosevelt Brown Boulevard 32 Charlottesville Streets That Work Design Guidelines Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies Mixed Use A Existing Mixed Use A street segments in Charlottesville include segments of Emmet Street, 5th Street, Preston Avenue and Hydraulic Road. These segments are characterized by two vehicular travel lanes in either direction, a center median/turn lane, sidewalks without buffers and standard bicycle lanes. Currently, buildings along these streets are deeply set back from the edge of the road, often with parking between the curb and the structure. Existing Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies Charlottesville Streets That Work Design Guidelines 33 Emmet Street N Hydraulic Road Preston Avenue 5th Street SW Posted Speed Limit Street Segment AADT Heavy Vehicle Mix (mph) Emmet St N 40 29,000 1% Massie Rd to Hydraulic Rd Hydraulic Road 40 27,000 2% Emmet St N to 250 Bypass Ridge-McIntire Road 25 22,000 1% W Main St to Preston Ave Preston Avenue 35 20,000 1% 10th St NW to Ridge-McIntire Rd 5th St SW 45 17,000 2% Cherry Ave to City Limits Ranges 25-45 17,000-29,000 1-2% 34 Charlottesville Streets That Work Design Guidelines Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies Future There are two potential Mixed Use A cross sections shown The second “Unconstrained” cross section shows two below. The first “Retrofit” cross section applies these vehicular travel lanes in either direction, a center median/ Guidelines to the existing right-of-way. To do this, certain left turn lane and separated bike lanes. This scenario also trade-offs are required. The retrofit cross section shows has separated bike lanes, wider sidewalks with curbside a single travel lane in each direction, buffered bike lanes, buffer zones for trees and pedestrian scale lighting. wider sidewalks with curbside buffer zones for trees and pedestrian scale lighting. Retrofit Unconstrained Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies Charlottesville Streets That Work Design Guidelines 35 Table of Street Elements MIXED USE A STREET Recommended Parameters Major Design Elements Right-of-way n/a 60’ - 100’ Sidewalks Yes > 7’ clear walk zone 3’ - 6’ Curbside Buffer Zone Width requirements: small trees = 4’; medium trees = 4’ (6’ (Highest Priority Street Yes preferred); large trees = 4’ (6’ preferred); smaller widths can be Element) achieved if soil volume minimum met. Locate in curbside buffer or in on-street parking zone Street Trees Yes Soil volume minimums: small trees = 250 ft3; medium trees = 400 ft3; large trees = 400 ft3 (700 ft3 preferred) On-Street Parking* Limited or None 8’ Diagonal On-Street Parking No Back-in parking only, 60o, 17’ min. stall depth Driveways, service and loading preferred from alleys and side Off-Street Parking Access Limited streets Travel Lane Widths* n/a 10-11’, if transit 11’ outer lane Turn Lanes Yes 10’ Design Speed Slow < 30 mph 5’-7’ bike lanes, 7’ separated bike lanes, turn boxes, 10’ shared use Bicycle Facilities Yes paths (High Priority Street Element) Bicycle parking in Curbside Buffer Zone or on-street Transit Stop Facilities Yes Shelters, benches, paved curbside waiting areas, litter receptacle Traffic Calming Yes Roundabouts, medians *Combined travel lane and on-street parking width 18’ minimum (7’ on-street parking, 11’ travel lane OR 8’ on-street parking, 10’ travel lane) **Trees: small (10’ – 30’ mature height) ; medium (30’ – 50’ mature height); large (50’ mature height) Highest Priority Street Elements High Priority Street Elements 36 Charlottesville Streets That Work Design Guidelines Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies MIXED USE A STREET Recommended Parameters Major Design Elements Curbs Yes Vertical curb, or combination curb and gutter Gutters Yes Combination curb and gutter Pedestrian Lighting Yes 16’ Height Maximum; See Lighting Standards Street Lighting Yes Recommended to facilitate safe pedestrian crossings on streets Median Yes with 3 lanes of traffic (can alternate with center turn lane); traffic calming, and stormwater management Curb Radii n/a 20’ - 30’ Build-To Line/Street Wall Set n/a 5’-10’+; varies by zoning district Back from Public ROW Green and Blue Stormwater Yes See Stormwater Elements section in Chapter 4. Opportunities Sidewalk Pavement Material n/a Concrete, permeable pavement, permeable pavers Parking Lane Material n/a Asphalt, permeable pavement, unit pavers Roadway Material n/a Asphalt Gutter Material n/a Asphalt, concrete Curb Material n/a Concrete Unit pavers, permeable pavement, lawn, groundcover, vegetated Curbside Buffer Zone Material n/a tree boxes Separation Requirements for Street Trees/Above Ground Utilities n/a Infrastructure: 10’ preferred, 5’ minimum. Anything under 10’, consult with Utilities Engineer to reach solution. *Combined travel lane and on-street parking width 18’ minimum (7’ on-street parking, 11’ travel lane OR 8’ on-street parking, 10’ travel lane) Highest Priority Street Elements High Priority Street Elements Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies Charlottesville Streets That Work Design Guidelines 37 Mixed Use B University Avenue and segments of Jefferson Park Avenue are two examples of existing Mixed Use B streets. They are characterized by one vehicular travel lane in each direction, intermittent center turn lanes, sidewalks and bicycle facilities. These streets also may have on-street parking. The adjacent land uses may be commercial, higher density residential or institutional. These streets should support high levels of walking, bicycling, and transit as they connect important destinations within the City and surrounding county. Future development that occurs along these streets will likely include a dense mix of uses. Existing 38 Charlottesville Streets That Work Design Guidelines Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies Emmet Street University Avenue Jefferson Park Avenue Roosevelt Brown Boulevard Posted Speed Limit Street Segment AADT Heavy Vehicle Mix (mph) Emmet St 25 14,000 3% Jefferson Park Ave to Ivy Rd University Ave 25 12,000 2% Emmet St N to Jefferson Park Ave Jefferson Park Ave 25/35 12,000 5% Maury Ave to University Ave Roosevelt Brown Blvd 25 12,000 1% Cherry Ave to W Main St Ranges 25-35 12,000-22,000 1%-5% Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies Charlottesville Streets That Work Design Guidelines 39 Future There are two potential Mixed Use B cross sections shown below. The first “Retrofit” cross section applies these Guidelines to the existing right-of-way. To do this, certain trade-offs are required. The retrofit cross section removes the center turn lane and shows buffered bike lanes in both directions. There are also wider sidewalks with pedestrian scale lighting on both sides of the street. The second “Unconstrained ROW” cross section maintains the center turn lane configuration with the addition of bike lanes and on-street parking. Wide, 10’ sidewalks with 5’ curbside buffer zones with trees and pedestrian scale lighting are shown on both sides of the street. Retrofit Unconstrained 40 Charlottesville Streets That Work Design Guidelines Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies Table of Street Elements MIXED USE B STREET Recommended Parameters Major Design Elements Right-of-way n/a 50-80’ Sidewalks Yes > 7’ clear walk zone Curbside Buffer Zone Yes 3’ - 6’ (Highest Priority Street Width requirements: small trees = 4’; medium trees = 4’ (6’ Element) preferred); large trees = 4’ (6’ preferred); smaller widths can be achieved if soil volume minimum met. Street Trees Yes Locate in curbside buffer or in on-street parking zone Soil volume minimums: small trees = 250 ft3; medium trees = 400 ft3; large trees = 400 ft3 (700 ft3 preferred) On-Street Parking* Yes 7’-8’* Diagonal On-Street Parking No Back-in parking only, 60o, 17’ min. stall depth Off-Street Parking Access Limited Driveways, service and loading preferred from alleys and side streets Travel Lane Widths* n/a 10-11’, if transit 11’ outer lane Turn Lanes Yes 10’ Design Speed Slow < 30 mph Bicycle Facilities Yes 5’-6’ bike lanes, 7’ separated bike lanes, turn boxes, 10’ shared use (High Priority Street Element) paths Bicycle parking in Curbside Buffer Zone or on-street Transit Stop Facilities Yes Shelters, benches, paved curbside waiting areas, litter receptacle Traffic Calming Yes Roundabouts, corner curb extensions *Combined travel lane and on-street parking width 18’ minimum (7’ on-street parking, 11’ travel lane OR 8’ on-street parking, 10’ travel lane) **Trees: small (10’ – 30’ mature height) ; medium (30’ – 50’ mature height); large (50’ mature height) Highest Priority Street Elements High Priority Street Elements Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies Charlottesville Streets That Work Design Guidelines 41 MIXED USE B STREET Recommended Parameters Major Design Elements Curbs Yes Vertical curb, or combination curb and gutter Gutters Limited Combination curb and gutter Pedestrian Lighting Yes 16’ Height Maximum; See Lighting Standards Street Lighting Yes Median Yes Recommended to facilitate safe pedestrian crossings on streets with 3 lanes of traffic (can alternate with center turn lane); traffic calming, and stormwater management Curb Radi n/a 20’ - 30’ Build-To Line/Street Wall Set n/a 5’ - 10’+; varies by zoning district Back from Public ROW Green and Blue Stormwater Yes See Stormwater Elements section in Chapter 4. Opportunities Sidewalk Pavement Material n/a Concrete, permeable pavement Parking Lane Material n/a Asphalt, permeable pavement, unit pavers Roadway Pavement Material n/a Asphalt Gutter Material n/a Asphalt, concrete Curb Material n/a Concrete Curbside Buffer Zone Material n/a Unit pavers, permeable pavement, lawn, groundcover, vegetated tree boxes Utilities n/a Separation Requirements for Street Trees/Above Ground Infrastructure: 10’ preferred, 5’ minimum. Anything under 10’, consult with Utilities Engineer to reach solution. *Combined travel lane and on-street parking width 18’ minimum (7’ on-street parking, 11’ travel lane OR 8’ on-street parking, 10’ travel lane) Highest Priority Street Elements High Priority Street Elements 42 Charlottesville Streets That Work Design Guidelines Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies Downtown As the name implies, Downtown streets are the streets in the core of the city, surrounding the pedestrian mall. They generally have a single vehicular travel lane in both directions, intermittent center turn lanes, sidewalks and on-street parking. Street trees are planted in tree grates in more urban areas and in tree lawns where space allows. Downtown streets do not have dedicated bicycle facilities since traffic is generally moving more slowly and bicyclists can more easily share the travel lane with drivers, although climbing lanes are recommended on hilly streets. Buildings along Downtown streets generally have narrow setbacks, are both historic and modern in character with generally narrow setbacks. The buildings house government services, offices, retail, restaurants and residential units. Existing Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies Charlottesville Streets That Work Design Guidelines 43 9th Street NE Market Street E High Street Water Street Posted Speed Limit Street Segment AADT Heavy Vehicle Mix (mph) 9th St NE 25 13,000 1% Market St to E High St Market St 25 9,000 1% Ridge-McIntire Rd to 9th St NE E High St 25 6,300 1% Preston Ave to 9th St NE Water St 25 5,600 3% W Main St to 10th St SE Ranges 25 5,600-13,000 1-3% 44 Charlottesville Streets That Work Design Guidelines Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies Future There are two potential Downtown street cross sections shown below. The first “retrofit” cross section applies these Guidelines to the existing right-of-way. To do this, certain trade-offs are required. The retrofit cross section keeps on- street parking on one side of the street and shared lane markings for bicycles, but narrows the travel lanes in favor of trees, pedestrian scale lighting and bicycle parking in the curbside buffers along the sidewalks on both sides. The second “unconstrained” cross section is similar to the retrofit cross section but shows on-street parking on both sides of the street. Retrofit Unconstrained Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies Charlottesville Streets That Work Design Guidelines 45 Table of Street Elements DOWNTOWN STREET Recommended Parameters Major Design Elements Right-of-way n/a 50’ - 75’ Sidewalks Yes > 6’ clear walk zone 3’ - 6’ Curbside Buffer Zone Width requirements: small trees = 4’; medium trees = 4’ (6’ (Highest Priority Street Yes preferred); large trees = 4’ (6’ preferred); smaller widths can be Element) achieved if soil volume minimum met. Locate in curbside buffer or in on-street parking zone Street Trees** Yes Soil volume minimums: small trees = 250 ft3; medium trees = 400 ft3; large trees = 400 ft3 (700 ft3 preferred) On-Street Parking* Yes 7’-8’ Loading zones need to be considered (High Priority Street Element) Diagonal On-Street Parking Limited Back-in parking only, 60o, 17’ min. stall depth Off-Street Parking Access Limited Driveway, service and loading preferred from alleys and side streets Travel Lane Widths* n/a 10-11’, if transit 11’ outer lane Turn Lanes Limited Only at major intersections and major destination access points Design Speed Slow 25 mph Bicycle Facilities Yes Shared lane markings, climbing lanes, turn boxes, bike boxes Transit Stop Facilities Yes Shelters, benches, paved waiting areas, litter receptacles, lighting Traffic Calming Yes Corner extensions *Combined travel lane and on-street parking width 18’ minimum (7’ on-street parking, 11’ travel lane OR 8’ on-street parking, 10’ travel lane) **Trees: small (10’ – 30’ mature height) ; medium (30’ – 50’ mature height); large (50’ mature height) Highest Priority Street Elements High Priority Street Elements 46 Charlottesville Streets That Work Design Guidelines Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies DOWNTOWN STREET Recommended Parameters Major Design Elements Curbs Yes Vertical curb, or combination curb and gutter Gutters Limited Combination curb and gutter Pedestrian Lighting Yes 16’ height maximum, See Lighting Standards Street Lighting Yes Recommended to facilitate safe pedestrian crossings on streets with Median No 3 lanes of traffic; traffic calming, and stormwater management 15’ - 25’ (See Street Elements chapter for information on effective Curb Radii n/a radii) Build-To Line/Street Wall Set n/a 0’-5’; varies by zoning district Back from Public ROW Green and Blue Stormwater Yes See Stormwater Elements section in Chapter 4. Opportunities Concrete, permeable pavement, unit pavers consistent w/ historic Sidewalk Pavement Material n/a character Parking Lane Material n/a Asphalt, permeable pavement, unit pavers Roadway Pavement Material n/a Asphalt Gutter Material n/a Concrete, and unit pavers Curb Material n/a n/a Curbside Buffer Zone n/a Unit pavers, permeable pavement, vegetated tree boxes Material Separation Requirements for Street Trees/Above Ground Infrastructure: Utilities n/a 10’ preferred, 5’ minimum. Anything under 10’, consult with Utilities Engineer to reach solution. *Combined travel lane and on-street parking width 18’ minimum (7’ on-street parking, 11’ travel lane OR 8’ on-street parking, 10’ travel lane) Highest Priority Street Elements High Priority Street Elements Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies Charlottesville Streets That Work Design Guidelines 47 Industrial Three existing industrial street segments in Charlottesville include Carlton Avenue, Market Street and River Road. These streets are characterized by one vehicular travel lane in each direction, sidewalks without buffers and some on-street parking. The streets provide access to commercial and industrial properties and must be able to accommodate larger truck traffic. Many of the buildings along these streets are significantly set back from the road. Existing 48 Charlottesville Streets That Work Design Guidelines Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies Carlton Avenue Market Street River Road Posted Speed Limit Street Segment AADT Heavy Vehicle Mix (mph) Carlton Rd 25 7,200 4% Carlton Ave to Meade Ave Market St 25 5,100 1% 9th St NE to Meade Ave River Rd 25 No data No data Long St to Coleman St Ext Ranges 25-35 5,100-7,200 1%-4% Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies Charlottesville Streets That Work Design Guidelines 49 Future There are two potential Industrial street cross sections shown below. The first “retrofit” cross section applies these Guidelines to the existing right-of-way. To do this, certain trade-offs are required. The retrofit cross section replaces on-street parking with a center turn lane/median configuration to add more green elements to the streetscape. The sidewalks are also shifted back from the curb with a planted buffer between the travel lanes and the pedestrian walk zone. The second “unconstrained” cross section also shows the center turn lane/median configuration, with the addition of bike lanes and a wider curbside buffer zone between the roadway and sidewalk. This wider buffer can accommodate small street trees. Retrofit Unconstrained 50 Charlottesville Streets That Work Design Guidelines Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies Table of Street Elements INDUSTRIAL STREET Recommended Parameters Major Design Elements Right-of-way n/a 40’ - 60’ Sidewalks Yes 5’ - 6’ clear walk zone 3’ - 6’ Curbside Buffer Zone Width requirements: small trees = 4’; medium trees = 4’ (6’ Yes (Highest Priority Street Element) preferred); large trees = 4’ (6’ preferred); smaller widths can be achieved if soil volume minimum met. Locate in curbside buffer or in on-street parking zone Street Trees** Yes Soil volume minimums: small trees = 250 ft3; medium trees = 400 ft3; large trees = 400 ft3 (700 ft3 preferred) On-Street Parking* Limited 7’-8’ Diagonal On-Street Parking No Sidewalk level and ADA access to be maintained at all Off-Street Parking Access Yes driveways Travel Lane Widths* n/a 11-12’ (High Priority Street Element) Turn Lanes Yes 10’-11’ Design Speed Slow < 25mph Bicycle Facilities Limited Shared Lane Markings, 5’ bike lanes, 6’ climbing bike lanes Transit Stop Facilities Yes Benches, paved curbside waiting areas Curb extensions (mid-block and corner) and only appropriate with Traffic Calming Yes on-street parking Curbs Where necessary Vertical curb, or combination curb and gutter *Combined travel lane and on-street parking width 18’ minimum (7’ on-street parking, 11’ travel lane OR 8’ on-street parking, 10’ travel lane) **Trees: small (10’ – 30’ mature height); medium (30’ – 50’ mature height); large (50’ mature height) Highest Priority Street Elements High Priority Street Elements Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies Charlottesville Streets That Work Design Guidelines 51 INDUSTRIAL STREET Recommended Parameters Major Design Elements Gutters Yes Combination curb and gutter Pedestrian Lighting Yes 16’ height maximum; See Lighting Standards Street Lighting Yes Recommended to facilitate safe pedestrian crossings Median Limited on streets with 3 lanes of traffic; traffic calming, and stormwater management Curb Radi n/a 20’ - 30’ Build-To Line/Street Wall Set Back n/a 10’ - 60’; varies by zoning district from Public ROW Green and Blue Stormwater Yes See Stormwater Elements section in Chapter 4. Opportunities Sidewalk Pavement Material n/a Concrete, permeable pavement Parking Lane Material n/a Asphalt, permeable pavement Roadway Pavement Material n/a Asphalt Gutter Material n/a Asphalt, concrete Curb Material n/a Concrete Unit pavers, permeable pavement, lawn, groundcover, vegetated Curbside Buffer Zone Material n/a tree boxes Separation Requirements for Street Trees/Above Ground Utilities n/a Infrastructure: 10’ preferred, 5’ minimum. Anything under 10’, consult with Utilities Engineer to reach solution. *Combined travel lane and on-street parking width 18’ minimum (7’ on-street parking, 11’ travel lane OR 8’ on-street parking, 10’ travel lane) Highest Priority Street Elements High Priority Street Elements 52 Charlottesville Streets That Work Design Guidelines Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies Neighborhood A Neighborhood A streets have one travel lane in each direction, sidewalks on at least one side, dedicated bicycle facilities and some on-street parking. Adjacent land uses are low and medium-density residential. Examples streets include Cherry Avenue from Roosevelt Brown Boulevard to Cleveland Avenue and Rugby Avenue from Barracks Road to McIntire Park. Existing Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies Charlottesville Streets That Work Design Guidelines 53 Rugby Avenue Cherry Avenue Monticello Avenue Fontaine Avenue Posted Speed Limit Street Segment AADT Heavy Vehicle Mix (mph) Barracks Road 25 15,000 1% Emmet St to Rugby Rd Monticello Avenue 25-35 15,000 2% 6th St SE to Quarry Rd Fontaine Avenue 35 11,000 2% City limits to Maury Ave Rugby Avenue 25 5,800 1% Barracks Rd to 250 Bypass Cherry Ave Cleveland Ave to Roosevelt Brown 35 5,600 1% Blvd Ranges 25-35 mph 5,600-15,000 1-2% 54 Charlottesville Streets That Work Design Guidelines Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies Future The proposed “Retrofit” Neighborhood A street maintains a single travel lane in each direction and consolidates on-street parking to one side of the street to provide space for dedicated bike lanes. In the “Unconstrained” scenario, the roadway configuration is the same as the “Retrofit” scenario, and a a wide buffer zone separates the sidewalk clear zone from the roadway. This area can accommodate plantings and medium trees, as well as pedestrian scale lighting and street furniture. Retrofit Unconstrained Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies Charlottesville Streets That Work Design Guidelines 55 Table of Street Elements NEIGHBORHOOD A STREET Recommended Parameters Major Design Elements Right-of-way n/a 25’ - 50’ Sidewalks (Highest Priority Street Yes 5’-6’ clear walk zone Element) 3’ - 6’ Width requirements: small trees = 4’; medium trees = 4’ (6’ Curbside Buffer Zone Yes preferred); large trees = 4’ (6’ preferred); smaller widths can be achieved if soil volume minimum met. Locate in curbside buffer or in on-street parking zone Street Trees** Yes Soil volume minimums: small trees = 250 ft3; medium trees = 400 ft3; large trees = 400 ft3 (700 ft3 preferred) On-Street Parking* (High Priority Street Element Yes 7’ - 8’* in areas without off-street parking) Diagonal On-Street Parking No Off-Street Parking Access Yes Sidewalk level and ADA access to be maintained at all driveways Travel Lane Widths* n/a 10-11’, if transit 11’ outer lane Turn Lanes No Design Speed Slow < 25mph Bicycle Facilities Bicycles May Use Full Lane signage, Shared Lane Markings, 5’ Bike (Highest Priority Street Yes Lanes, 6’ Climbing Bike Lanes Element) Transit Stop Facilities Yes Benches, paved curbside waiting areas *Combined travel lane and on-street parking width 18’ minimum (7’ on-street parking, 11’ travel lane OR 8’ on-street parking, 10’ travel lane) **Trees: small (10’ – 30’ mature height); medium (30’ – 50’ mature height); large (50’ mature height) Highest Priority Street Elements High Priority Street Elements 56 Charlottesville Streets That Work Design Guidelines Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies NEIGHBORHOOD A STREET Recommended Parameters Major Design Elements Curb extensions (mid-block and corner), speed tables, raised Traffic Calming Yes intersections, raised crossings, and mini traffic circles Curbs Limited Vertical curb, or combination curb and gutter Gutters Yes Valley gutter or combination curb and gutter Pedestrian Lighting Yes 16’ Height Maximum; see Lighting Standards Street Lighting No Median No Curb Radi n/a 15’ - 25’ Build-To Line/Street Wall Set n/a 10’ - 25’; varies by zoning district Back from Public ROW Green and Blue Stormwater Yes See Stormwater Elements section in Chapter 4. Opportunities Sidewalk Pavement Material n/a Concrete, permeable pavement, unit pavers Parking Lane Material n/a Asphalt, permeable pavement, unit pavers Roadway Pavement Material n/a Asphalt Gutter Material n/a Asphalt, concrete, and unit pavers Curb Material n/a Concrete Curbside Buffer Zone n/a Lawn, groundcover, vegetated tree boxes Material Separation Requirements for Street Trees/Above Ground Infrastructure: Utilities n/a 10’ preferred, 5’ minimum. Anything under 10’, consult with Utilities Engineer to reach solution. *Combined travel lane and on-street parking width 18’ minimum (7’ on-street parking, 11’ travel lane OR 8’ on-street parking, 10’ travel lane) Highest Priority Street Elements High Priority Street Elements Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies Charlottesville Streets That Work Design Guidelines 57 Neighborhood B Existing Neighborhood B streets are different from Neighborhood A streets because they do not have dedicated bicycle facilities and they may not have sidewalks. Adjacent land uses are generally similar, although more Neighborhood B streets are found in the neighborhoods with the lower residential densities. Grady Avenue is an example of a Neighborhood B street. Existing 58 Charlottesville Streets That Work Design Guidelines Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies Park Street Grady Avenue Shamrock Road Meadowbrook Heights Road Posted Speed Limit Street Segment AADT Heavy Vehicle Mix (mph) Park St 25 11,000 1% E High St to 250 Bypass Grady Ave 25 4,600 1% Rugby Rd to Preston Ave Shamrock Road 25 3,400 0% Cherry Ave to Jefferson Park Avenue Meadowbrook Heights Road 25 1,200 1% Grove Rd to Yorktown Dr Ranges 25 1,200-11,000 1% Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies Charlottesville Streets That Work Design Guidelines 59 Future In the “retrofit” scenario, on-street parking has been consolidated on one side of the street, and a buffer zone has been provided between the roadway and sidewalk clear zone on the opposite side. This configuration provides a buffer between pedestrians and moving traffic on both sides of the street. The “unconstrained” cross section shows on-street parking and sidewalk buffer zones on both sides of the street. Retrofit Unconstrained 60 Charlottesville Streets That Work Design Guidelines Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies Table of Street Elements NEIGHBORHOOD B STREET Recommended Parameters Major Design Elements Right-of-way n/a 25’ - 50’ Sidewalks (Highest Priority Street Yes 5’ – 6’clear walk zone Element) 3’ - 6’ Width requirements: small trees = 4’; medium trees = 4’ (6’ Curbside Buffer Zone Yes preferred); large trees = 4’ (6’ preferred); smaller widths can be achieved if soil volume minimum met. Locate in curbside buffer or in on-street parking zone Street Trees Yes Soil volume minimums: small trees = 250 ft3; medium trees = 400 ft3; large trees = 400 ft3 (700 ft3 preferred) On-Street Parking (Highest Priority Street Yes 7’ - 8’ Element in areas without off- street parking) Diagonal On-Street Parking No Off-Street Parking Access Yes Sidewalk level and ADA access to be maintained at all driveways Travel Lane Widths n/a 10-11’, if transit 11’ outer lane (High Priority Street Element) Turn Lanes No Design Speed Slow < 25mph Bicycles May Use Full Lane signage, Shared Lane Markings, Climbing Bicycle Facilities Yes Lanes Transit Stop Facilities Yes Benches, paved curbside waiting areas Curb extensions (mid-block and corner), speed tables, raised Traffic Calming Yes intersections, raised crossings, and mini traffic circles *Combined travel lane and on-street parking width 18’ minimum (7’ on-street parking, 11’ travel lane OR 8’ on-street parking, 10’ travel lane) **Trees: small (10’ – 30’ mature height); medium (30’ – 50’ mature height); large (50’ mature height) Highest Priority Street Elements High Priority Street Elements Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies Charlottesville Streets That Work Design Guidelines 61 NEIGHBORHOOD B STREET Recommended Parameters Major Design Elements Curbs Limited Vertical curb, or combination curb and gutter Gutters Yes Valley gutter or combination curb and gutter Pedestrian Lighting Yes 16’ Height Maximum; see Lighting Standards Street Lighting No Median No Curb Radi n/a 15’ - 25’ Build-To Line/Street Wall Set n/a 10’ - 25’; varies by zoning district Back from Public ROW Green and Blue Stormwater Yes See Stormwater Elements section in Chapter 4. Opportunities Sidewalk Pavement Material n/a Concrete, permeable pavement, unit pavers Parking Lane Material n/a Asphalt, permeable pavement, unit pavers Roadway Pavement Material n/a Asphalt Gutter Material n/a Asphalt, concrete, and unit pavers Curb Material n/a Concrete, granite Curbside Buffer Zone n/a Lawn, groundcover, vegetated tree boxes Material Separation Requirements for Street Trees/Above Ground Infrastructure: Utilities n/a 10’ preferred, 5’ minimum. Anything under 10’, consult with Utilities Engineer to reach solution. *Combined travel lane and on-street parking width 18’ minimum (7’ on-street parking, 11’ travel lane OR 8’ on-street parking, 10’ travel lane) Highest Priority Street Elements High Priority Street Elements 62 Charlottesville Streets That Work Design Guidelines Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies Local Streets Local streets are found throughout the city, and provide immediate access to all types of land uses. Although local streets form the majority of the street network, there is no specific typology associated with them. This is due in part to the many variations in context and right-of-way width, as well as the community’s expressed desire to replicate as nearly as possible the feel of older local streets that do not meet current engineering and fire code standards. Applying a typology to local streets would require that certain minimums for lane widths be met, significantly altering the character of some local streets. However, the city should explore avenues in terms of code and policy changes to enable the feel of these streets to be replicated in retrofit projects and new construction. Examples of local streets in residential contexts and their approximate right-of-way widths are shown below: Azalea Drive south of Jefferson Park Avenue – 50’ with parking allowed Calhoun Street between Locust and St. Clair – 30’ with parking allowed on on both sides and individual driveways; 4’-5’ sidewalks with obstructions both sides. Some driveways and a 4’-5’ sidewalk on the north side of the both sides of the street. street. Westwood Road east of Rose Hill Drive - 48’ with parking allowed on both Monticello Road between Rialto and Levy – 35’ with parking on one side sides and driveways. 4’-5’ sidewalks with obstructions both sides of the and one-way traffic. No driveways, and 4’-5’ sidewalks with obstructions street. on the both sides of the street. Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies Charlottesville Streets That Work Design Guidelines 63 Examples of local streets in mixed use contexts and their approximate right-of-way widths include: E Jefferson Street between 1st Street N and 5th Street NE – 45’ with parking Monticello Road near intersection with Hinton Avenue – 40’-50’ with and 4’-5’ sidewalks with obstructions on both sides of the street. parking on one side and 4’-5’ sidewalks on both sides of the street. Planted sidewalk buffer on the north side of the street. Whether a local street is located in a residential or mixed use context, the design considerations are the same. Design Considerations • Local streets should be designed to provide safe and inviting places to walk and bike by keeping vehicular speeds low. – The dimensions of street elements on Local streets should not exceed the dimensions specified for Neighborhood B streets. – Traffic calming techniques like medians, chicanes, neighborhood traffic circles and curb extensions are all appropriate on Local streets. • On narrow streets, on-street parking may create conditions that require drivers to yield to oncoming traffic. This type of street is considered a yield street. – Yield streets have standard curbs and sidewalks at the edge of the roadway. – Yield streets with parking on both sides function most effectively at widths of 24’-28’ between the Altamont Circle was built before today’s standards were enacted. curbs and parking utilization rates of less than 60 percent.16 • In neighborhoods with driveways and off-street parking, space within the public right-of-way should be used for wider sidewalks and planted buffers. • Elements like street furniture and paving materials can be used to enhance and define neighborhood character. 16 NACTO Urban Street Design Guide. http://nacto.org/publication/urban- street-design-guide/ 64 Charlottesville Streets That Work Design Guidelines Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies This shared street in Asheville, NC uses different paving materials to indicate where motor vehicles are expected to travel, while allowing pedestrians full use of the space. Shared Streets Buffalo, New York; Chicago, IL to Cambridge, MA have successfully implemented shared streets in the U.S. To One way Charlottesville may choose to replicate the feel of date, shared streets are not fully recognized by the Virginia older streets is by allowing shared street designs in appropriate Department of Transportation, and maintenance would contexts. A shared street is a street with a single grade or be the full responsibility of the City. As a first step toward surface that is shared by people using all modes of travel at implementation, the City should consider the adoption of a low speeds. Shared streets work best where there are there are specific definition of a shared street in city code. nearly equal volumes of pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. Street furniture, including bollards, benches, planters, and bicycle parking, can help define a shared space, subtly Design considerations delineating the traveled way from the pedestrian-only space. • The entrances to shared streets should be clearly designated through signage, narrowing of the roadway, In Charlottesville, shared streets may be considered in and/or different paving materials to alert users to changes residential or mixed use contexts where vehicle speeds in operating procedures. (10-15mph) and traffic volumes are low to ensure safety. In commercial areas, shared streets maintain access for • The street design must meet current Americans with vehicles operating at low speeds and are designed to permit Disability Act (ADA) standards. easy loading and unloading for trucks at designated hours. – At intersections, designers should include detectable They are designed to implicitly slow traffic speeds using warning surfaces in order to alert pedestrians of pedestrian volumes, design, and other cues to slow or divert potential vehicular conflicts. traffic. In residential areas, shared streets can meet the desires of adjacent residents with space for children to play • Access for fire trucks, sanitation vehicles and other and residents to gather. service vehicles (school buses, street sweepers and snow plows) will be incorporated into shared street design. Shared streets require thoughtful design to maintain the low speeds and volumes117. Cities from Seattle, Washington; • Alternate stormwater management systems must be considered, as curbless designs alter runoff flows. – One alternative is to grade the street towards 17 See NACTO Urban Street Design Guide; http://nacto.org/publication/urban- street-design-guide/streets/residential-shared-street/ and http://nacto.org/ plantings on the edge, or towards a gully publication/urban-street-design-guide/streets/commercial-shared-street/ in the center. Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies Charlottesville Streets That Work Design Guidelines 65 3.4 Street Typologies At a Glance Street Typology Mixed Use A Mixed Use B Downtown Industrial Neighborhood A Neighborhood B Right-of-way 60’-100’ 50’-80’ 50’-70’ 40’-60’ 25’-50’ 25’-50’ Design Speed <30 mph <30 mph 25 mph <25 mph <25 mph <25 mph Curb radii 20’-30’ 20’-30’ 15’-20’ 20’-30’ 15’-25’ 15’-25’ Travel lanes1 10-11’ 10-11’ 10-11’ 11’-12’ 10’-11’ 10’-11’ 11’ curb lane along transit routes 11’ curb lane along transit routes 11’ curb lane along transit routes 10’ 10’ 10’-11’ N/A N/A Turn Lanes Center turn lane may be replaced 10’ Only at major intersections and Center turn lane may be replaced by median between intersections major destination access points by median between intersections Between the curbs Varies Varies Varies Medians See below for minimum See below for minimum N/A See below for minimum N/A N/A dimensions for street trees dimensions for street trees dimensions for street trees 7’-8’ 7’-8’ On-street 8’ 7’-8’ Loading zones Loading zones 7’-8’ 7’-8’ parking1,2 Limited or none Limited or none should be considered should be considered 0’ Bikes May Use Full Lane signs 5’-7’ bike lanes 5’-6’ bike lanes 0’ shared lane markings 0’ shared lane markings 0’ shared lane markings Bicycle facilities 7’ separated bike lanes 7’ separated bike lanes 5’ bike lanes 5’ bike lanes 6’ climbing bike lanes 10’ shared use path 10’ shared use path 6’ climbing bike lanes 6’ climbing bike lanes Clear Walk Zone >7’ >7’ >6’ 5’-6’ 5’-6’ 5’-6’ Curbside Buffer 3’-6’ 3’-6’ 3’-8’ 4’-6’ 0’-5’ 0’-5’ Zone Street trees 4’ for small, medium and large trees 4’ for small, medium and large trees 4’ for small, medium and large trees 4’ for small, medium and large trees 4’ for small, medium and large trees 4’ for small, medium and large trees curbside 6’ preferred for medium and large 6’ preferred for medium and large 6’ preferred for medium and large 6’ preferred for medium and large 6’ preferred for medium and large 6’ preferred for medium and large buffer width trees trees trees trees trees trees requirement Street edge 10’ for shelter 10’ for shelter 10’ for shelter 10’ for shelter Transit features3 4’ for bench 4’ for bench 4’ for bench 4’ for bench 4’ for bench 4’ for bench Utilities - 1’-2’ 1’-2’ 1’-2’ 1’-2’ 1’-2’ 1’-2’ Overhead Locate in buffer zone Locate in buffer zone Locate in buffer zone Locate in buffer zone Locate in buffer zone Locate in buffer zone 5’ minimum separation 5’ minimum separation 5’ minimum separation 5’ minimum separation 5’ minimum separation 5’ minimum separation Utilities - 10’ separation preferred 10’ separation preferred 10’ separation preferred 10’ separation preferred 10’ separation preferred 10’ separation preferred Underground <10’ consult with Utilities engineer <10’ consult with Utilities engineer <10’ consult with Utilities engineer <10’ consult with Utilities engineer <10’ consult with Utilities engineer <10’ consult with Utilities engineer Building 5’-10’+ 5’-10’+ 0’-5’ 10-60’ 10’-25’ 10’-25’ setbacks Varies by zoning district Varies by zoning district Varies by zoning district Varies by zoning district Varies by zoning district Varies by zoning district 1. Combined travel lane and on-street parking width is 18’ minimum (7’ on-street parking, 11’ travel lane OR 8’ on-street parking, 10’ travel lane) 2. On street parking should not be prioritized where driveways and off-street parking opportunities exist. 3. A 5’ x 8’ landing pad for wheelchair ramps is a required feature for new transit stops. Highest Priority Street Elements High Priority Street Elements Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies Charlottesville Streets That Work Design Guidelines 66 C I T Y O F CH A RL O T T E S VI L L E “A World Class City” Neighborhood Development Services 610 East Market Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 Telephone 434-970-3182 Fax 434-970-3359 www.charlottesville.org December 28, 2018 Shimp Engineering, P.C. Attn: Justin Shimp 912 East High Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: 901 River Road Preliminary Site Plan (TM 49 P 98) Dear Justin: The above referenced preliminary site plan was submitted to our office on November 1, 2018 and a site plan conference held December 5, 2018. Please find below a list of revisions that are necessary for this plan to proceed in the approval process. If you wish to pursue preliminary site plan approval, please address the following comments identified with a (P) and resubmit a revised preliminary site plan (Note: items identified with an (F) can be included as part of the final submission; recommendations are unmarked). The revisions must be received within sixty (60) days or by February 26, 2019. Your plan will be deemed officially submitted on the next deadline after submission. Revisions not submitted by this date will be considered a new submittal and new fees will be assessed. If you are unable to re-submit by this date, you can request an extension on the project per Section 34-823 (e) of the City Code. 1. Comments from Heather Newmyer, City Planner, are attached. 2. Comments from Carrie Rainey, Urban Designer, are attached. 3. Comments from Hugh Blake, Civil Engineer, will be sent under separate cover. 4. Comments from Brennen Duncan, Traffic Engineer, are attached. 5. Comments from Amanda Poncy, Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator, are attached. 6. Comments from Stephen Walton, Assistant Fire Marshal, are attached. 7. Comments from Roy Nester, Utilities Engineer, are attached. 8. Comments from Christian Chirico, Gas Utility Engineer, are attached. Please revise the plan and resubmit 9 hard copies and one (1) .pdf for review and resubmit to Matt Alfele. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact him at (434) 970-3636 or email alfelem@charlottesville.org. Page 1 of 11 Sincerely, Heather Newmyer, AICP City Planner Updated by, Matt Alfele, AICP C: Go Store It River, LLC, 5605 Carnegie Road, Charlotte, NC 28209 Dan Gualtieri Missy Creasy Hugh Blake Brennen Duncan Tom Elliott Roy Nester Amanda Poncy Carrie Rainey Stephen Walton 2 City Staff have made a good faith effort to identify all deficiencies within the November 1, 2018 submission; however, in the event that there remains any other deficiency which, if left uncorrected, would violate local, state or federal law, regulations, or mandatory engineering and safety requirements, such other deficiency shall not be considered, treated or deemed as having been approved. These comments are based on the current submission; future submissions may generate additional comments. The following items need to be addressed in the revised site plan: Be advised that major changes to the site plan may result in new comments not reflected in this review Planning City Planner – Heather Newmyer General: 1. A community meeting for the SUP request tied with this site plan was held per Sec. 34- 41(c)(2) on November 7, 2018. Please consider the concerns and consider including suggestions as part of the site plan revision moving forward: Neighborhood Suggestions/Concerns  General traffic concern  Provide buffer in between sidewalk and road along Belleview if space allows  Consider providing a crosswalk across River Rd (Staff note: Consult with Traffic Engineer and Bicycle Pedestrian Coordinator to see if crosswalk safe/determine location if safe/warranted) In addition, a site plan conference for this project was held on December 5, 2018. Please consider the concerns and consider including suggestions as part of the site plan revision moving forward. Neighborhood Suggestions/Concerns  General traffic concern  Concern of height of storage building in relation to adjacent property to the rear of site 2. (F) Sec. 34-914(b) requires that all public facilities, utility and drainage easements outside the right-of-way of public streets shall be accurately shown on the final site plan, provided that new easements may generally be shown and accurately dedicated by separate plat. Please make one addition (in italics) to the note already added to the cover sheet stating “All easements (including utility easements, etc.) called out on the final site plan shall be recorded with a D.B. or instrument number reference called out as part of the Final As-Built Plan (prior to CO Issuance). 3 3. (F) Please add a note to cover sheet that states “Right-of-way dedication, as shown on Sheet C3, will be finalized (recorded) prior to CO issuance.” Sheet C1: 4. (P) Per Sec. 34-827(d)(16), please include total daily trips in the ITE Trip Generation table as was included in the 901 River Rd SUP materials submitted November 5, 2018. 5. (P) Per Sec. 34-827(d)(2) a. REPEAT COMMENT: In addition to providing the maximum building height required, provide the proposed height of both buildings on-site in feet based off how to calculate height in accordance with Sec. 34-1100(a): “No building or structure, or any portion thereof, shall have a height that is less than a minimum required height [8], or that exceeds a maximum allowed height, specified within the regulations of the zoning district in which the building or structure is located. The term "height," when applied to a building or structure shall refer to the vertical distance measured perpendicularly from grade to the highest point on such building or structure. For purposes of measuring building height, the following shall be deemed the highest point of a building: the level of a flat roof; the deck line of a mansard roof; and the average height level between the eaves and ridge, for gable, hip and gambrel roofs.” b. REPEAT COMMENT: Please note under Proposed Use: i. “The maximum allowed density per Sec. 34-480: 21 DUA is allowed with a development that complies with the City’s mixed use development definition in the IC District. Mixed use development (Sec. 34-1200): ‘a building or project containing residential uses in combination with commercial and/or institutional uses. No use that is or will be merely accessory to, or ancillary to, a residential use shall qualify as a commercial or industrial use, for the purposes of this definition.’” ii. Thank you for including calculation showing how many units are allowed by-right. Please separate out the first two items showing what is allowed by-right with what is proposed and place “Proposed” in front of ’67,888 SF 54 Unit Residential Building….’ In addition, add a note underneath both notes indicating 54 units and a storage building are proposed that states the following: “Self-storage is allowed via a special use permit and density in excess of 21 dwelling units per acre (DUA) is allowed (up to 64 DUA) via a special use permit if residential density is associated with a mix-used development as indicated in Sec. 34-458.” Sheet C2: 4 6. (F) Appears all trees are in bold but only some note “TBR.” If all plantings are TBR, then add note to each one. Sheet C3: 7. (P) Per Sec. 34-827(d)(13), correct parking note showing number of parking spaces allocated to residential and commercial space out of total number of parking spaces. Parking space numbers provided do not match total number shown and total number noted on Sheet C1. 8. (P) Thank you for adding note by location of dumpster pad that screening will comply with Sec. 34-872(b)(2): enclosure at a minimum height of one (1) foot above the height of the dumpster and with a minimum inside clearance at the opening of twelve (12) feet. It is also noted in the response letter dated October 23, 2018 that “the required screening has been added to the landscape plan, Sheet C6.” The dumpster pad, in addition to landscaping, will need fencing with a minimum height of one (1) foot above the height of the dumpster with a minimum inside clearance at the opening of twelve (12) feet, where fencing encloses the entirety of the dumpster. Please note that this will be complied with. 9. (P) REPEAT COMMENT: Please place No Parking signs along the north side given the narrow width of the street and neighborhood concerns received. No Parking signs are shown on south side. 10. (P) REPEAT COMMENT: Per Charlottesville’s Streets That Work Plan, Belleview Avenue is categorized as a Local Street, where the dimensions of a Local Street should not exceed dimensions for Neighborhood B streets. Please include on the south side enough space for on-street parking (seven (7) feet in width) along the entirety of property frontage on Belleview and include dimensions on site plan. On-street parking is heavily used in this area due to business at Larry’s Auto shop and is also called out as one of the high priority elements in Neighborhood streets. 11. (P) Belleview ROW improvements: The proposed improvements infringe on an already narrow existing right-of-way, where majority of on-street parking on south side of Belleview has been removed. This area is already compromised, where two-way traffic proves difficult given how the public parks along this street. In prior submissions, the Belleview ROW improvements allowed for one side of on-street parking to be maintained and did not encroach into existing ROW. See Engineering comments for further detail; but, overall, the design needs to revert back to what was proposed before, where current ROW width and one side of on-street parking is maintained. 12. Consider making removing entrance/exit altogether on Belleview Avenue. This would allow for more on-street parking, which provides a natural buffer for pedestrians walking along the street. Sheet C5: 13. REPEAT COMMENT: (This will likely be a proposed SUP condition as it has been in the past given neighborhood feedback) Consider providing water quality treatment on-site 5 in light of the property’s proximity to the Rivanna River. The neighborhood has noted concern about the developer’s proposed purchasing of nutrient credits rather than providing on-site treatment. Providing on-site treatment would comply with the City’s Comprehensive Plan Environment Goal 1 Urban Landscape & Habitat Enhancement – Value the Rivanna River as a major asset in the life of our city and region and restore it to a healthy condition within our ecosystem in order to improve habitat, watershed health and water quality. And Environment Goal 4.5 Water Resources Protection – Reduce and/or eliminate stormwater runoff impacts from sites that lack adequate stormwater treatment by incentivizing reductions in overall imperviousness and encouraging retrofits on developed properties to address stormwater management. Sheet C6: 14. (P) Per Sec. 34-827(d)(13), please add dumpster pad note on this sheet as it is on Sheet C3. 15. (P) If no trees/plantings are to be saved, get rid of note number 7. Note number 7 is a fragment sentence anyway – not sure what it is trying to say. Keep it if it is necessary, but clarify what the note is trying to say. The 27” White Oak label and 27” stump are still noted on Sheet C6, remove if these are not being preserved. It was mentioned, however, in the site plan conference on December 5, 2018, that bamboo would remain. Please note on this sheet and Sheet C2 if accurate. 16. (P) Note under streetscape requirement, specifically for River Rd, that 6 medium trees and 5 additional small trees are provided versus the total number of trees required in light of utility conflicts (existing overhead utilities) where 7 medium to large trees (actual requirement) could not be provided. Note something similar under Belleview Ave because of utility conflict. 17. (P) Correct S-2 label for Belleview to S-3 label and note this complies with Sec. 34- 873(b)(2). 18. (F) REPEAT COMMENT: Please read through carefully requirements prior to resubmitting. The interior parking proposed landscaping does not comply with the City’s interior parking landscaping requirements. The proposed islands are too small, not providing adequate soil volume. Please take time to review Sec. 34-873 – Parking lots – Screening and interior landscaping. Specifically, please note compliance under Landscaping Notes and on site plan for the following code sections: a. REPEAT COMMENT: Sec. 34-873(c) – Adjacent property buffer. A buffer consisting of S-2 screen materials is required between the south property line adjacent to the Tractor Supply site. Please provide calculation showing S-2 compliance under Landscaping notes as well. 6 b. Sec. 34-873(d) – Interior parking lot landscaping Correct under Landscaping notes code section reference by interior parking landscape from 34-873(2) to 34-873(d): -In addition to the other applicable requirements of this section, an area equal to five (5) percent of the gross area of a parking lot shall be landscaped with trees or shrubs ("interior landscaped area"). Show 5% calculation under Interior Parking Landscape section. i. No interior landscaped area shall be less than one hundred forty-five (145) square feet, or have a width of less than nine (9) feet. Dimension on plan all islands to include width AND area. ii. Paved storage areas serving a warehouse use may be excluded from the calculation of gross area of a parking lot. iii. Plantings immediately adjacent to (i.e., within fifteen (15) feet) a building shall not be counted toward interior landscaping. iv. Buffers required by the preceding paragraphs, shall not be counted toward interior landscaping requirements. Please somehow identify which trees are being counted towards interior landscaping calculations. Appears trees part of buffers and/or trees within 15’ of building are being counted. I count less than 10 trees provided in interior parking area. Where are the shrubs? -Calculation based off incorrect number of parking spaces ‘66’ where ‘76’ are provided. Interior landscaped areas shall consist of at least one (1) tree, and at least three (3) shrubs, per eight (8) parking spaces or portion thereof. Interior landscaped areas with an area of less than 300 square feet shall be planted with at least one (1) medium tree; those having an area of 300 square feet or more shall contain at least one (1) large tree, or two (2) medium trees. -Interior landscaping shall be placed in reasonably dispersed planting islands. Sheet C7: 19. (F) Per Sec. 34-867(2), include height as a separate column in addition to caliper size in the Proposed Landscape Schedule. Height should be taken from Charlottesville Master Tree List. 20. (F) For those trees that are noted as “0” quantity, remove from table. 21. (F) Provide canopy cover (SF) for Paw Paw and Little Gem Magnolia. 2” Paw Paw = 100 SF at 10 years and Little Gem Magnolia = 13 SF at 10 years. 22. (F) There is a column cutoff and unreadable within Proposed Landscape Schedule – please fix. 7 Urban Design – Carrie Rainey 23. Please consider breaking up the mass of the residential building through methods such as more varied setbacks or varied building façade materials. 24. Please consider creating a sidewalk connection from the southern side of the residential building parallel to the driveway to River Road. 25. Please ensure adequate lighting in the residential terrace area to create a safe accessible entrance at night. Engineering Civil Engineer – Hugh Blake Comments will be sent under a separate cover. Transportation Traffic Engineer – Brennen Duncan 26. Please provide sight distance triangles. 27. “Left turn In” signage shown should be flipped around and made to be “Right Out Only, No Left turn”. The arrow on the pavement should indicate the right turn also. 28. Please revise plan to keep parking on along Bellview. 29. Sidewalk on Belview should match the existing plans that the city has to extend this sidewalk the entire length of the block. 30. Sidewalks should continue across drive entrances. Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator – Amanda Poncy 31. (P) Sidewalk should continue across the driveway entrances with a max 2% cross slope. As drawn, the entrances do not appear to meet ADA standards. The entrance on Belleview needs ADA access through the median. 32. (P) A sidewalk should connect from River Road parallel to the driveway entrance to facilitate entry into the residential and warehouse buildings. 33. (P) Please show locations of existing burb ramps and sidewalks on the opposite side of River and Belleview. 34. (P) REPEAT COMMENT: Please label curb ramp grade (R304) and counter slope of adjacent roadway (R304.5.4), and identify turning space (R304.21&R304.31) and clear space (R304.5.5) per the Public Right of Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG). (Sec. 34-827). 35. (P) Consider providing a tree buffer between the sidewalk and roadway along Belleview to facilitate connections to the existing sidewalk and proposed sidewalk fronting the residential building. 36. (P) Please label proposed dimension of Belleview at the western side of the driveway entrance. It appears to only be 19’ 8 37. (P) The Bicycle Storage room is not easily accessible located at the top of a flight of stairs, nor do the doors from the internal walkway and bike storage room appear to function (doors open into each other). 38. (P) Bicycle Parking calculation should be updated to reflect the requirements in Sec. 34- 881. – 1 space/2 units + 1 space/1000SF of public space. Based on those requirements, additional bicycle parking is required. 39. The sidewalk connections on the subject property should connect to the neighboring properties. As shown on the site plan, there are gaps in the sidewalk network immediately adjacent to the site that could be filled to promote ADA and pedestrian access to transit. 40. Consider upgrading the north side of Belleview to include curb ramps to facilitate ADA access. Fire Department Assistant Fire Marshal – Stephen Walton 41. (F) Verification of the needed fire flow should be provided on the final site plan. Department of Utilities Utilities Engineer – Roy Nester GENERAL: 43. (P) Repeat Comment: Prior to the next submission, we ask that an internal QA/QC review of the plan be performed so obvious mistakes can be caught before the plan is submitted. On the current plan, the storm sewer geometry along River road near Belleview Avenue is clearly not acceptable. 44. (P) Repeat Comment: Make sure all retaining wall components (geogrid, tie-backs, etc) remain outside of City ROW and easements. The response letter identified notes on sheet C4 to this effect, but this sheet contained no notes. 45. (P) On sheet C2, please clearly note all the items to be removed or note that bold items are to be removed. As submitted, some bold items were noted TBR, but not all, and there was no note clearly identifying that bold signifies removal. 46. (P) Repeat Comment: No trees can be planted within 10-feet of a City utility. Based on the tree layout on C6, it appears some trees are too close to City utilities. If trees are within 10-feet, a root barrier must be provided and approved, but we really prefer all trees be at least 10-feet away from all utilities. 47. (P) On sheet C1 under Water and Sanitary Services, please revise as the Department of Utilities provides these. 48. (F) On sheet C3, there appears to be a gap in the sidewalk based off of the end point of your sidewalk on the south side of your project at River Road. Please show your new sidewalk connecting to the existing sidewalk. 49. (P) On all sheets, for the new entrance on River Road, please show the new entrance with a concrete hatch rather than asphalt hatch. 9 STORM: 50. (P) Repeat Comment: Please confirm that the existing CMP storm drain in River Road is functional and has an outlet. It is not acceptable to assume this pipe connects to an HDPE line. The functionality of this line needs to be confirmed at this preliminary stage of development as it is a critical storm drain connection. 51. (P) On sheet C5, the plan is showing new sidewalk over an existing storm inlet on the south side of your project at River Road. Please note how the existing box will be eliminated on the Demo plan and a new box will be installed in the new curb line along River Road. You will likely need to pull your proposed curb line further back into the site so the new box has 5-feet of separation from the existing water line. 52. (P) On sheet C5, is the proposed storm manhole (not inlet) in the sidewalk along Belleview Avenue needed? If not, please eliminate it. WATER: 53. (P) Repeat Comment: Please provide water demand calculations for each proposed water meter such that a properly sized meter can be installed. The AWWA fixture count method is the preferred method to calculate these flow rates. 54. (P) Repeat Comment: On sheet C5, all 6-inch connections to existing 6-inch mains must be completed with cut-in tee fittings not TS&V fittings. Please note that all water line shut downs must be coordinated with and performed by the City, and the developer must hand out notices to affected customers at least 48 hours in advance. 55. (P) On sheet C5, for both new water services, please identify the service line as type K copper and note the size. For the connection along River Road, this must be served by a corp stop on the main, not a cut-in tee. 56. (P) On sheet C5, please identify the FDC location for both building. Please indicate the PIV location as well. SEWER: 57. (P) Repeat Comment: On sheet C2, please show all existing City utility service lines demolished back to the main. There appeared to be a sanitary lateral to an existing MH in River road that is not shown to be demolished and it should be. 58. (P) On sheet C2, please show that the entirety of the relocated sanitary sewer main is to be abandoned / demolished. Currently the portion in River road is not shown to be demolished and it should be. 59. (P) On sheet C5, for the relocated sewer main, this line is too close to the existing gas main near the River Road and Belleview Avenue intersection. Please provide at least 5- feet of horizontal clearance, including manholes. We still need at least 5-feet of clearance between the proposed sanitary sewer line and manholes and the existing / proposed storm infrastructure as well. 60. (P) On sheet C5, for the new sewer cleanout along River Road, please move this back into your property so it is not located in the concrete entrance. 61. (P) On sheet C5, please provide a cleanout for the connection in Belleview Avenue. If the top is in asphalt or concrete sidewalk, please note it to be in a traffic bearing box. 10 62. (P) Repeat Comment: Please provide a profile for the relocated sanitary sewer line. Any utility main crossings need to be noted. We need this now to ensure that the relocation is feasible for the proposed alignment. Gas Utility Engineer – Christian Chirico 63. (P) A section of the new 8” SDR 26 sewer line on Belleview is not 5’ away from the existing gas line. Please adjust the line so it maintains 5’ of parallel separation. 64. (P) The new manhole at the intersection of Belleview and River Rd is within 5’ of the existing gas line. Please adjust the location of the manhole to maintain 5’ of parallel separation. 11 Creasy, Missy From: Ben Henderson < ben.fieldnotes@gmail.com > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 10:52 AM To: Newmyer, Heather Cc: LGNA Secretary Subject: Re: 901 River Road Hi Heather- I was unable to attend last week's meeting regarding 901 River Road. I also have not seen the proposed site plan. However, the invitation indicated that the proposed use would be a mix of residential and self storage. These uses fail to support the current zoning. If the City does not wish to see River Road develop along the lines ' of existing zoning, then a study of the area should be conducted and a new vision developed for the area and zoning changes made to achieve that vision. A special use permit for a property that has the potential to be a cornerstone of a riverfront corridor seems to be the wrong tool. ' As a resident of the neighborhood, I do not support self storage use at 901 River Road whether in isolation or in combination with other uses. The current zoning would support more jobs and more tax revenue than the use of the property as self storage. If the City does not wish to re-engage the community and formulate a new vision for the corridor, then at a minimwn I would request that the City investigate whether an industrial or higher job/tax-intensive business could be recruited to the site prior to granting a special use permit for a low jobs, low tax use that effectively removes a cornerstone of the corridor from future development. Thanks and please let me know if you have site plans or other details available for review. Ben Henderson On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 2:04 PM Newmyer, Heather wrote: Ben, These are very helpful considerations I will pass along. Thank you! Heather From: Ben Henderson .., Sent: Tuesday, July ll, 2018 9:22 AM 1 To: Newmyer, Heather Cc: LGNA Secretary Subject: 901 River Road Hi Heather, I am not sure if I will be able to attend the site plan meeting tomorrow. However, I believe that the following adjustments would be helpful: 1. Swap the location of the business and the residences. The current arrangement leaves the residential portion in an isolated island amidst commercial/industrial uses. Locating the residential portion uphill would better integrate them with the existing community. 2. Separate the parking/entryways such that residential users access the residential portion via Belleview and the commercial users access the commercial portion via River Road. Residential traffic on Belleview and commercial traffic on River Road is more in keeping with the character of existing development. Although this proposal does not achieve an ideal of either industrial development or a new vision of establishing innovative mixed use for the River Road corridor, it is considerably better than a standalone self- storage. That said, I am slightly puzzled by a four-story auto parts warehouse and sales facility, as most such businesses that I am aware of are I-story. I'd be very interested to know who the tenant will be, how many full time employees are projected, how much sales tax the business is expected to generate, and if there is any risk of the facility later being converted to a self-storage facility. Thanks! Ben Henderson Saint Clair Avenue 2 City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services Staff Report CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF HEARING: January 8, 2019 RE: EMMET STREETSCAPE PROJECT Project Manager: Timothy Motsch Date of Staff Report: January 2, 2019 Action Required: Pursuant to Virginia Code section 15.2-2232, the Planning Commission will review the proposed Emmet Street Streetscape concept, located on Emmet Street from the Ivy Road/University Avenue intersection; north on Emmet Street to the Arlington Boulevard intersection, to determine if the general location, character and extent of the proposed improvements are substantially in accord with the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan or part thereof. Background: The Emmet Street corridor is one of the highest traffic volume corridors in the city. The City of Charlottesville has been engaged in a process to enhance this corridor and the adjoining neighborhoods with urban amenities and safe, interconnected streets that promote walking, biking, and efficient public transit while maintaining levels of service (LOS) for vehicular traffic. The corridor serves as a gateway to the University of Virginia and provides a critical link for people driving, walking and biking, between University Grounds, off-grounds University facilities (such as the Emmet St. Parking Garage, John Paul Jones Arena, university offices) and commercial shopping areas north of the city, such as Barracks Road and Stonefield. The project objectives as listed in the RFP and other documents includes: • The student population, redevelopment efforts, and the corridor's direct proximity to the UVA grounds present a tremendous opportunity for modal shift with improved bicycle and pedestrian accommodations. • The project area extends from the intersection of University/Ivy Road to Arlington Boulevard and includes a shared use path, improved bike lanes, consolidated bus stops/optimized bus shelters, landscaping, and improved pedestrian crossings at the intersections within the study area. • The project implements recommendations from the Comprehensive Plan, Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, MPO Long Range Transportation Plan, and supports the University’s long term development plans. • The Emmet Street corridor should be an enjoyable pedestrian experience. • Elicit meaningful public input. • Create a schematic design of streetscape improvements in the Emmet Street Corridor. • Create an appropriate and functioning streetscape consistent with City goals and the Streets that Work Plan. • Provide pedestrian and bicycle-safe infrastructure, including appropriate lighting throughout the corridor, especially at intersections. • Coordinate with the University of Virginia regarding ongoing operations and planning, including the ongoing Ivy Road Redevelopment in accordance with UVA’s “Ivy Road Planning Study”. • Maintain and/or improve existing bus stops. • Integrate green infrastructure to enhance the City’s stormwater management and urban forestry goals. • Develop the schematic design and provide detailed construction documents that illustrate significant streetscape improvements in keeping with the planning and urban design objectives listed above. A Request for Proposals was advertised that included these design parameters as well as an extensive public participation process and in January 2018, the City of Charlottesville contracted with Clark Nexsen, Inc., an engineering consulting firm, to develop plans for the Emmet Streetscape Improvements. In addition to the design parameters established by the RFP, Clark Nexsen also researched a variety of initiatives within the City of Charlottesville that are focused on enhancing the vibrancy and quality of life, including the City of Charlottesville Comprehensive Plan, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, the Streets That Work, and UVA’s Ivy Road Planning Study. With a firm grasp of background information, the project team began the public involvement process to ensure agreement with the project’s purpose and need before beginning development of a conceptual design. Community Engagement: To help guide the project, the City appointed a project Steering Committee. The process also involves coordination with the following City Council appointed stakeholder groups: • Office of the Architect for UVA • The UVA Foundation • ADA Advisory Committee • Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee • Barracks Road Shopping Center • PLACE Design Task Force • Planning Commission • Tree Commission The City of Charlottesville has provided multiple opportunities for the public to provide input into the plan development process. A project website, an on-line survey, two community events (Community Information Meeting 1 5/12/18 and UVA Student Information Meeting 9/17/18) as well as steering committee meetings occurred between April 18th and December 19th. The steering committee meetings were open to the public. Information presented and gathered at the meetings can be found at www.emmetstreetscape.com, however a summary of each event is below: Project Website: The Project website (www.emmetstreetscape.com) contains information that has been presented to date as part of the process. Information presented includes: • Project purpose • Study area • Project schedule • A “resource” page that provides access to information presented and gathered from community events, and information presented at the stakeholder meetings • A contact form • A “get involved” page • An initial Emmet Streetscape “needs and preferences” survey As of December 27, 2018, the project website has logged over 1,900 unique page views, and approximately 800 unique users. Community Event 1: Open House, May 12, 2018 A Streetscape Summit was held on Saturday, May 12 at the Cavalier Inn from 9:00 AM to 12:00 PM. The event was set up as an interactive workshop designed to gather input on the Emmet Streetscape project. The event was organized in a variety of stations to help inform the understanding of existing conditions as well as potential concepts that would be incorporated into the streetscape design. The stations focused on community values, issues and needs, and design elements. In addition to the activity stations, participants were invited to participate in a walkabout of the study area. The online Emmet Streetscape Needs and Preferences Survey was featured at the workshop and remained open until January 2019. Summary documents provided on www.emmetstreetscape.com briefly summarize the community input data collected at the event and offers stakeholders and community members the opportunity to see the thoughts of others in the community. In addition to data collected in person, the event served as the launch for the online Emmet Streetscape Needs and Preferences Survey. Online Emmet Streetscape Needs and Preferences Survey: The online Emmet Streetscape Needs and Preferences Survey became active on May 12, 2018 and is currently still open. A total of 69 participants provided 2,067 data points and 67 written comments. The goal of the survey was to educate the public about the project and collect feedback on project priorities, tradeoffs to help direct design, and design preferences related to function and aesthetics. The survey was design to mirror the activities of the in-person activities at the Streetscape Summit, and included questions on the following topics: • Trips and mode of travel o The 69 respondents reported on a typical week making 636 drive trips, 44 bike trips, 160 walking trips, and 113 transit trips on Emmet Street in the study area. • Priority ranking of potential improvement strategies o The three highest rated improvements were accessible and safe crosswalks, coordinated traffic signals, and shade trees. • Vehicular speeds o 51% of respondents selected that reducing the speed limit in the study corridor is “very important” or “moderately important” and 49% selected that it’s “not important.” • Physical separation of bicycles and pedestrians from vehicles o 94% of respondents selected that it’s “very important” or “moderately important” to provide separate dedicated spaces for pedestrian and bicycles. • Protection of bicycles and pedestrians with design features o 81% of respondents selected that it’s “very important” or “moderately important” to protect pedestrians and bicycles from vehicle traffic through features such as a curb, plantings, or bollards. • The preferred location of the shared-use path (east of west side of the street) o 60% selected a preference for the west side (JPJ Arena side). Community Event 2: UVA Student Information Meeting – September 17, 2018 Project team members held an open house on September 17, 2018, at Lambeth Commons from 5:00 PM to 6:30 PM. The open house allowed the public and stakeholders, with an emphasis on the UVA student community, to view the streetscape concept that was developed based on previous engagement events, including the Streetscape Summit, Emmet Streetscape Needs and Preferences Survey, and Steering Committee meetings. The event was designed as an informal meeting with large plots of the concept, illustrative cross sections, traffic exhibits, and a summary of engagement results. In addition to collecting general comments, the Open House collected specific feedback on priority considerations (as identified in earlier engagement efforts) and access control at two locations along the corridor. An overview of the Open House is available on the project website www.emmetstreetscape.com. The overview points out common themes and takeaways from the feedback received during the event, as well as noting the written comments received on the worksheets. Steering Committee and Stakeholder Meetings Throughout the process, the design team collaborated with the Steering Committee and various other boards, committees and agencies to receive input and feedback during the design process. Steering committee meetings were open to the public. The following groups were met with on the following dates: • Steering Committee: April 18, 2108, August 9, 2018, and December 19, 2018. • City Council: August 6, 2018. • Planning Commission Work Session: December 18, 2018 Meeting agendas and summaries can be found under the resources tab on the project website www.emmetstreetscape.com. Additionally, a Technical committee was formed which is comprised of representatives from appropriate City departments. The technical committee held meetings on the project on April 18, 2108 and August 9, 2018. The technical committee meetings confirmed input received from the public and stakeholder groups could be technically attained and then maintained. Additional coordination meetings with UVA were held on February 7, March 23, April 17, July 26, and September 17. Of particular note and as discussed at these meetings, regarding the shared use path tunnel, it is the City’s intent to have the tunnel as close to the bridge abutment as possible. Final tunnel location is subject to negotiation with the railroad that owns the right of way being crossed by the tunnel. The design team is performing geotechnical and design efforts to justify to the railroad the closest tunnel location possible, preferably twenty (20) feet or less. Standard of Review Pursuant to Virginia Code section 15.2-2232, the Planning Commission will review the proposed Emmet Streetscape concept, located on Emmet Street from the Ivy Road/University Avenue intersection; north on Emmet Street to the Arlington Boulevard intersection, to determine if the general character and extent of the proposed improvements are substantially in accord with the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan or part thereof. The Planning Commission shall communicate its findings to the Charlottesville City Council, with written reasons for its approval or disapproval. Comprehensive Plan Alignment: The following denotes alignment with the City of Charlottesville adopted 2013 Comprehensive Plan. Transportation: o Goal 1: Increase safe, convenient and pleasant accommodations for pedestrians, bicyclists, and people with disabilities that improve the quality of life within the community and within individual Neighborhoods. o This project provides for bicycle facilities on Emmet Street at at associated intersections. In addition, the sidewalks and shared use path will be a consistent, accessible width of a minimum of 5’ o Goal 1.2: Provide convenient and safe pedestrian connections within ¼ miles of all commercial and employment centers, transit routes, schools and parks o This project provides sidewalks to enable multi-modal connections to transit routes and employment centers o Goal 1.3 Provide design features on roadways, such as street trees within buffers, street furniture and sidewalk widths that improve the safety and comfort level of all users and contribute to the City’s environmental goals. o This project includes street tree plantings within buffers where appropriate as well as 7’ wide sidewalks and a 10’ wide shared use path. o Goal 1.4: Explore and implement safe, convenient and visually attractive crossing alternatives to enable pedestrians and bicycles to cross major thoroughfares o The project provides for visible, safe pedestrian crossings at intersections. o Goal 1.5: Continue to include bicycle and pedestrian accommodations in conjunction with the planning and design of all major road projects, all new development and road paving projects o The project provides for consistent 5’ wide buffered bike lanes northbound and southbound on Emmet Street., The only exception is the 4’ wide bike lanes under the railroad bridge where widening of the road does not allow a 5’ wide bike lanes. o o Goal 1.6 Consistently apply ADA standards to facility design and ensure that accessible curb ramps exist at all pedestrian crossings where conditions allow. o Curb ramps will be provided at all crossings. Urban Design: o Goal 1: Continue Charlottesville’s history of architectural and design excellence by maintaining existing traditional design features while encouraging creative, context- sensitive, contemporary planning and design. o Per the public comment received, design focus is on seeking to provide and enhance multimodal connections between the surrounding neighborhoods. o Goal 1.1: Emphasize the importance of public buildings, public spaces, and other public improvements as opportunities to promote a sense of place and a welcoming environment for residents and visitors. o The project will encourage pedestrian use through accessible design concepts. Enhanced landscaping will be incorporated into the final design. o Goal 1.2: Promote Charlottesville’s diverse architectural and cultural heritage by recognizing, respecting, and enhancing the distinct characteristics of each neighborhood. o This project will receive a Certificate of Appropriateness from the City’s Board of Architectural Review if required. o Goal 1.3: Facilitate development of nodes of density and vitality in the City’s Mixed Use Corridors, and encourage vitality, pedestrian movement, and visual interest throughout the city o The project provides for upgraded pedestrian and bicycle facilities will enhance the neighborhoods and corridor, including adjacent UVA facility development areas. o Goal 1.4: Develop pedestrian-friendly environments in Charlottesville that connect neighborhoods to community facilities, to commercial areas and employment centers, and that connect neighborhoods to each other, to promote a healthier community. o The project provides for an upgraded multi-modal connection from Barracks Road Shopping Center and associated commercial uses, UVA student housing, Grounds, the UVA athletics complex, the Ivy Road Redevelopment, and surrounding neighborhoods. o 1.5: Encourage community vitality and interaction through the incorporation of art in public spaces, neighborhoods, signage, and gateways. o Opportunities for art, such as at the tunnel, will be considered in appropriate areas. o 1.6: Encourage the incorporation of meaningful public spaces, defined as being available to the general public, into urban design efforts. o The creation of consistent pedestrian space will encourage public space use. o 1.7: Promote design excellence for public projects and installations at all scales. o The request for proposals created a project development process centered around design. The extensive public participation process is ensuring design excellence - is sought in meeting the community’s present and future needs. Suggested Motions for Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Text and Map 1. I move that the proposed concept for the Emmet Streetscape Project, located on Emmet Street from the Ivy Road/University Avenue intersection; north on Emmet Street to the Arlington Boulevard intersection in the City of Charlottesville, general character, location and extent of the proposed improvements are substantially in accord with the City’s adopted 2013 Comprehensive Plan or part thereof. 2. I move to deny that the proposed Emmet Street from the Ivy Road/University Avenue intersection; north on Emmet Street to the Arlington Boulevard intersection in the City of Charlottesville, general character, location and extent of the proposed improvements are substantially in accord with the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan or part thereof for the following reasons: Attachments Resolution RESOLUTION OF THE CHARLOTTESVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE EMMET STREETSCAPE PROJECT IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Whereas, this Planning Commission and City Council jointly held a public hearing on the proposed Emmet Streetscape Project concept, after notice given as required by law, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Planning Commission confirms that the general character, location and extent of the proposed improvements are substantially in accord with the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan or part thereof. Adopted by the Charlottesville Planning Commission, the 8th day of January, 2019. Attest: _________________________ Secretary, Charlottesville Planning Commission City of Charlottesville Planning Commission December 18, 2018 Tonight’s Agenda • Process/Schedule • Public Engagement Overview • Conceptual Design Review • Review for Comprehensive Plan Consistency • Next Steps Process/Schedule Smart Scale Project Description Objective: A complete street that works for all users Features: • Bike lanes on both sides • 10-ft asphalt multi-use path • Audible pedestrian signals & ADA standard curb ramps • 5-ft grassy buffer planted with street trees between the multi-use path and Emmet • Landscaped center median extended to the ped. bridge • Bus shelters and optimize/consolidate bus stops • Traffic signal coordination Emmet Street Corridor Process/Schedule We are here! Public Engagement Overview Steering Committee • Gregg Bleam, Lewis Mountain • Peter Ohlms, Bike & Pedestrian Advisory Neighborhood Assoc. Committee • Thomas Funari, Federal Realty, • Abigail Palko, The Meadows Barracks Road Shopping Center Neighborhood Assoc. • Lisa Green, Planning Commission • Vipul Patel, Gallery Court Hotel • Alex Ikefuna, Neighborhood Development Services • Nat Perkins, P.E., UVA Foundation • Laura Knott, Tree Commission • Rebecca White, University of Virginia • Hamilton Lombard, Venable • Peter Russell, Tree Commission Neighborhood Assoc. • Jess Wenger, Fry’s Spring Neighborhood • Mary Hughes, University of Virginia Assoc. • Beth Meyer, Lewis Mountain • Bobbie Williams, Jefferson Park Ave Neighborhood Assoc. Neighborhood Assoc. • Claude Morris, Buckingham Branch Railroad Company Website - http://www.emmetstreetscape.com/ Public Outreach & Engagement • 4/18/18: Steering Committee Meeting • 5/12/18: Community Info. Mtg. 1 • 8/9/18: Steering Committee Meeting • 9/13/18: CAT/UTS Meeting • 9/17/18: UVA Student Info. Meeting Public Outreach & Engagement Key Feedback: Community Info. Meeting 1 • Understanding use and perceptions • Autocentric, congested, unsafe…. • Understanding vision for future use • Safe, walkable, bike and pedestrian friendly • East or West Tunnel location • 11 of 14 prefer West • Walking Tour (Valuable Feedback!) • Not accommodating for pedestrians or bikes. Public Outreach & Engagement Key Feedback: UVA Student Info. Mtg. • Understanding student use • Improve bike/ped facilities, safety at Emmet/Ivy/ University is important, Central & North Grounds, Barracks Road Shopping Center are major destinations • Vision for future use • Protected and raised bicycle lanes, better bike and pedestrian accommodations at Emmet/Ivy/University • East or West Tunnel location • East side preferred by some because it’s convenient for Lambeth residents, west side preferred by some because of major destinations, east side deviation from the street would be a safety concern Public Outreach & Engagement Key Feedback: Website Survey • Understanding current use and perceptions • Concerns about traffic, lack of bike/ped accommodations, traffic signal coordination • Understanding vision for future use • Accessible and safe crosswalks, coordinated traffic signals, and separate & dedicated spaces for bikes and peds identified as top priorities • East or West Tunnel location • 60/40 preference for west side Conceptual Design Review Study Options • SUP Path Location • Bike Lane Configuration • Mid-block crossing at Goodwin Bridge • Width configurations • Transit Emmet/Ivy to RR Concepts RR to Massie Concepts Massie to Arlington Concepts Concept Options Preferred Concept Options • Recommendations from the Multimodal Study • Bike lane • Shared-Use Path • Transit • Traffic operations Typical Section – Emmet St. at Ivy Rd. Concept Options Typical Section – Emmet St. RR Underpass Concept Options Typical Section – RR Underpass to Massie Rd. Concept Options Typical Section – Massie Rd. to Arlington Blvd. Concept Options Concept Option Emmet/Ivy to RR Emmet/Ivy to RR – Inset of Tunnel RR to Massie Massie to Arlington Shared-Use Path Tunnel Emmet Street RR Bridge Bridge #: 1834 Type: I-Beam 48’-91/4” Clearance: 19’ – 7” B/R to Ground Built: 1934 E70 Loading Ballast Deck south approach north approach Concept Design Liner Plate Underpass Review for Comprehensive Plan Consistency Comprehensive Plan Compliance • The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Vision Network identifies a shared use path arterial between Ivy Road and Angus Road. • Bike lane facilities on Emmet Street are included in the City’s Bikeway Facility Recommendations • Both bike and pedestrian improvements are key components of the approved SmartScale funding. • Will provide critical north-south arterial link for connecting the bike and trail network in the northwestern area of the City. • Addresses a critical need for multi-modal improvements at the Ivy Road and Arlington Boulevard intersection Next Steps • Planning Commission/City Council • December/January 2019 • Citizens Information Meeting • May 2019 • Project Scoping • June 2019 • Public Hearing • November 2019 Thank you! Questions? City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services Staff Report CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF HEARING: January 8, 2019 th RE: 5 – Ridge- McIntire Multimodal Corridor Study Project Manager: Brennen Duncan Date of Staff Report: December 21, 2018 Action Required: Pursuant to Virginia Code section 15.2-2232, the Planning Commission will review the 5th -Ridge –McIntire Multimodal Corridor Study concepts, located from the intersection of Harris Street / McIntire Road to the intersection of Harris Road / 5th Street Extended, in the City of Charlottesville, to determine if the general character, approximate location and extent of the proposed improvements are substantially in accord with the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan or part thereof. Background: The 5th – Ridge – McIntire corridor is a prominent gateway to downtown Charlottesville. It serves a critical role by meeting north-south transportation needs for residents, commuters, tourists, freight, and public services. After several decades of service, the corridor is in need of improvements so that it can serve the community effectively for many years to come. This study recommends several improvements to enhance safety and make accommodations for pedestrians and bicyclists more inviting, bottlenecks that cause congestion and safety issues during peak hours, and fast vehicle speeds that create a barrier to crossing the street for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders. This study makes recommendations for improving the corridor for all users. It compares the corridor’s current conditions with the City’s transportation policies, summarizes existing conditions, and lays out a menu of improvements and describes how they may perform in the future. The outcome of the study is a set of recommendations to benefit every user of the corridor. Community Engagement: The City of Charlottesville held a pair of public meetings to solicit ideas and feedback from the community. Both meetings occurred at City Space in downtown Charlottesville. The purpose of the first meeting, held on January 17, 2018, was to seek ideas regarding issues and opportunities for making the corridor a more complete street, to seek input on the direction of the study and its recommendations, and to share initial findings with the public. The purpose of the second meeting, held on July 12, 2018, was to present draft recommendations and obtain community input to use in generating the final recommendations. 1 Meeting 1 Meeting attendees shared their ideas and suggestions for improving the corridor, and also voted on what they think are the most important principles to consider in the design of future improvements. Attendees shared this input for each of four segments. The themes that arose from their suggestions, and the results of the dot voting, are captured below by segment. Themes ● Reduce speeds on 5th ● Increase safety for all users at Harris and Cherry-Elliot intersections ● Connect key destinations for bicycles and pedestrians (downtown, Tonsler, 5th Street Station) ● Reduce or slow cut-through traffic ● Allocate more of the 5th Street right-of-way to pedestrians and bicycles ● Plan for trail connections ● Increase safety for all users at Harris Road/5th Street ● Improve egress from Willoughby at Harris Road/5th Street ● 5th Street Station left turn backing up; look at signal timing Principles/ Voting Improve Safety 25 Reduce Traffic Congestion 4 Improve Bike Facilities 24 Improve Pedestrian Facilities 20 Beautification 13 Public Transit 8 (Other) Traffic Calming 1 2 Meeting 2 Meeting attendees provided their feedback on the study team’s draft recommendations for improving the corridor. Attendees shared this input for each of four segments. The themes that arose from their feedback are captured below by segment. Segment / Themes Harris Road to Cherry Avenue • Carefully plan the shared-use path and propose opportunities to extend and connect the it along parks, utility easements, and other areas of opportunity near the corridor • Desire for additional bicycle facilities for climbing and to improve safety at intersections • Maintain traffic flow with innovative methods, but respect local context Cherry Avenue to West Main Street • Desire to close the gap for bicycle facilities between Monticello Ave and Preston Ave • Concern about the loss of parking on Ridge St, particularly with recent and upcoming development projects West Main Street to Preston Avenue • Concern with bicycle and pedestrian safety and interaction with traffic at a roundabout • Concern about people understanding how to use a roundabout • Bicycle and pedestrian improvements between Main Street and Preston are desired • Concern about the transition from a shared-use path to a bicycle lane Preston Avenue to Harris Street • Reduce speed and provide crossing for improved safety • Close the gap between the terminus of the existing trail and downtown These themes, and the more detailed comments that support them and are listed in Appendix C of the report, shaped the final recommendations in several ways. 3 The final recommendations: • Incorporate both a curb divided and raised bicycle lane option for the protected bicycle lane between Harris Road and Cherry/Elliot Avenues. Members of the public expressed concern about being “pinned” between two curbs in the curb- divided bicycle lane option shown in the draft recommendation. • More explicitly show the potential for connections between the shared-use path recommended on 5th Street with other nearby trails and potential connections to future trails using stream corridors and utility easements. • Include a shared-use path along Ridge-McIntire between West Main Street and Preston Avenue. • Show a concept for providing a stronger bicycle and pedestrian connection between Monticello Avenue and West Main Street by installing a bicycle and pedestrian bridge parallel to the existing bridge on Ridge Street over the railroad tracks. This facility could be similar to what the City recently installed parallel to the Dairy Road bridge over the Route 250 Bypass. • Make minor adjustments to the geometric design and location of bicycle facilities. • Improve the graphics for legibility, showing the shared-use paths and sidewalks as separate colors, and using green to designate a protected bicycle lane. The project website and information presented at the meetings can be found at the project website. Project Website: The Project website (http://www.5thridgemcintireplan.com/) contains information that has been presented to date as part of the process. Information presented includes: • Project Purpose • Website Overview • Study Area • Project schedule • Contact Page Comprehensive Plan Alignment: The following denotes alignment with the City of Charlottesville adopted 2013 Comprehensive Plan. 4 Transportation: Goal 1: Increase safe, convenient and pleasant accommodations for pedestrians, bicyclists, and people with disabilities that improve the quality of life within the community and within individual Neighborhoods. o This project provides for bicycle facilities on portions of the corridor. In addition, the sidewalks will be a consistent, accessible width of a minimum of 5’. o Goal 1.2: Provide convenient and safe pedestrian connections within ¼ miles of all commercial and employment centers, transit routes, schools and parks o This project provides sidewalks to enable multi-modal connections to transit routes and employment centers o Goal 1.3 Provide design features on roadways, such as street trees within buffers, street furniture and sidewalk widths that improve the safety and comfort level of all users and contribute to the City’s environmental goals. o This project includes street tree plantings within buffers where appropriate as well as 5’-6’ wide sidewalks. o Goal 1.4: Explore and implement safe, convenient and visually attractive crossing alternatives to enable pedestrians and bicycles to cross major thoroughfares o The project provides for visible, safe pedestrian crossings at intersections. o Goal 1.5: Continue to include bicycle and pedestrian accommodations in conjunction with the planning and design of all major road projects, all new development and road paving projects o The project provides for consistent 5’ wide buffered bike lanes between Market and High St., then 5’ wide bike lanes from High St. to 10th St. Additionally, the bicycle facilities on Market St. are to remain. o Goal 1.6 Consistently apply ADA standards to facility design and ensure that accessible curb ramps exist at all pedestrian crossings where conditions allow. o Curb ramps will be provided at all crossings. Urban Design: o Goal 1: Continue Charlottesville’s history of architectural and design excellence by maintaining existing traditional design features while encouraging creative, context- sensitive, contemporary planning and design. o Per the public comment received, design focus is on seeking to provide and enhance multimodal connections between the surrounding neighborhoods, Main Street and the Pedestrian Mall. o Goal 1.1: Emphasize the importance of public buildings, public spaces, and other public improvements as opportunities to promote a sense of place and a welcoming environment for residents and visitors. o The project will encourage pedestrian use through accessible design concepts. Enhanced landscape strips can be incorporated into a final design. 5 o Goal 1.3: Facilitate development of nodes of density and vitality in the City’s Mixed Use Corridors, and encourage vitality, pedestrian movement, and visual interest throughout the city o The project provides for upgraded pedestrian and bicycle facilities will enhance the neighborhood and corridor o Goal 1.4: Develop pedestrian-friendly environments in Charlottesville that connect neighborhoods to community facilities, to commercial areas and employment centers, and that connect neighborhoods to each other, to promote a healthier community. o The project provides for an upgraded multi-modal connection from the pedestrian mall in downtown Charlottesville to the surrounding neighborhoods. o Goal1.5: Encourage community vitality and interaction through the incorporation of art in public spaces, neighborhoods, signage, and gateways. o Opportunities for art will be considered in appropriate areas o Goal 1.6: Encourage the incorporation of meaningful public spaces, defined as being available to the general public, into urban design efforts. o The creation of consistent pedestrian space will encourage public space use. o Goal 1.7: Promote design excellence for public projects and installations at all scales. o The request for proposals created a project development process centered around design. The extensive public participation process is ensuring design excellence - is sought in meeting the community’s present and future needs. Suggested Motions for Amendment of Comprehensive Plan Text and Map 1. I move that the planning concepts on the 5th -Ridge –McIntire Multimodal Corridor Study, located from the intersection of Harris Street / McIntire Road to the intersection of Harris Road / 5th Street Extended, in the City of Charlottesville, , general character, location and extent of the proposed improvements are substantially in accord with the City’s adopted 2013 Comprehensive Plan or part thereof. 2. I move to deny that the planning concepts on the 5th -Ridge –McIntire Multimodal Corridor Study, located from the intersection of Harris Street / McIntire Road to the intersection of Harris Road / 5th Street Extended, in the City of Charlottesville, general character, location and extent of the proposed improvements are substantially in accord with the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan or part thereof for the following reasons: Attachments Resolution Project website: http://www.5thridgemcintireplan.com 6 RESOLUTION OF THE CHARLOTTESVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE PLANNING CONCEPTS IN THE 5TH/RIDGE/MCINTIRE MULTIMODAL STUDY IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, this Planning Commission and City Council jointly held a public hearing on the proposed 5th /Ridge/McIntire Multimodal Study, after notice given as required by law, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Planning Commission confirms that the general character, location and extent of the proposed improvements are substantially in accord with the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan or part thereof. Adopted by the Charlottesville Planning Commission, the 8th day of January, 2019. Attest: _________________________ Secretary, Charlottesville Planning Commission 7 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT TO THE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR REVIEW BOARD (ERB) Entrance Corridor Review Certificate of Appropriateness – Preliminary Discussion DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: January 8, 2019 Project Name: Gallery Court Planner: Jeff Werner, AICP Applicant: Incaam Hotels Applicant’s Representative: Vipul Patel Applicant’s Relation to Owner: Owner Application Information Property Street Address: 140 Emmet Street Property Owner: Incaam Hotels (Natvaral Patel and Vipul Patel) Tax Map/Parcel #: 080004000 Total Square Footage/Acreage Site: 0.585 acres Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Plan) Designation: Mixed Use Current Zoning Classification: Urban Corridor Mixed Use (URB) with Entrance Corridor (EC) Overlay Entrance Corridor Overlay District: §34-307(a)(1) Corridor 1, Route 29 North Sub-Area C: Barracks Road to Ivy Road Current Usage: Unoccupied hotel; destroyed by fire in May 2017 Background (See appendix for summary of reviews and actions.) Existing conditions The parcel is bound by Emmet Street (East), C&O Railroad embankment (North) and the University of Virginia (West and South). Since being destroyed by fire in May 2017, the hotel and lot have been fenced off and not used. The parcel has a single, un-signalized entrance off Emmet Street. There is an existing city sidewalk along Emmet Street. Applicant’s Request Proposal to construct a 113,140 square feet, seven-story hotel to accommodate 79 rooms and suites, structured parking for 80 spaces (94 effective), and a small, street level café space. Prior to formally requesting approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the new hotel, the applicant has requested a Preliminary Discussion in order to present and vet three design options. Based on that input, the applicant will prepare a final design and submittal package. Actions: Prior to coming forward for a COA, applicant is requesting feedback on the materials presented. Staff Comments Each of the three final design options are consistent in massing, scale, height and configuration with the preliminary design presented during the 2018 SUP review. Each maintains the block L configuration with the long side (back) of the L forming the primary façade along Emmet Street and the short side (bottom) 140 Emmet Street EC Review – 1/08/19 ERB Work Session (Dec 27, 2018) 1 of the L facing south towards the University. Linking the two facades is a seven story tower. To the rear of the site, the L is infilled with the hotel’s three story parking garage. Above the garage, the L configuration returns for floors 4 through 7, reducing the building’s mass while allowing window openings for the guest rooms at the rear of the hotel. Each design option features on the west façade a street level café, entry to the parking garage, and a trellised patio above the cafe. On the south facade, each features a ground level patio area and a trellised third floor balcony. As with the preliminary design, the three options generally follow the EC recommendations for: • pedestrian routes—design sidewalks appropriately for the site and the expected amount of foot traffic; • streetscape—design inviting streetscapes and public spaces; • building placement—orient the façade of new buildings to front on the corridor; • parking is concealed within the building; • mass, scale and height—use variations in materials, textures, patterns, colors and details to break down the scale and mass of a building; • façade organization and storefronts—orient primary entrances…to the street or corridor; • materials and textures—choose materials that offer texture and avoid monotonous surfaces; • coordinated color palate—limit the number of colors, generally there is a wall color, trim, color, accent color, and roof color; • architectural details—use articulated elements, create designs of interest, avoid large expanses of blank walls; • appurtenances--screen mechanical and other equipment, items not properly located, screened, or integrated into the design, van detract from the overall appearance. • The EC Guidelines recommend that 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. Given the dearth of buildings on this segment of Emmet Street, this hotel will be the design benchmark for whatever follows. In that light, what is approved here is critically important to the future character of this corridor. The general design of each option is consistent with that of the preliminary design. Where they differ [from the Prelim Design] is in materiality and the color palette. (Page #s refer to the submitted plans and renderings.) Preliminary Design (Page 12) • Floors 1 and 2: Sections of metal panels and cast stone with punched metal windows; metal storefront entries and glazing at street level. • Floors 3 through 6: Red brick with punched metal windows framed by metal cladding. • Floor 7: EIFS with punched metal windows. • Tower: Cast stone with full height fenestration in metal frames. • West façade: Street level cafe clad in metal, above which is a patio area with a metal trellis. Option 1 (Pages 13-14): Similar in materiality—brick, cast stone, metal windows and accents, but less metal cladding on the lower floors. Color palette is darker and more contemporary. • Floors 1 and 2: White, cast stone tiles with punched metal windows; metal storefront entries and glazing at street level. • Floors 3 through 6: Black/blue, glazed brick with punched metal windows framed by metal cladding. • Floor 7: Silver, metal panels with punched metal windows. 140 Emmet Street EC Review – 1/08/19 ERB Work Session (Dec 27, 2018) 2 • Tower: White, cast stone tiles with full height fenestration in metal frames. A similarly glazed tower frames the east end of the south facade. • West façade: Street level café clad in black, metal panels, above which is a patio area with a metal trellis. Option 2 (Pages 15-16): Masonry and cast stone is replaced with metal cladding and panels. Color palette is darker and more contemporary. Floors 1 and 2: Black, metal panels with punched metal windows; metal storefront entries and glazing at street level. • Floors 3 through 6: White, metal panels with punched metal windows framed by silver, metal cladding. • Floor 7: Silver, metal panels with punched metal windows. • Tower: Black, metal panels with full height fenestration in metal frames. A similarly glazed tower frames the east end of the south facade. • West façade: Street level café clad in black, metal panels, above which is a patio area with a metal trellis. Option 3 (Pages 17-18): Most closely follows the materiality and color of the preliminary design. • Floors 1 and 2: White, cast stone tiles with punched metal windows; metal storefront entries and glazing at street level. • Floors 3 through 6: Red brick with punched metal windows framed by silver metal panels. • Floor 7: Silver metal panels with punched metal windows. • Tower: White, cast stone tiles with full height fenestration in metal frames. A similarly glazed tower frames the east end of the south facade. • West façade: Street level cafe clad in white, cast stone tiles, above which is a patio area with a metal trellis. The EC Guidelines do not associate metal cladding as a common building materials used in Charlottesville. However, the Guidelines acknowledge that metal siding may be appropriately used for a contemporary design. Questions: Applicant is seeking input primarily on: • Materiality and color palletes of the options. (See EC Design Guidelines Chapter 4, Buildings.) • Do the proposed design elements adequately address the comments expressed at the September 11 Plan Comm/ERB meeting? o Activate the streetscape o Break‐up the massing o Step back from the street • Any additional comments on the proposal that would be helpful in developing the final submittal package for the Certificate of Appropriateness. Attachments • NBJ Architecture drawings and renderings, Gallery Court Hotel, pages 1 through 22, dated January 8, 2019. • City Council’s October 1, 2018 resolution approving the requested Special Use Permit (SP-18-00007) • Charlottesville Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines, Chapters 1-5 (excerpted as noted) • Charlottesville Code for Entrance Corridor Overlay Districts (See specifically Sec. 34-310. ­ Standards for considering certificates of appropriateness.) 140 Emmet Street EC Review – 1/08/19 ERB Work Session (Dec 27, 2018) 3 Appendix Background March 14, 2018: Plan Comm/ERB Preliminary Discussion on Special Use Permit Request and Entrance Corridor CoA. • Agenda packet, see pages 32-53: www.charlottesville.org/home/showdocument?id=60858) • Meeting minutes, see pages 22-23: www.charlottesville.org/home/showdocument?id=61709 September 11, 2018: Joint Planning Commission/City Council hearing on Special Use Permit request to allow an increase in the by-right height—from 60 feet to 80 feet. Within the URB district, hotels are allowed by right and a height of up to 80 feet is allowed by SUP. {Section 34-756 and Section 34-796.} • Agenda packet, see pages 36-137: www.charlottesville.org/home/showdocument?id=62715 • Meeting minutes: (See January 8, 2019 agenda packet.) The ERB determined that, as related to the city’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines, the proposed Special Use Permit to allow an increase in height for the proposed Gallery Court Hotel at 140 Emmet Street North will have an adverse impact on the Route 29 North [Emmet Street] Entrance Corridor because of the increased height at 80 [feet] and proximity to the road; [at a minimum] there should be a 6­ foot planting bed and a 7-foot sidewalk. (Vote 5-2. Ayes: Lahendro, Keller, Dowell, Smith, Mitchell.) During the subsequent discussions by the Planning Commission—after which it recommended approval of the SUP request--the applicant was asked to address the following: • Activate streetscape • Break‐up massing • Step back from street October 1, 2018: City Council approved requested Special Use Permit. (Resolution attached.) • Agenda packet, see pages 103-114: www.charlottesville.org/home/showdocument?id=63003 • Meeting minutes, see pages 17-19: www.charlottesville.org/home/showdocument?id=63183 140 Emmet Street EC Review – 1/08/19 ERB Work Session (Dec 27, 2018) 4 A DEVELOPMENT BY Vipul Patel 01/08/2019 Gallery Court Hotel C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e , VA nbj A R C H I T E C T U R E 1 Gallery Court Hotel C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e , VA EXISTING AERIAL VIEWS nbj A R C H I T E C T U R E 2 Gallery Court Hotel C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e , VA EXISTING STREET VIEWS nbj A R C H I T E C T U R E 3 Gallery Court Hotel C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e , VA SITE PLAN nbj A R C H I T E C T U R E 4 Gallery Court Hotel C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e , VA FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR PLAN nbj A R C H I T E C T U R E 5 Gallery Court Hotel C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e , VA THIRD AND FOURTH FLOOR PLAN nbj A R C H I T E C T U R E 6 Gallery Court Hotel C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e , VA FIFTH THROUGH SEVENTH FLOOR PLAN nbj A R C H I T E C T U R E 7 Gallery Court Hotel C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e , VA ROOF PLAN nbj A R C H I T E C T U R E 8 Gallery Court Hotel C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e , VA SECTION A nbj A R C H I T E C T U R E 9 Gallery Court Hotel C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e , VA SECTION B AND C nbj A R C H I T E C T U R E 10 2 1 Gallery Court Hotel C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e , VA PROPOSED VIEWS nbj A R C H I T E C T U R E 11 INITIAL DESIGN DESIGN APPROVED BY SUP Gallery Court Hotel C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e , VA EVOLUTION OF DESIGN nbj A R C H I T E C T U R E 12 Gallery Court Hotel C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e , VA OPTION 1 - VIEW NORTH EAST nbj A R C H I T E C T U R E 13 Gallery Court Hotel C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e , VA OPTION 1 – VIEW SOUTH WEST nbj A R C H I T E C T U R E 14 Gallery Court Hotel C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e , VA OPTION 2 - VIEW NORTH EAST nbj A R C H I T E C T U R E 15 Gallery Court Hotel C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e , VA OPTION 2 - VIEW SOUTH WEST nbj A R C H I T E C T U R E 16 Gallery Court Hotel C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e , VA OPTION 3 - VIEW NORTH EAST nbj A R C H I T E C T U R E 17 Gallery Court Hotel C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e , VA OPTION 3 - VIEW SOUTH WEST nbj A R C H I T E C T U R E 18 Gallery Court Hotel C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e , VA LANDSCAPING PLAN nbj A R C H I T E C T U R E 19 KEY PLAN Gallery Court Hotel C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e , VA LANDSCAPING PLAN nbj A R C H I T E C T U R E 20 KEY PLAN Gallery Court Hotel C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e , VA LANDSCAPING PLAN nbj A R C H I T E C T U R E 21 Gallery Court Hotel C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e , VA CONCEPTUAL LIGHTING PLAN nbj A R C H I T E C T U R E 22 C HAR LOT T E S V I L LE E N TR A NCE C ORRI D OR DESIG N G UIDEL IN ES 1 Amendments adopted by City Council March 7, 2011 Introduction A. How to Use the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines Document...............5 B. Background for Design Guidelines..............6 C. Design Principles.............10 D. Role and Purpose of Design Guidelines............11 E. Design Review Authority............12 F. Designated Entrance Corridors............14 1 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES I Introduction A. How to Use the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines Document The City of Charlottesville has designated certain significant materials, awnings, appurtenances, additions and corridor routes of tourist access as Entrance Corridors to ensure conversions, franchise design, gas station canopies, civic through design review that corridor development is and institutional buildings and multi-family buildings. compatible with the City’s historic landmarks, buildings, These general guidelines pertain to all of the corridors and structures. The Planning Commission has been and are illustrated with various examples that reflect the designated as the Entrance Corridor Review Board (ERB). particular recommendation. The purpose of these entrance corridor design guidelines Beyond these four chapters are individual sections on each is to provide a tool for property owners, developers, of the twelve corridors: designers and the ERB to create, review and build quality new buildings or renovate existing structures along Chapter V: Individual Corridors documents and evaluates Charlottesville’s major entrance corridors. The intent the existing character of these corridors, break them into of these guidelines and the review process is to ensure distinctive sub-areas and provide more specific guidelines a quality of development compatible with the City’s for each of them with text, graphics and maps. They also historic, architectural, and cultural resources. They are explain the general zoning categories of each corridor and based on general design concepts that came out of the provide a general vision for them as well. Comprehensive Plan Principles and the City’s Vision In addition, all individuals using these guidelines are urged Statement that is discussed in the next section. to review the detailed sections of the zoning ordinance for These corridors have several characteristics including: the specific zoning regulations that pertain to a particular project. • wide variety in character and quality These Design Guidelines present general design priorities • variety in degree of permanence and potential change based on core design principles that can be adapted to • many opportunities for quality new development individual circumstances of site and building design. While • some opportunities for preservation, rehabilitation and infill specific examples are provided, the enduring strength of • numerous opportunities to incorporate significant guidelines relies on their flexibility. Not every case and vegetation and natural features circumstance can be anticipated, nor is the goal to prescribe the design of every development on Charlottesville’s • numerous opportunities for supportive streetscape corridors. In fact, given the level of sophistication of the improvements market in the area, it is anticipated that developers and These guidelines are organized into four general chapters. their designers will be able to build on these principles and Following this introduction section, there are: create unique, livable, and viable projects that meet the Chapter II: Guidelines for Streetscape in which more community’s vision. The intent of these design guidelines is detailed recommendations are given for landscaping, not to limit growth or development within the corridors or pedestrian routes, bicycle route, lighting, street furniture, to dictate specific stylistic designs or restrict creative design public signage, public art, and utilities and communication solutions. equipment. Chapter III: Guidelines for Site includes sections on connectivity between areas and neighborhoods and between and within sites, building placement, parking, landscaping and open space, lighting, walls and fences, signs, and utilities and service areas. Chapter IV: Guidelines for Commercial Buildings includes sections on architectural compatibility, building mass, scale and height, facade organization and storefronts, materials and textures, color, details, roof forms and 5 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES Introduction I B. Background for Design Guidelines Charlottesville is one of the highest-rated places in the The physical environment should preserve and augment United States in which to live, work, play, and raise a family. the appearance and richness of the intellectual and sensory Charlottesville citizens clearly want the city to continue experience throughout the city.” be a special kind of place and a community. The quality of Specifically in regard to the city’s corridors, there have Charlottesville’s physical environment has a direct bearing been several recent initiatives. There has been an in- on its livability, prosperity and its ability to maintain its depth study of these areas in a two-volume report led by current status as a world-class small city. Torti Gallas Partners and a subsequent rezoning of many The City has many assets that make it a vibrant, progressive of these designated areas with new corridor mixed-use and diverse community. These include an ideal location in regulations by the City. While much of the recent focus on the heart of Virginia’s piedmont, a lively downtown, a broad corridors comes from these projects, the Comprehensive range of neighborhoods, home to one of the top public Plan contains various principles that relate to the design, universities in the nation, a recognized commitment to function and character of its corridors: culture and arts, a strong economic position in the region, • We will actively pursue strategies designed to keep the City a a long history of planning, an involved citizenry, a history thriving and vital retail center of the region. of architectural excellence, a continuing emphasis on high • We will support initiatives to increase commercial, retail and quality development and an extensive network of entrance residential growth opportunities in our commercial corridors. corridors. • We will encourage quality urban design in the construction The challenge is to encourage new development that will of new buildings and the redevelopment of existing ones. provide new vitality while preserving and enhancing the • We will support strategies and incentives to protect and community’s traditional strength. Entrance Corridor enhance our historic resources. design review is a means to ensure quality of development • We commit to extension and enhancement of the public compatible with the City’s historic, architectural, and realm - all those spaces, public and private, we share as a cultural resources. community. Over the past decade, the City of Charlottesville has been • We will promote and support the ideal of our City as a Park investigating ways to grow. The following background by expanding green space, the urban canopy, and improving information summarizes the history of this effort. These access to our waterways. documents and studies form the basis for the design • We will emphasize public and pedestrian spaces in the principles found in these guidelines. architectural fabric of our entrance corridors and throughout 1. The 2001 Comprehensive Plan and Community the City. Vision The City Council and the Planning Commission have been strong leaders in their commitment to solving challenges and building on the community’s strengths. In the current comprehensive plan they have clearly stated the City’s important mission as they see it in the following vision statement: “Mindful of our responsibility to future generations, Charlottesville will build a distinctive, world class, small city by insuring the quality of our natural and built environment. Quality of life includes all the tangible and intangible factors that make Charlottesville attractive to live in, to work in, or to visit. The quality of its natural and built environment must be extended and enhanced, its heritage conserved, and new development must be high quality and sensitive to needs. 6 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES I Introduction B. Background for Design Guidelines 2. The 2001 Commercial Corridor Study (Torti Gallas) 3. The 2003 Zoning Ordinance This study was prepared by Torti Gallas and Partners, The City of Charlottesville recently made a number CHK in association with Robert Charles Lesser of revisions to the zoning ordinance including the Company and Land Planning and Design. It looked creation of Mixed-Use Corridor Zoning. Its purpose is at fifteen commercial corridors and proposed urban to create a dynamic street life by encouraging mixed- design solutions to deal with market realities. The use development within appropriate areas along study included a market analysis of the community significant City corridors. and projections of future development opportunities. The creation of these redeveloped corridors is of Those market possibilities were then applied to each of particular importance since they are intended to serve the corridors. as vital centers for economic growth and development For each corridor, the report identified urban while at the same time encouraging development design issues, evaluated the potential for re-use of that is friendly to pedestrians and alternate modes of existing buildings, assessed parking requirements, transportation characteristic of an urban setting. recommended appropriate uses for properties, This new zoning has various objectives that include identified a theme, evaluated the transition from encouraging: commercial to non-commercial uses, and made recommendations for mitigating any adverse impacts • the placement of buildings close to property lines of development and made recommendations for • the construction of buildings of appropriate scale appropriate urban design improvements. It also • the minimization of the impact of parking facilities and included a brief set of design guidelines, many of vehicular traffic which are incorporated in this document. • the addition of landscaped spaces available for pedestrian use • alternate forms of transportation • neighborhood-enhancing economic activity • home ownership • neighborhood participation in the development process 7 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES Introduction I B. Background for Design Guidelines 4. The 2007 Comprehensive Plan Guiding Principles Sustainability Principles The following guiding principles were adopted by both The 2007 Comprehensive Plan is also based on the Planning Commission and City Council to guide principles of sustainability. Sustainability requires the 2007 Plan. The principles outlined represent the meeting the human needs of the present without values and the vision of the people of Charlottesville compromising the ability of future generations and what they want their community to be. They show to meet their own needs. At the local level, this a consistency and a steadfast direction that has led this means striking a balance to meet current needs of community to greatness over the past 200 years. this community while also protecting resources so The Charlottesville Community… they will remain available and plentiful for future generations. Sustainability is most often linked with • Has safe neighborhoods with identifiable centers with the preservation and protection of environmental strong social fabric. resources to maintain the health of the streams, • Has accessibility to safe public transportation, wetlands, plants, and animals that make up the alternative modes of transportation and interconnected ecosystem in which we live. This concept can also pedestrian and bicycle access. be extended to the broader context of protecting • Puts a value on trees, parks, greenspace, stream and the historic context of Charlottesville, our unique biodiversity as adding to the appearance and livability of and valued quality of life, and the social capital of the City. the people in this community. All policies, goals, • Values and provides quality education for all ages, objectives and actions in this Comprehensive Plan vocations and abilities. are evaluated within the context of sustainability and • Provides housing opportunities with a diversity of style, guiding principles that flow from it. scale, price, financing and location. • Has open and accessible government and institutions that cooperate to provide quality services economically and operate through an open democratic process. • Has a strong diversified economy with opportunities for entrepreneurship and a diversity of jobs. • Balances the natural and built environments and practices sustainability in its decisions. • Reaches across jurisdictional lines for regional progress. • Values mixed use development that promotes 24 hour activity, pedestrian connectivity, and transit use. • Promotes an intellectual climate that values arts and culture. 8 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES I Introduction B. Background for Design Guidelines 5. Green Building and Sustainable Design Principles Sustainability means meeting the needs of the Nothing in these guidelines should be construed present without compromising the ability of future to discourage green building or sustainable design. generations to meet their own needs. Green building If such a design is found to conflict with a specific means building practices that use energy, water, and guideline, the ERB shall work with the applicant to other resources wisely. The City of Charlottesville and devise a creative solution that meets that applicant’s the Entrance Corridor Review Board (ERB) support goal for sustainability that is also compatible with the the principles of green building and sustainable design character of the district and the property. in order to create a community that is healthy, livable, and affordable: • Mixed-use development provides an alternative to sprawl that allows residents to live within walking distance of activities, thereby reducing time spent in the car. • Infill development is an efficient use of land that can provide diversity in housing sizes and types, and can revitalize neighborhoods. • Adaptive reuse of a historic building or living in a pre- owned home reduces consumption of land and materials for new construction, and may reduce housing costs. • Options for walking, bicycling, and transit promote healthy living and reduce dependence on automobiles and energy use. • Designing buildings for the local climate helps conserve energy. • Durable building materials such as brick, wood, cementitious siding, and metal roofs are economical and more compatible with the character of the community. • Locally obtained building materials, rapidly renewable or recycled materials, non-toxic materials and finishes (products with zero or low volatile organic compounds), and wood certified by the Forest Stewardship Council provide sustainable choices. • Energy efficient construction techniques, such as structural insulated panels (SIPS), careful sealing and insulation, and integration of natural with artificial light sources. • Low impact development methods (porous pavement, rain gardens, vegetated buffers, green roofs) retain storm water on site and protect street water quality by filtering runoff. • Use of rating systems such as LEED, Energy Star, and Earth Craft House are encouraged. 9 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES Introduction I C. Design Principles Charlottesville’s special visual character is defined by the area’s natural beauty, historic resources, architectural quality, distinctive building materials, and cultural variety expressed in the built environment. The intent of the entrance corridor guidelines and review process is to protect the City’s historic, architectural and cultural resources, by ensuring a quality of development compatible with those resources through design control measures. Charlottesville’s Entrance Corridor Guidelines are based on the following ten Design Principles: • Design For a Corridor Vision • Create a Sense of Place New building design should be compatible (in massing, In corridors where substantial pedestrian activity occurs scale, materials, colors) with those structures that contribute or is encouraged, or where mixed use and multi-building to the overall character and quality of the corridor. Existing projects are proposed, one goal will be creating a sense of developments should be encouraged to make upgrades place. Building arrangements, uses, natural features, and consistent with the corridor vision. Site designs should landscaping should contribute, where feasible, to create contain some common elements to provide continuity exterior space where people can interact. along the corridor. New development, including franchise • Create an Inviting Public Realm development, should complement the City’s character and respect those qualities that distinguish the City’s built Design inviting streetscapes and public spaces. environment. Redevelopment of properties should enhance the existing streetscapes and create an engaging public realm. • Preserve History • Create Restrained Communications Preserve significant historic buildings as well as distinctive architecture from more recent periods. Encourage new Private signage and advertising should be harmonious and contemporary design that integrates well with existing in scale with building elements and landscaping features. historic buildings to enhance the overall character and • Screen Incompatible Uses and Appurtenances: quality of the corridor. Screen from adjacent properties and public view those uses • Facilitate Pedestrian Access and appurtenances whose visibility may be incompatible Encourage compact, walkable developments. Design with the overall character and quality of the corridor, such pedestrian connections from sidewalk and car to buildings, as: parking lots, outdoor storage and loading areas, refuse between buildings, and between corridor properties and areas, mechanical and communication equipment, Where adjacent residential areas. feasible, relegate parking behind buildings. It is not the intent to require screening for utilitarian designs that are • Maintain Human Scale in Buildings and Spaces attractive, and/or purposeful. Consider the building scale, especially height, mass, • Respect and Enhance Charlottesville’s Character complexity of form, and architectural details, and the impact of spaces created, as it will be experienced by the Charlottesville seeks new construction that reflects the people who will pass by, live, work, or shop there. The size, unique character, history, and cultural diversity of this place. placement and number of doors, windows, portals and Architectural transplants from other locales, or shallow openings define human scale, as does the degree of ground- imitations of historic architectural styles, for example, are floor pedestrian access. neither appropriate nor desirable. Incompatible aspects of franchise design or corporate signature buildings must be • Preserve and Enhance Natural Character modified to fit the character of this community. 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. 10 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES I Introduction D. Role and Purpose of Design Guidelines 1. General Role and Purpose 2. How Guidelines Relate to Other Regulations The Charlottesville Corridor Design Guidelines are These guidelines do not reproduce all the specific intended to serve a number of purposes. They are to: requirements stated in the Zoning Ordinance, • Educate property owners, designers, developers, Subdivision Regulations, or other applicable the public, and plan reviewers on what the City of development regulations. Applicants are advised to Charlottesville expects and desires for new development consult any necessary related documents. In the event along the designated corridors. that there appears to be differences regulations, the • Present clear concepts based on the City’s more stringent standard shall apply. Comprehensive Plan principles for achieving this vision. This guidelines publication is an official policy • Identify important design concerns and recommend document that expands upon the concepts of the appropriate design approaches. design principles set forth in the Comprehensive • Illustrate specific techniques to use when planning and Plan. While the guidelines provide specific designing developments and individual buildings. recommendations for development, they cannot, and are not intended to, cover all circumstances. Rather, • Provide an objective and fair basis for review of the structure and content of the manual are meant projects by the ERB. to give developers and reviewers the perspective to address the unique conditions of each project and the flexibility to develop designs that meet the intent, principles and spirit of the guidelines. In the event of a conflict between any provision of these guidelines and the mandatory requirements of an applicable City ordinance, including, without limitation, the City’s zoning ordinance and the City’s ordinances implementing the state Fire and Building Codes, the mandatory requirement of the City ordinance shall establish what shall be required of the applicant. Except as may otherwise be expressly provided within City Code Chapter 34, Article II, Division 3 (Entrance Corridor Overlay Districts) the ERB, in its application of these guidelines to review of a particular application, shall have no authority to waive the mandatory requirements of any City ordinance. 11 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES Introduction I E. Design Review Authority 1. Authority: Zoning Ordinance and State Enabling 2. Standards for Review Legislation The following features and factors must be considered Entry corridor review was first created in the Zoning by the ERB in determining the appropriateness of Ordinance in 1991. The 2003 Zoning Ordinance proposed construction, reconstruction, alteration or revisions designated the Charlottesville Planning restoration of buildings or structures: Commission as the Entrance Corridor Review Board • Overall architectural design, form, and style of the (ERB). The Zoning Ordinance states: subject building or structure, including, but not limited “The entrance corridor overlay district is intended to to the height, mass and scale; implement the comprehensive plan goal of protecting • Exterior architectural details and features of the subject the city’s historic, architectural and cultural resources, building or structure; by ensuring a quality of development compatible with those resources through design control measures. The • Texture, materials and color of materials proposed for purposes of this article are to stabilize and improve use on the subject building or structure; property values; to protect and enhance the city’s • Design and arrangement of buildings and structures on attractiveness to tourists and other visitors; to sustain the subject site; and enhance the economic benefits accruing to the city • The extent to which the features and characteristics from tourism; to support and stimulate development described within the paragraphs above, are complimentary to the prominence afforded properties architecturally compatible (or incompatible) with similar and districts having historic, architectural or cultural features and characteristics of other buildings and significance; all of the foregoing being deemed to structures having frontage on the same EC street(s) as advance and promote the health, safety and welfare of the subject property; and the general public.” • Provisions of these Entrance Corridor Design Section 15.2-2306 of the Code of Virginia authorizes Guidelines. localities to regulate the design of development along arterial streets or highways that are significant routes of tourist access to the locality or to designated historic landmarks, buildings, structures or districts, to ensure that such development is architecturally compatible with the historic landmarks, buildings, and structures to which these routes lead. 12 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES I Introduction E. Design Review Authority 3. Design Review Process 5. Order of Review The following description summarizes the design If Entrance Corridor review is required, it shall take review process. Please consult the Zoning Ordinance place concurrent with site plan review, if required, and for specifics. Property owners must apply for and prior to issuance of a building permit. No preliminary receive a certificate of appropriateness (COA) from or final site plan or site plan amendment shall be the ERB for all development requiring a site plan. approved until the Entrance Corridor Certificate of The director may grant administrative approval for Appropriateness has first been approved. other new construction, additions or modifications When an EC property is the subject of an application not requiring a site plan, and for signs, windows, for Special Use Permit, the Entrance Corridor Review doors, roof coverings, and siding. Single or two-family Board shall recommend to City Council as to whether houses are not required to apply under this section. the proposed use will have an adverse impact on Some activities that do not require a COA include: the Entrance Corridor, and if so, shall recommend • Interior alterations to a building or structure; conditions which , if imposed, would mitigate those impacts. • Construction of ramps and other modifications to serve the handicapped; • Repair and maintenance of buildings or structures 6. Appeals which are non-conforming for failure to comply with the Following approval of an application by the ERB, provisions of this article; the director of neighborhood development services, • General maintenance of buildings or structures, where or any aggrieved person, may note an appeal of that no substantial change in design or materials is proposed; decision to the city council. Following a denial, the and applicant, the director of neighborhood development • Additions or modifications to a building or services, or any aggrieved person may appeal the structure, where no substantial change in design or decision to the city council. materials is proposed, as determined by the director of neighborhood development services or his designee. 4. Application An application for a COA shall be filed with the director of neighborhood development services by the owner or contract purchaser of the subject property. A complete application shall include all plans, maps, studies, reports, photographs, drawings, and other informational materials which may be reasonably required in order make the determinations called for in a particular case. Each application shall also include a narrative description, the building elevations, a landscaping plan, proposed lighting and the required application fee. 13 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES Introduction I F. Designated Entrance Corridors in Charlottesville Entrance Corridor Overlay districts have been established on lots and parcels of land contiguous to the streets and highways listed below, from the edge of right-of-way to the full depth of the lot or parcel: 1. Route 29 North from the corporate limits to Ivy Road Zoning: Highway Corridor (HW), Urban Corridor (URB), Emmet Street Commercial (ES) 2. Hydraulic Road from the corporate limits to the 250 Bypass Zoning: Highway Corridor (HW) 3. Barracks Road from the corporate limits to Meadowbrook Road Zoning: Urban Corridor (URB) 4. Ivy Road from the corporate limits to Emmet Street Zoning: Urban Corridor (URB) 5. Fontaine Avenue/Jefferson Park Avenue from the corporate limits to Emmet Street Zoning: University High Density, R-2U, Neighborhood Commercial Corridor (NCC), & B-2. 6. Fifth Street, SW from the corporate limits to the beginning of the Ridge Street Design Control District Zoning: R-1S, McIntire-5th Residential, Highway Corridor (HW) 7. Avon Street from the corporate limits to the CSX Railroad tracks Zoning: R-1S, B-2, Downtown Extended (DE) 8. Monticello Avenue/Route 20 from the corporate limits to Avon Street Zoning: R-1S, Highway Corridor (HW) 9. Long Street from the corporate limits to St. Clair Avenue Zoning: Central City Corridor (CC), B-1, B-2, R-2 10. East High Street/9th Street from Long Street to East Market Street Zoning: High Street Corridor (HS), Central City Corridor (CC), Downtown North Corridor (DN) 11. Preston Avenue from McIntire Road to Rosser Avenue Zoning: Central City Corridor (CC), B-3, R-1S w/ Public Park Overlay, McIntire-5th Residential 12. McIntire Road, from Preston Avenue to Route 250 Zoning: R-1, R-1S, R-3, McIntire-5th Residential, Public Park Overlay 14 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES I Introduction F. Designated Entrance Corridors in Charlottesville 29 North EC, Sub-Area C: Barracks Rd. to Ivy Rd. Gallery Court 15 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES CHARLOT TE S V I L LE E NTR A NCE C ORRI D OR DESIG N G UIDEL IN ES 2 Amendments adopted by City Council March 7, 2011 NOTE: Excerpted to include only indicated sections. Complete text at: www.charlottesville.org/home/showdocument?id=20412 Streetscape A. Design Principles...............5 B. Plantings & Open Space.............6 C. Pedestrian Routes.....................7 D. Bicycle Routes.....................8 E. Lighting.................9 F. Street Furniture.............10 G. Pulic Signs...........11 H. Public Art & Monuments..........12 I. Utilities & Communications Equipment............13 1 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES II Guidelines for Streetscapes A. Design Principles Charlottesville’s special visual character is defined by the area’s natural beauty, historic resources, architectural quality, distinctive building materials, and cultural variety expressed in the built environment. The intent of the entrance corridor guidelines and review process is to protect the City’s historic, architectural and cultural resources, by ensuring a quality of development compatible with those resources through design control measures. Charlottesville’s Entrance Corridor Guidelines are based on the following ten Design Principles: • Design For a Corridor Vision • Create a Sense of Place New building design should be compatible (in massing, In corridors where substantial pedestrian activity occurs scale, materials, colors) with those structures that contribute or is encouraged, or where mixed use and multi-building to the overall character and quality of the corridor. Existing projects are proposed, one goal will be creating a sense of developments should be encouraged to make upgrades place. Building arrangements, uses, natural features, and consistent with the corridor vision. Site designs should landscaping should contribute, where feasible, to create contain some common elements to provide continuity exterior space where people can interact. along the corridor. New development, including franchise • Create an Inviting Public Realm development, should complement the City’s character and respect those qualities that distinguish the City’s built Design inviting streetscapes and public spaces. environment. Redevelopment of properties should enhance the existing streetscapes and create an engaging public realm. • Preserve History • Create Restrained Communications Preserve significant historic buildings as well as distinctive architecture from more recent periods. Encourage new Private signage and advertising should be harmonious and contemporary design that integrates well with existing in scale with building elements and landscaping features. historic buildings to enhance the overall character and • Screen Incompatible Uses and Appurtenances: quality of the corridor. Screen from adjacent properties and public view those uses • Facilitate Pedestrian Access and appurtenances whose visibility may be incompatible Encourage compact, walkable developments. Design with the overall character and quality of the corridor, such pedestrian connections from sidewalk and car to buildings, as: parking lots, outdoor storage and loading areas, refuse between buildings, and between corridor properties and areas, mechanical and communication equipment, Where adjacent residential areas. feasible, relegate parking behind buildings. It is not the intent to require screening for utilitarian designs that are • Maintain Human Scale in Buildings and Spaces attractive, and/or purposeful. Consider the building scale, especially height, mass, • Respect and Enhance Charlottesville’s Character complexity of form, and architectural details, and the impact of spaces created, as it will be experienced by the Charlottesville seeks new construction that reflects the people who will pass by, live, work, or shop there. The size, unique character, history, and cultural diversity of this place. placement and number of doors, windows, portals and Architectural transplants from other locales, or shallow openings define human scale, as does the degree of ground- imitations of historic architectural styles, for example, are floor pedestrian access. neither appropriate nor desirable. Incompatible aspects of franchise design or corporate signature buildings must be • Preserve and Enhance Natural Character modified to fit the character of this community. 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. 5 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES Guidelines for Streetscapes II ­ B. Plantings & Open Space 1. Use street trees to provide shade, a sense of enclosure and to define edges. 2. Include appropriately scaled trees, shrubs and other plantings to provide beauty as well as shade, within a pedestrian gathering place, and as screening for parking, utilities, and service areas. 3. Maintain existing plantings in all public areas. 4. Use hardy native species that require minimal maintenance. 5. Replace damaged or missing street trees with appropriate species. 6. Avoid over-used species such as Bradford pear. A green plaza defines the corner and provides open space for pedestrians at this intersection. 7. Use larger tree species where appropriate to space and function. 8. Expand use of seasonal color in plantings. 9. Use landscaping to create an identity within a particular corridor or sub-area by selecting specific species, sizes, colors or shape of plants and trees. 10. Use plantings to promote visual order and help integrate buildings into the corridor. 11. Refer to the Tree Planting and Preservation BMP Manual in the Charlottesville Standards and Design Manual. 12. Encourage day lighting of streams where appropriate. This planted median provides a gateway from a corridor into a private development and includes light poles with banners. A median with appropriately scaled plantings can help integrate a Besides screening parking lots, plantings also define the edge of building into a corridor. this corridor. 6 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES II Guidelines for Streetscapes C. Pedestrian Routes 1. Provide, where feasible, unbroken pedestrian routes between developments. Place paths in a logical pattern where people will want to walk. Place sidewalks on both sides of streets where feasible and separate them from the curb by a minimum five (5) feet wide landscape zone if possible. 2. Within developments, identify a complete internal pedestrian pathway system linking all buildings, parking and green spaces. Ensure that this network connects to public pedestrian pathways that link schools, recreation areas, and other major destinations. 3. Add designated pedestrian pathways through larger Paving patterns and delineated crosswalks provide pedestrians parking lots. with a well-defined, inviting pathway along this busy corridor. 4. Provide crosswalks at intersections, between major pedestrian destinations and in front of building entrances that link to parking. 5. Design crosswalks to highlight their visibility by slightly raising them, by making them wider, by constructing them of materials other than asphalt and by using bulb-out corners that reduce their length. 6. Provide breaks in large building masses to allow pedestrians to pass through, particularly through shopping centers. This sidewalk, accented with plantings, provides a safe pathway through a large parking lot. 7. Place sidewalks throughout residential areas. 8. Avoid excessive curb cuts for vehicular access across pedestrian ways. Where curb cuts are necessary, mark them with a change in materials, color, texture or grade. 9. Design sidewalks appropriately for the site and the expected amount of foot traffic. In commercial areas where foot traffic is expected, sidewalks should be a minimum of (10) ten feet. Sidewalks in residential areas can be five (5) feet, depending on the type of street and size of road. 10. Use brick or patterned concrete, or a combination of these materials, that relates to the existing architectural vocabulary of the corridor or sub-area. 11. Avoid concrete curbing poured in continuous strips. 12. Avoid excessive variation in sidewalk and curb materials. Brick textures add richness to this inviting sidewalk scene. 7 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES Guidelines for Streetscapes II ­ D. Bicycle Routes 1. Provide for bicycle traffic along major corridors and between major destinations, with particular emphasis on connecting residential areas to schools, recreation areas, and commercial centers. 2. Provide new bike paths to connect to planned or existing municipal paths or paths of adjoining developments. 3. Provide facilities to store or lock bicycles at appropriate sites, including schools, major recreation areas, office parks, public institutions, and large commercial centers. 4. Develop an easily identifiable graphic system of signs and road markings to designate bicycle routes and crossings. A number of Charlottesville’s entrance corridors have signage to designate bicyle lanes as seen in this West Main Street example. Several corridors have designated lanes for bicycles as shown here along Jefferson Park Avenue. Bicycle racks are a welcome addition to the site of this public library. 8 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES II Guidelines for Streetscapes E. Lighting 1. Use full cutoff luminaires in accordance with City lighting requirements to provide better lighting and prevent unwanted glare. 2. Where appropriate, replace modern cobra-head type lamps and poles with painted metal, traditionally designed fixtures that have a base, shaft and luminaire. 3. Consider using a different but compatible style of fixture for each of the corridors. 4. Light pedestrian areas with appropriately scaled poles. 5. Provide pedestrian lighting at transit stops and along paths to parking lots and other destinations. 6. Provide lighting of intersections in high traffic areas. 7. Include any lighting upgrades as a part of an overall This planted median includes distinctive street light fixtures to streetscape plan for each corridor. add character to this corridor that leads to a government complex. Traditional pedestrian- scaled streetlights such as these at Fontaine Research Park help define the street edge and light the sidewalks. Full cutoff luminaries provide targeted lighting for Light fixtures can also be locations to hang seasonal banners in a commercial parking areas. sub-area. 9 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES Guidelines for Streetscapes II ­ F. Street Furniture 1. Develop and use a common palette of colors, materials and design. 2. Coordinate furniture along corridors. While they need not match, they should be compatible and not clash. 3. Place benches at key locations such as transit stops. Use traditional designs constructed of wood and/or painted metal. 4. Avoid placing too many elements on narrow sidewalks. Trash receptacles should be co-located with benches at transit stops. Consider containers suitable for year-round plantings co-located Furniture placed along the street at transit stop locations provides with other street furniture elements as part of an overall street a welcome rest for pedestrians. furniture plan as shown in this example on the downtown mall. 10 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES II Guidelines for Streetscapes I. Utilities and Communication Equipment 1. Locate and screen utilities to limit their visibility from the street and from nearby development. 2. Place existing and proposed utilities underground. 3. Consider integrating cellular communication towers into building design so as to appear visually unobtrusive. Placing utilities underground reduces visual clutter and allows for the placement of street trees and other plantings. Above ground utilities visually dominate this green median on Jefferson Park Avenue. Cell towers are concealed within the chimneys of this hotel. 13 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES III Guidelines for Sites CHARLOT TE S V I L LE E NTR A NCE C ORRI D OR DESIG N G UIDEL IN ES 3 Amendments adopted by City Council March 7, 2011 Site A. Design Principles..............5 B. Connectivity Between Areas & Neighborhoods...6 C. Connectivity between & within Sites...........7 D. Building Placement..............8 E. Parking...................9 F. Plantings & Open Space...........10 G. Lighting...............11 H. Walls & Fences...12 I. Signs......................13 J. Utilities, Communications Equipment & 1 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES Service Areas......14 III Guidelines for Sites A. Design Principles Charlottesville’s special visual character is defined by the area’s natural beauty, historic resources, architectural quality, distinctive building materials, and cultural variety expressed in the built environment. The intent of the entrance corridor guidelines and review process is to protect the City’s historic, architectural and cultural resources, by ensuring a quality of development compatible with those resources through design control measures. Charlottesville’s Entrance Corridor Guidelines are based on the following ten Design Principles: • Design For a Corridor Vision • Create a Sense of Place New building design should be compatible (in massing, In corridors where substantial pedestrian activity occurs scale, materials, colors) with those structures that contribute or is encouraged, or where mixed use and multi-building to the overall character and quality of the corridor. Existing projects are proposed, one goal will be creating a sense of developments should be encouraged to make upgrades place. Building arrangements, uses, natural features, and consistent with the corridor vision. Site designs should landscaping should contribute, where feasible, to create contain some common elements to provide continuity exterior space where people can interact. along the corridor. New development, including franchise • Create an Inviting Public Realm development, should complement the City’s character and respect those qualities that distinguish the City’s built Design inviting streetscapes and public spaces. environment. Redevelopment of properties should enhance the existing streetscapes and create an engaging public realm. • Preserve History • Create Restrained Communications Preserve significant historic buildings as well as distinctive architecture from more recent periods. Encourage new Private signage and advertising should be harmonious and contemporary design that integrates well with existing in scale with building elements and landscaping features. historic buildings to enhance the overall character and • Screen Incompatible Uses and Appurtenances: quality of the corridor. Screen from adjacent properties and public view those uses • Facilitate Pedestrian Access and appurtenances whose visibility may be incompatible Encourage compact, walkable developments. Design with the overall character and quality of the corridor, such pedestrian connections from sidewalk and car to buildings, as: parking lots, outdoor storage and loading areas, refuse between buildings, and between corridor properties and areas, mechanical and communication equipment, Where adjacent residential areas. feasible, relegate parking behind buildings. It is not the intent to require screening for utilitarian designs that are • Maintain Human Scale in Buildings and Spaces attractive, and/or purposeful. Consider the building scale, especially height, mass, • Respect and Enhance Charlottesville’s Character complexity of form, and architectural details, and the impact of spaces created, as it will be experienced by the Charlottesville seeks new construction that reflects the people who will pass by, live, work, or shop there. The size, unique character, history, and cultural diversity of this place. placement and number of doors, windows, portals and Architectural transplants from other locales, or shallow openings define human scale, as does the degree of ground- imitations of historic architectural styles, for example, are floor pedestrian access. neither appropriate nor desirable. Incompatible aspects of franchise design or corporate signature buildings must be • Preserve and Enhance Natural Character modified to fit the character of this community. 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. 5 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES Guidelines for Sites III B. Connectivity between Entrance Corridor Areas & Neighborhoods 1. Maintain or provide a strong sense of community, by providing pedestrian and vehicular links from a corridor site to nearby neighborhoods, parks, schools and other public destinations. 2. Use common streetscape elements, materials and designs to visually link the corridor areas and neighborhoods. 3. Provide continuous pedestrian routes along corridors where feasible. 4. Site grading should promote connectivity with adjacent sites. This connection to adjoining development of a shopping center also includes an outdoor cafe (a), further encouraging pedestrian activity. The rear of this large shopping center uses small retail shops (a) to create a pleasing transition to neighboring residential development (b). This urban park connects municipal functions to adjacent neighborhoods. Connect commercial developments to surrounding neighborhoods. 6 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES III Guidelines for Sites C. Connectivity between & within Sites 1. Create a complete pedestrian pathway system within a site and between adjacent sites, linking all buildings, parking areas and green spaces. Ensure that this network connects to any nearby public pedestrian pathway. 2. Design pedestrian and vehicular circulation to maximize the quality and safety of pedestrian experience through: • Design approaches such as “shared space” that slow vehicle speeds and enhance pedestrian experience. • Designated, separate sidewalks with planted areas through large parking lots. • Crosswalks at points of vehicular access routes and in front These developments are connected with paths through an interior of building entrances. courtyard and highlighted by a fountain plaza with seating. • Crosswalks designs that highlight their visibility by slightly raisin them, by making them wider, by constructing them of materials other than asphalt and by using bulb-out corners that reduce their length. 3. Ensure that new paving materials are compatible with the character of the area. Scored concrete with broom finishes, colored, exposed aggregate concrete, and brick or unit pavers are examples of appropriate applications. Avoid large expanses of bright white or gray concrete surfaces. 4. Provide passageways within large building masses to allow pedestrians to pass through, particularly through shopping centers. Use pedestrian friendly crosswalks within commercial developments where sidewalks intersect vehicular access points. This brick sidewalk connects a public sidewalk with the deeply setback commercial development. Note the trees and light fixtures lining the walk and the brick crosswalk. The walk is aligned to minimize its visible impact on building features and storefronts. Lastly, note the metal fence, granite piers and planting strip that Landscaped walkways provide a pleasant connection between define the front edge of the development. buildings and developments. 7 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES Guidelines for Sites III D. Building Placement 1. Orient the facade of new buildings to front on the corridor. 2. Limit setback of new buildings according to the zoning of the particular corridor. 3. Limit setbacks at major intersections so that the architecture can help define the area. 4. Use compact building arrangements to reduce the feeling of seas of parking, encourage pedestrian activity and define space. 5. Strive for contiguous building arrangement along the street face, and avoid large breaks between buildings in identified development sites. This new commercial building is placed at the intersection with 6. Ensure that larger developments orient their design to minimum setbacks to help define the corner. any adjoining neighborhoods and to side streets. 7. Provide breaks in large developments and building masses to allow pedestrian connections between developments. 8. Orient service areas to limit their impact on the development and any neighboring areas. 9. Each side of a corner building that faces a street should be considered a facade of the building for design purposes. This restaurant on a corridor is placed close to the front of the street to strengthen the corridor edge. The limited setback of these commercial buildings accompanied This arrangement allows for shared open space, parking to the side by trees, projecting signs and pedestrian-scaled lighting all help and rear and buildings facing both the street and common area. create a human scale at the Corner. 8 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES III Guidelines for Sites E. Parking 1. Reduce the scale of parking lots by: a. Dividing parking lots into modules or multiple smaller lots using techniques such as the natural topography, logically placed landscaped pedestrian paths to destinations, and by linear aisles of plantings. Avoid large expanses of asphalt. b. Reducing the amount of parking lots through such methods Use an access street off a major as providing on-street parking, using off-site parking such as corridor to provide entry to shared municipal lots, sharing parking among complementary uses, Place buildings next to the parking for several businesses. providing pull-in spaces in front of shops and creating overflow street, especially at corners. lots. These techniques may require some flexibility when applying parking standards. 2. Where existing parking lots are located on the street, screen such lots from the street and from adjoining development, using low fences or walls, or year-round plantings. Parallel parking along the front of a shopping center 3. Reduce the visibility of residential garages by: can reduce the size of a. Not allowing a garage to become the primary architectural surface parking lots. feature when a development is viewed from the street, especially for attached housing. b. Placing garages behind the building setback, preferably facing to the side or rear of attached housing. c. Placing garages and parking in the rear with alley access 4. Accommodate pedestrian needs within parking areas by: a. Providing clear pedestrian paths and crossings from parking spaces to main entrances and to the street. b. Planning parking so that it least interferes with appropriate pedestrian access and connections to adjoining developments. 5. Construct parking lots that reinforce the existing street wall The design of this freestanding parking structure uses of buildings and the grid system of rectangular blocks. materials and forms to reflect the architectural character of the adjoining commercial area. 6. The number and width of curb cuts should be the minimum necessary for effective on- and off-site traffic circulation. Whenever possible, curb cuts shall be combined with adjacent entrances. 7. Design any detached parking structures to be architecturally compatible with its setting or to be screened by other buildings or by landscaping. If it fronts on a street or pedestrian path, design the street level facade with storefronts, display windows, bay divisions, and other pedestrian oriented features. 8. Bicycle parking facilities should be provided within areas where significant bicycle traffic is anticipated. They should be located in designated areas close to buildings and pedestrian paths. The design, materials, and color of the bicycle racks should coordinate with other site elements and should be well- Parking arranged within the interior of a block is appropriate lit for night time uses. for this office complex. 9 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES Guidelines for Sites III F. Plantings & Open Spaces 1. Provide landscaping within parking areas by: This example shows a planted a. Separating parking aisles with medians planted with shade buffer between trees along the length of the islands. the corridor b. Including pedestrian walkways with planted medians to and retail reinforce connectivity and separate pedestrians from vehicular development. traffic. c. Avoiding isolated islands of single trees and instead providing landscaped tree aisles between every other row of cars. d. Using shade trees of sufficient number and size at maturity This hedge to shade a substantial portion of the lot. Consider orientations screens a parking that would provide the greatest shade during summer months. lot and would be Smaller, more decorative trees can be used closest to buildings. appropriate for 2. Planting zones should be consolidated into areas large Charlottesville’s corridors. enough to give a natural character to a site rather than randomly distributed in small and narrow open spaces that do not match the context and scale of the project. 3. Planted areas should be located along the public boundaries of the site to provide screening, within parking areas, along drainage or stormwater management areas, Plazas with shade, fountains around buildings, and at building entries. and seating area 4. The existing topography should be preserved intact as are welcome much as possible to minimize disruptions in drainage. additions for shoppers in larger 5. Different scales of plantings (trees, shrubs, flowers) commercial should be incorporated into site design to the extent developments. possible and such features as mature woods and riparian areas should be retained. 6. Use species appropriate for site conditions including available sunlight, water and root and canopy space. 7. Use trees, shrubs and other landscaping features to provide screens for service areas, parking and utilities. 8. Use large specimen street trees along pedestrian routes to provide shade and to define edges. 9. In the core of larger commercial and office centers, street trees and more formal urban plantings organized around public open spaces are recommended. 10. Consider using landscaping areas that also provide storm water treatment, such as rain gardens. 11. Refer to the Tree Planting and Preservation BMP Manual in the Charlottesville Standards and Design Plantings are provided at the perimeters (a) and at the intermedi- Manual. ate points (b) of the parking lot. Pedestrian paths are part of the 12. Encourage day lighting of streams where appropriate. planted median (c). 10 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES III Guidelines for Sites G. Lighting 1. Use full cutoff luminaires in accordance with City lighting requirements to provide better lighting and prevent unwanted glare. Lighting should at all times be designed to prevent light pollution in the form of light transmission laterally beyond site boundaries or upward to the sky. 2. Coordinate the lighting plan with the landscape plan to ensure pedestrian areas are well-lit and that any conflict between trees and light fixtures is avoided. 3. Lighting should provide for appropriate and desirable nighttime illumination for all uses on and related to the site to promote a safe environment. 4. Light pedestrian areas with appropriately scaled poles and luminaires. Their heights are typically ten to fourteen feet. 5. Avoid using building accent lighting that is too bright and draws too much attention to the building. Reasonable levels of accent lighting to accentuate architectural character may Shielded lighting mounted on pedestrian-scaled poles focuses be appropriate in individual instances when it is shielded light on where it it needed - the sidewalk. and is not aimed towards neighboring properties, sidewalks, pathways, driveways, or public right-of-ways in such a manner as to distract travel. 6. Gasoline station/convenience store aprons and canopies should utilize fully shielded lighting fixtures 7. Provide pedestrian lighting at transit stops and along paths to parking lots and other destinations. In this commer- cial development, smaller pedestrian- scaled light fixtures are placed along the sidewalk while a taller non-decorative light fixture is used for general lighting in the parking areas. Attached to the building, this accent lighting is targeted downward and washes a portion of the facade as well as providing illumination to passing pedestrians. Additional accent lighting is located under the awnings. 11 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES Guidelines for Sites III H. Walls & Fences 1. Choose high-quality materials and designs using materials such as brick, stone, metal, and wood. Avoid untreated wood, vinyl, chain-link, or wire fences or concrete block walls. Consider selecting materials used elsewhere on the property or the structures within the site. 2. Use a scale and level of ornateness of the design of any new walls and fences that relate to the scale and ornateness of the building within the site. Use simpler designs on small lots. 3. Avoid exceeding the average height of other fences and walls of surrounding properties. 4. Fences should be set back from the street right-of-way to allow a clear area for utilities and landscaping. 5. When walls or fences stretch longer than 50 feet, use designs with texture and modulation to provide a regular rhythm without being monotonous. For example, use This brick wall and landcaping help define the edge of the vertical piers (generally spaced no more than 25 feet apart) sidewalk along a corridor. of a different material or width or height. Plantings and street trees should be used in conjunction with a wall or fence to break up a long expanse. 6. Use paint or opaque stains on pressure treated or unpainted wooden fences. 7. Fence stringers (the structural framing of the fence) should be located facing the interior of the subject lot, with the finished side facing out away from the subject property. 8. Fences at intersections and driveways should comply with City requirements for site distance. (See Article IX, Division 7 of the Zoning Ordinance for detailed site triangle requirements.) 9. Transitional screening should consist of a densely planted Visual interest can be provided by the fence design (above) or the buffer strip to provide an adequate visual screen. The screen use of appropriate plantings (below). should be of appropriate plant materials to form an effective buffer for all seasons. Mature vegetation should be retained in such areas and supplemented as necessary by new vegetation to screen sight lines. 12 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES III Guidelines for Sites I. Signs See Article IX, Division 4 of the City of Charlottesville Zoning Ordinance for detailed sign regulation information. 1. Place signs so that they do not obstruct architectural elements and details that define the design of the building. 2. Respect the design and visibility of signs for adjacent businesses. 3. Use colors and appropriate materials that complement the materials and color scheme of the building, including accent and trim colors. 4. Use a minimal number of colors per sign where possible. 5. Exterior illumination of signs shall comply with the This monument sign set within a planted median serves as the City’s outdoor lighting requirements. Exterior neon is main entrance sign to this commercial development. discouraged. 6. Illumination of any sign shall not be directed toward any residential area or adjacent street. 7. Consider using a comprehensive signage plan for larger developments. 8. Encourage the use of monument signs (rather than freestanding signs) with accent landscaping at the base along corridors. 9. Internally lit signs should use an opaque background so only letters are lit. 10. Flashing lights are prohibited. These smaller wall-mounted signs are designed to be viewed from vehicles within this shopping center. Projecting signs are designed for the pedestrian. Channel set letters such as these at Barracks Road Shopping Center illuminate only the face of the letters and can be fabricated Signs should fit within the architectural framework of the to match logos of individual stores as part of a unified sign plan. building as do these storefront signs. 13 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES Guidelines for Sites III J. Utilities, Communication Equipment & Service Areas 1. Locate utilities to minimize their visual impact from the street and adjoining developments. 2. Screen and landscape dumpsters with wood board or solid barrier wall when multiple sides of a building are highly visible. 3. Place utilities underground if at all possible or locate behind buildings. 4. Screen service areas and loading docks that are visible from streets or adjoining development with berms, landscaping, structures or fences. 5. Site noise-generating features away from neighboring properties especially residences, or use noise barriers or other means of reducing the impact. 6. Screen roof-top communications and mechanical Plantings and lattice screen this service area for a multi-family equipment. residence from the adjacent structures and busy street. Large evergreen trees work with the grade of the site to obscure the view of utility equipment located behind this building. This enclosure coordinates well with surrounding buildings while screening mechanical equipment from view of passing pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Parapet walls and railings shield rooftop equipment from view at Barracks Road Shopping Center. 14 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES IV Guidelines for Buildings CHARLOT TE S V I L LE E NTR A NCE C ORRI D OR DESIG N G UIDEL IN ES Amendments adopted by City Council March 7, 2011 NOTE: Excerpted to include only indicated sections. Complete text at: www.charlottesville.org/home/showdocument?id=20409 4 Buildings A. Design Principles.......................5 B. Architectural Compatibility................6 C. Building Mass, Scale & Height.............7 D. Facade Organization & Storefronts..................9 E. Materials & Textures.......................11 F. Color............................12 G. Details..........................13 H. Roof Forms & Materials....................14 I. Awnings........................15 J. Appurtenances...........16 K. Additions & Corridor Conversions................17 L. Franchise Design...........................18 M. Gasoline Station Canopies.......................19 N. Civic & Institutional Buildings......................20 O. Multi-Family 1 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES Housing........................21 IV Guidelines for Buildings A. Design Principles Charlottesville’s special visual character is defined by the area’s natural beauty, historic resources, architectural quality, distinctive building materials, and cultural variety expressed in the built environment. The intent of the entrance corridor guidelines and review process is to protect the City’s historic, architectural and cultural resources, by ensuring a quality of development compatible with those resources through design control measures. Charlottesville’s Entrance Corridor Guidelines are based on the following ten Design Principles: • Design For a Corridor Vision • Create a Sense of Place New building design should be compatible (in massing, In corridors where substantial pedestrian activity occurs scale, materials, colors) with those structures that contribute or is encouraged, or where mixed use and multi-building to the overall character and quality of the corridor. Existing projects are proposed, one goal will be creating a sense of developments should be encouraged to make upgrades place. Building arrangements, uses, natural features, and consistent with the corridor vision. Site designs should landscaping should contribute, where feasible, to create contain some common elements to provide continuity exterior space where people can interact. along the corridor. New development, including franchise • Create an Inviting Public Realm development, should complement the City’s character and respect those qualities that distinguish the City’s built Design inviting streetscapes and public spaces. environment. Redevelopment of properties should enhance the existing streetscapes and create an engaging public realm. • Preserve History • Create Restrained Communications Preserve significant historic buildings as well as distinctive architecture from more recent periods. Encourage new Private signage and advertising should be harmonious and contemporary design that integrates well with existing in scale with building elements and landscaping features. historic buildings to enhance the overall character and • Screen Incompatible Uses and Appurtenances: quality of the corridor. Screen from adjacent properties and public view those uses • Facilitate Pedestrian Access and appurtenances whose visibility may be incompatible Encourage compact, walkable developments. Design with the overall character and quality of the corridor, such pedestrian connections from sidewalk and car to buildings, as: parking lots, outdoor storage and loading areas, refuse between buildings, and between corridor properties and areas, mechanical and communication equipment, Where adjacent residential areas. feasible, relegate parking behind buildings. It is not the intent to require screening for utilitarian designs that are • Maintain Human Scale in Buildings and Spaces attractive, and/or purposeful. Consider the building scale, especially height, mass, • Respect and Enhance Charlottesville’s Character complexity of form, and architectural details, and the impact of spaces created, as it will be experienced by the Charlottesville seeks new construction that reflects the people who will pass by, live, work, or shop there. The size, unique character, history, and cultural diversity of this place. placement and number of doors, windows, portals and Architectural transplants from other locales, or shallow openings define human scale, as does the degree of ground- imitations of historic architectural styles, for example, are floor pedestrian access. neither appropriate nor desirable. Incompatible aspects of franchise design or corporate signature buildings must be • Preserve and Enhance Natural Character modified to fit the character of this community. 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. 5 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES Guidelines for Buildings IV B. Architectural Compatibility 1. Charlottesville seeks new construction that reflects 4. New development should strive to implement the the unique character, history, and cultural diversity of intended vision rather than repeat existing inappropriate this place. Architectural transplants from other locales development patterns. or shallow imitations of historic architectural styles, for 5. New development should respect existing historic example, are neither appropriate nor desirable. buildings and excellent examples from the recent past. 2. A distinctive identity for each corridor should be created 6. Existing development should be upgraded as through a combination of materials, forms and features opportunities arise. that create a coordinated and inviting mix of buildings and spaces. 3. Encourage a diversity of architectural materials, forms and styles that respect the traditions of architecture in the Charlottesville area including gable or hipped roof forms, standing seam metal roofing, brick, and wood siding. Conceptual sketch of possible new mixed-use corridor development at Barracks Road as envisioned in the Torti Gallas Corridor Study. 6 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES IV Guidelines for Buildings C. Building Mass, Scale & Height Historically, many of Charlottesville’s buildings were small an pedestrian scaled. Newer, more recent developments on several of the commercial corridors are more massive with large stores and expansive parking areas. These developments do not reflect the human scale of the community. Many techniques suggested in these guidelines Avoid an unmodulated mass Use stepped-back height provide tools for allowing large development while reducing their perceived massiveness. While the footprint of new commercial development may remain large, massing, architectural details, ground floor pedestrian access, and organization of building forms can help to retain the human scale of Charlottesville. Use varied wall surfaces Use varied heights with 1. Break up the front of a large building by dividing it regular width into individual bays of 25 to 40 feet wide. 2. Use variation in materials, textures, patterns, colors and details to break down the mass and scale of the building. 3. Use building mass appropriate to the site. Place buildings of the greatest footprint, massing, and height in the core of commercial or office developments where the impact on adjacent uses is the least. Follow setback requirements for upper story according to zoning classification of the corridor. 4. When making transitions to lower density areas, modulate the mass of the building to relate to smaller buildings. Heights can be greater if the mass is modulated and other scale techniques are adopted. Reduce height near lower density uses. This corner infill building uses a change in materials to reduce its 5. Use massing reduction techniques of articulated base, mass. watertables, string courses, cornices, material changes and patterns, and fenestration to reduce the apparent height of a large building. Fake windows and similar details are not appropriate articulation. Floor-to-floor heights of a building can have an impact on the mass of a building. For instance, typical ceiling heights in a residence are 8-9 feet. First floors of office buildings or retail shops can range from 10-15 feet. Upper floors that include residential or office are generally 8-12 feet in height. When actual or implied floor-to-floor heights exceed 15-20 feet on the exterior, then a building may begin to read as more massive than human-scaled. When articulating large buildings, keep these dimensions in mind. The use of vertical bay divisions and horizontal bands of masonry patterns visually reduce the mass of this office building. 7 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES Guidelines for Buildings IV C. Building Mass, Scale & Height Space Spaces between buildings can be out of human scale, causing a feeling of being lost in a sea of emptiness. Creating human- Space has no closure. scaled spaces that are defined by either buildings or landscape features provide more friendly, inviting places. Space is too large as defined by buildings. The most comfortable community spaces are in the ratio of two to three horizontal units to one vertical unit. Comfortable human scale space is enclosed by buildings. Comfortable human scale space is enclosed by landscaping and building. Avoid This ­ A large mass without defining architectural elements gives observers no visual reference to themselves. Do This The facade of this infill building relates to the scale of the street Architectural features such as cornices, windows, and vertical while upper levels step back. divisions such as columns and piers break the same mass down to human scale. The person feels invited to be near and in the spaces created by such buildings. 8 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES IV Guidelines for Buildings D. Facade Organization & Storefronts 1. Orient primary entrances on a building facade to the street or corridor. 2. Use a hierarchy of entry design on any complex, if the building has more than one orientation, and focus main entry on street/corridor facade. 3. Secondary entries may be created to allow convenient access from adjacent buildings, sidewalks, parking, bicycle paths and transit stops. 4. Orient at least part of public elevations of shopping complexes to any adjoining neighborhoods. 5. Provide attractive facade treatments on any elevation This new bank is located along a corridor, is buffered by a wooded that is visible from streets/corridors or from any primary strip and has a modulated facade to reduce its scale. elevations of adjoining developments and avoid use of unadorned blank walls. 6. Consider using the traditional three-part facade of cornice, pattern of upper story windows and a storefront with articulated base when designing a new building or when renovating an existing structure. 7. Use a regular pattern of solids and voids for openings that relate to more traditional building design in the corridor. 8. Use a proportion of openings (vertical or horizontal) that generally is consistent with the context of the building. More traditional designed openings are typically vertically This library facade has three projecting classical bays to reduce proportioned. its mass and parking is contained within the first floor of the 9. Strive for designs and materials that reflect the structure. architectural traditions of the region. 10. Storefronts or large display windows should be used at the street level. Vertical piers create bays and frame large expanses of glass divided into small panes accented with decorative insets. The storefront level is capped by a cast stone cornice. 9 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES Guidelines for Buildings IV D. Facade Organization & Storefronts This storefront design is well detailed with transoms and an These storefronts are unified by a visually dominant shingled roof integrated sign band. while clear divisions are made with an unusual roof form. This grocery store uses large storefront display windows at street When renovating or designing a new storefront, consider using a level, with smaller openings above, to break the facade into bays. traditional three-part facade of cornice, upper story windows and a storefront with an articulated base. Remodeled facades on simple buildings have articulated cornices and colorful awnings on the storefronts. 10 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES IV Guidelines for Buildings E. Materials & Textures The choice of materials and texture has great visual significance. Coordinating materials within a development can tie together buildings of different sizes, uses, and forms while contrasting materials or textures within a large building may add visual interest and reduce its apparent scale. Modern construction materials offer choices that can provide many different looks and textures. 1. Use material changes to help reduce mass and provide visual interest. 2. Choose materials that offer texture and avoid monotonous surfaces. For example, use wood or brick or stone, or sustainable synthetic materials, such as cementitious siding, that approximate the look and dimension of these materials. This Charleston, South Carolina hotel uses a decorative stone 3. Use quality materials consistently on all visible sides of base, two colors of bricks, a shingle mansard roof, iron balconies commercial, office and multi-family residential buildings. and colorful awnings to divide up this monolithic structure. 4. In Charlottesville, common building materials are Multiple colors of brick brick, wood or stucco siding, and standing-seam metal are used to create a variety roofs. Stone is more commonly used for site walls than of decorative elements on building walls. this facade. 5. Avoid the use of building materials with long-term maintenance problems, such as EIFS (exterior insulation and finishing systems), or vinyl siding. Sustainable, utilitarian building materials such as concrete block, metal siding or cementitious panels may be appropriately used for a contemporary design. 6. Clear glass windows are preferred. This facade has a traditional decorative cornice along with cast stone and masonry to divide up its large mass. Avoid blank walls on sides of buildings, particularly along pedestrian routes. 11 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES Guidelines for Buildings IV F. Color Color is an integral element of the overall design. 1. A coordinated palette of colors should be created for each development. This palette should be compatible with adjacent developments. 2. Set the color theme by choosing the color for the material with the most area. If there is more roof than wall area in a development, roof color will be the most important color choice and will set the tone for the rest of the colors. 3. Limit the number of color choices. Generally there is a wall color, trim color, accent color, and roof color. 4. Bright accent colors may be appropriate for smaller areas such as awnings and signs on commercial buildings. The unified paint scheme at Barracks Road ties in the roof color 5. Use color variation to break up the mass of a building by using it as an accent color and on cornice bands throughout and provide visual interest. the development. 6. Do not use strong color that has the effect of turning the entire building into a sign. A strong palette of harmonious colors coupled with unpainted Yellow and blue rooftop screens accent the silver metal facade of surfaces was used to differentiate between the feed store and this structure and reinforce its vertical expression by drawing the former warehouse while tying the composition together with blue eye upward. metal awnings. 12 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES IV Guidelines for Buildings G. Details Architectural details are important tools to create human scale and architectural character. Techniques include highlighting foundations, lintels, sills and cornices with contrasting materials and breaking up the mass of the building with bands at floor levels or projections at entries. These techniques are only a few of the ways to transform a massive building into one of human scale. Consider the façade design of all buildings - even service buildings can have attractive facades. 1. Use articulated elements such as cornices, belt courses, water tables, bay divisions, variations in wall plane and roof features to create designs of interest. 2. Include human-scaled elements such as columns, pilasters and cornices, particularly at street level and on facades with a pedestrian focus. 3. Avoid large expanses of blank walls that are visible from the public right of way or neighboring developments. 4. Avoid decorative elements that do not relate to the architecture but serve to turn the whole building into a sign. A decorative metal canopy and patterned brickwork help to emphasize the entry of this office building. A stepped cornice tower, brick corbelling and string courses Look to examples of traditional architecture throughout the City provide decorative details to this commercial structure. for a vocabulary of appropriate details. 13 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES Guidelines for Buildings IV H. Roof Form & Materials The importance of roof materials depends on its form. This stepped roof Certain roof types result in very visible roof materials. corner tower serves While larger commercial projects may have roofs hidden as a gateway feature behind parapet walls, smaller commercial buildings, office and also helps screen the stepped back parks and multi-family residential developments often have upper floors of this very visible roofs. Richmond hotel. 1. Use roof forms that complement the building design and contribute to a human scale. Avoid tall roof areas that overwhelm the height of the building’s wall. Common Charlottesville roof forms include hipped, gable, flat and gambrel. 2. If a shed roof or flat roof design is used, add a parapet wall to screen the roof. 3. Avoid a visible monolithic expanse of roof on large- scale buildings. Break the roof mass with elements such as gables, dormers, or parapets. Scale these features to the scale of the building. 4. Consider using a special roof feature on buildings located at a gateway, a prominent corner or highlight entry bays on larger structures. 5. Steeper forms are associated with more traditional design and can be appropriate when the development adjoins nearby neighborhoods. 6. On roofs that are visible such as gable, hipped or shed designs, use quality materials such as metal or textured asphalt shingles. 7. Screen from public view any equipment located on a roof. Avoid long stretches of the same roof form. This mixed-use residential and office building has gable roof forms which serve it well as a transition building between a downtown area and a nearby neighborhood. Articulate the roof at frequent intervals, every 30 to 60 feet if possible, depending on the type of building. This recommendation is particularly important in the design of a commercial building that adjoins a residential neighborhood. 14 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES IV Guidelines for Buildings I. Awnings 1. Encourage the use of awnings at the storefront level to Awnings can provide shield displays and entry and to add visual interest. a variety of color, protection, enclosure 2. Coordinate the choice of colors, as part of an overall color and interest to a scheme. Solid colors, wide stripes and narrow stripes should commercial facade. be considered as appropriate. 3. Awning forms may be angled or curved. 4. Use of a canopy as an illuminated sign is not appropriate. 5. Awning materials should be appropriate to the overall design of the building. Traditional cloth fabric, as well as standing-seam metal or newer rigid materials may be considered. Curved Fabric Awnings Standard Sloped Awning The suspended canopies over these storefronts provide an Coordinated awnings highlight the storefronts of this commercial opportunity to introduce a bold accent color to this facade. development. 15 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES Guidelines for Buildings IV J. Appurtenances Appurtenances refer to all of the miscellaneous equipment and elements that is necessary for the building to function in its appropriate use. These items, when not properly located, screened, or integrated into the design, can detract from the overall appearance of an otherwise well designed building. 1. Building service, loading, and utility areas should not be visible from public streets, adjacent developments or from access drives within large developments. Such service areas should be located behind the main structure in the least visible location possible. 2. Mechanical equipment on roofs or sides of buildings should not be visible from streets. 3. When the mechanical equipment vents, meters, satellite dishes and similar equipment is ground Rooftop screening of mechanical equipment can provide an mounted, screening should include either an opaque opportunity to continue design elements at roof level. fence or wall made of the same material as the building or an evergreen hedge that screens objectionable views. 4. Items such as roof ladders, railings, roll-up doors and service doors should be located on building elevations that are the least visible from public streets/corridors, adjacent developments or from access drives within large developments. Their colors should be coordinated among all these elements and with the rest of the building. 5. In some cases, appurtenances may be integrated into the building design if such integration enhances the compatibility of the overall design with the corridor vision. This brick wall, constructed of the same brick as the building, Ground level parking accessed from the rear of this mixed use screens mechanical equipment from view. building provides an ideal location for the placement of utility meters. 16 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES V Corridors CHARLOT TE S V I L LE E NTR A NCE C ORRI D OR DESIG N G UIDEL IN ES Amendments adopted by City Council March 7, 2011 NOTE: Excerpted to include only indicated sections. Complete text at: www.charlottesville.org/home/showdocument?id=20410 5 Corridors A. Entrance Corridor Map...................................5 B. Corridor 1: Route 29 North.......6 C. Corridor 2: Hydraulic Road....11 D. Corridor 3: Barracks Road......13 E. Corridor 4: Ivy Road...................15 F. Corridor 5: Fontaine Avenue/JPA.............17 G. Corridor 6: Fifth Street............20 H. Corridor 7: Avon Street............23 I. Corridor 8: Monticello Avenue/Route 20..26 J. Corridor 9: Long Street............29 K. Corridor 10: East High Street/ 9th Street...............32 L. Corridor 11: Preston Avenue.....36 M. Corridor 12: McIntire Road.......39 1 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES V Corridors A. Designated Entrance Corridors in Charlottesville 29 North EC, Sub-Area C: Barracks Rd. to Ivy Rd. Gallery Court 5 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES Corridors V B. Corridor 1: Route 29 North from the corporate limits to Ivy Road Overall Description Sub-Area A: Route 29 North is the major corridor Northern corporate limits to from the north and is the region’s 250 overpass “Retail Boulevard.” Historically it Description was the two-lane U. S. highway that The U.S. Post Office, Seminole Square connected the communities of the Shopping Center, and the older Piedmont. Recently expanded, the K-Mart Shopping Plaza occupy most route now has the character of a of the land area north of Hydraulic suburban arterial highway providing Road and east of Route 29. South of opportunities for redevelopment. Hydraulic Road both sides of Route Sub-Area A: A series of suburban style office From the northern corporate limts to the 29 contain older retail businesses and buildings, occupied in part by the motels, a grocery store complex, and 250 Bypass University of Virginia, complete the a big box retail store that recently ensemble, as well as small, dated replaced an older motel. motels, dormitories and the eastern edge of the University’s North Streetscape: Landscaped edges, Grounds. significant street trees and plantings, overhead utilities, cobra-head lights, Positive Aspects numerous curb cuts, auto-oriented, 4 • Major retail corridor of the city lanes + 1-2 turn lanes • Potential for much redevelopment Site: Pole and monument backlit signs, • Opportunity to create a major sites below road and many buildings visual upgrade to a heavily traveled set deeply back on lots, individual site corridor lighting, post office with parking in Sub-Area B: front. 250 Bypass to Barracks Road • Attractive street trees and other plantings along Barracks Road Buildings: Hotels, gas stations Shopping Center with canopies, retail chains, large retail, 1-story, national chains, • New buildings have a setback some roof equipment visible, some between 5 and 30 feet to create a outparcels developed. Differing scale, stronger street-wall architectural forms, materials, and Vision varying setbacks. 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 Sub-Area C: Charlottesville’s parts with more Barracks Road to Ivy Road 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 tothe auto-oriented north end. 6 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES V Corridors B. Corridor 1: Route 29 North from the corporate limits to Ivy Road Vision Guidelines Specific to the Zoning Sub-Area B: As Route 29 traffic enters the City (HW) Highway Corridor district: Bypass to Barracks Road this area should serve to calm traffic The intent of the Highway Corridor Description and create a transition from auto- district is to facilitate development The Emmet Street corridor, between oriented, suburban development of a commercial nature that is more the bypass and Barracks Road is to more pedestrian friendly, urban auto-oriented than the mixed-use characterized by aging suburban-style scale development. Planting and and neighborhood commercial development on small lots. maintaining street trees along the corridors. Development in these areas existing Route 29 sidewalks, and has been traditionally auto-driven Streetscape: Grass median, grass locating buildings close to the road and the regulations established by sidewalk strip, overhead utilities, will assist in this effort. Although this ordinance continue that trend. cobra-head lights, concrete sidewalks wide roads and large traffic volumes This district provides for intense with numerous curb cuts. discourage pedestrian crossings, commercial development with Site: Limited landscaping surrounding a pedestrian environment can be very limited residential use. It is visible parking areas, pole-mounted encouraged within developments. intended for the areas where the most signs. Providing walking and driving linkages intense commercial development in Buildings: “Restaurant Row,” smaller between developments and providing Charlottesville occurs. scale aging structures, stucco, masonry for transit will also create alternatives • Height regulation: materials, hipped, gable, or flat roofs. to having to drive on Route 29. Maximum height: 7 stories, Individual building designs should Vision recommend one to three stories. complement the City’s character and It is expected that the small scaled respect the qualities that distinguish • Setbacks: restaurants and businesses of this the City’s built environment. This Primary street frontage: 5 feet, central section of the corridor will corridor is a potential location for minimum; 30 feet, maximum. redevelop, either individually or public way-finding signage. Linking street frontage: 5 feet, on larger, consolidated parcels. The Recommended General Guidelines minimum; 20 feet, maximum. natural buffer of Meadow Creek at the Side and Rear, adjacent to any low- rear of many of the existing lots on • ­ Larger scale commercial retail density residential district: 20 feet, the east side creates an opportunity development minimum. for outdoor eating areas or other • ­ Limited residential and mixed-use amenities. Building designs that reflect Side and Rear, adjacent to any other community character are preferred • ­ Auto-oriented zoning district: none required. over franchise design and corporate • ­ Surface or structured parking • Buffer regulations: signature buildings. There are behind buildings Adjacent to any low-density opportunities for unified landscaping • ­ Pedestrian connectivity within residential district, side and rear along the corridor that would help developments buffers shall be required, 10 feet, enhance the pedestrian connection • ­ Articulated building forms to minimum. and the character of this area as it reduce mass redevelops. • ­ Divided and planted parking lots to reduce visual impact 7 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES Corridors V B. Corridor 1: Route 29 North from the corporate limits to Ivy Road Recommended General Guidelines • Buffer regulations: and University offices in former • Mid Scale Adjacent to any low-density commercial buildings. Heights vary residential district, side and rear from 1 to 4 stories, and there is a • Mixed-use buffers (S-2 type) shall be required, variety of architectural scales, forms • On site/shared parking 5 feet, minimum. and materials. • Consolidation of smaller parcels Sub-Area C: Barracks Road to Recent past: bank buildings on the Ivy Road northwest corner of Emmet Street • Upgrade existing building and site Description and Arlington Boulevard and on the elements southwest corner of Emmet Street and Guidelines Specific to the Zoning North of Arlington Boulevard, this Barracks Road. sub-area is dominated by the very (URB) Urban Corridor: The intent Vision successful Barracks Road Shopping of the Urban Corridor district is Center on the west side and University Emmet Street has the potential to to continue the close-in urban offices on the east. Between Arlington become more of an urban boulevard, commercial activity that has been Boulevard and Ivy Road, two with lively pedestrian activity and the traditional development patterns motels, a hotel, two restaurants, and a greater mix and integration of in these areas. Development in this other University related structures uses. Both Barracks Road Shopping district is both pedestrian and auto- predominate. The University has a Center and Meadowbrook Shopping oriented, but is evolving to more of new sports arena on Massie Road and Center may redevelop with retail, a pedestrian center development plans to develop a new arts center office, hotels, housing, and structured pattern. The regulations provide for on the northwest corner of Emmet parking. The attractive magnolia street both a mixture of uses or single use Street at Ivy Road. A new pedestrian trees along Emmet Street should be commercial activities. It encourages bridge over Emmet Street, between retained and new landscaping added parking located behind the structure the existing CSX railroad bridge to the streetscape as redevelopment and development of a scale and and Massie Road, has also been occurs. There are opportunities character that is respectful to the constructed to connect the Central for unified landscaping along the neighborhoods and University uses Grounds to the North Grounds. corridor that would help enhance the adjacent. Streetscape: Overhead utilities, 4 lanes, pedestrian connection. If possible, • Height regulation: character-defining architecture should grass median, cobra-head lights, row 1 to 5 stories; recommend 2 to 4 be incorporated into redevelopment of magnolia street trees along shopping stories. plans. As the University redevelops its center, heavily landscaped wooded • Setbacks: edge, pedestrian and railroad bridges, property on the southern end of the Primary street frontage: 5 feet University planted street trees at sub-area, including the University Arts minimum; 30 feet maximum, southern end, creek bed plantings. Center, there may be opportunities recommend 5 to 10 feet. to include student housing and Site: Parcels dominated by front community-related facilities in mixed- Linking street frontage: 5 feet site parking with buildings to rear, use projects that front on Emmet minimum; 20 feet maximum. monument signs, concrete and brick Street. Side and Rear, adjacent to any low- retaining walls. density residential district: 10 feet, Buildings: Franchise retail buildings, minimum. shopping center, landscaped slope Side and Rear, adjacent to any other to east with elevated University- zoning district: none required. related office structures, multi-family residential, restaurants, motels, 8 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES V Corridors B. Corridor 1: Route 29 North from the corporate limits to Ivy Road Recommended General Guidelines • Mid-scale • Mixed-use and University use • On site/shared/structured parking • Consolidation of smaller parcels • Limited setbacks Guidelines Specific to the Zoning Zoning (West side of street) Urban Corridor (URB): Same provisions as in previous section for Sub-Area B Zoning (East side of street) Emmet Street Commercial Corridor (ES): The Emmet Street Corridor district is established to allow areas for low-intensity commercial development along Emmet Street adjacent to the Barracks Road shopping center, recognizing the shallow depth of lots in this area. Areas included within this district are those adjacent to, or in the immediate vicinity of, the eastern side of Emmet Street, from Barracks Road to just south of Massie Road. • Height regulation: 3 stories, maximum. • Setback: 5 feet, minimum. 9 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES Corridors V B. Corridor 1: Route 29 North from the corporate limits to Ivy Road 10 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES Corridors V AVAILABLE GUIDELINES SECTIONS These entrance corridor design guidelines have been divided into the following sections so that you need only read those pertinent to your project. I. Introduction II. Streetscape III. Site IV. Buildings V. Individual Corridors Guideline sections are available from the Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Services. Online they may be accessed through http://www.charlottesville.org at the Planning Commission home page. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This publication was developed for the City of City of Charlottesville Neighborhood Development Charlottesville Planning Commission serving as Entrance Services Staff Corridor Review Board (ERB) by Frazier Associates of Jim Tolbert, AICP, Director Staunton, Virginia. Mary Joy Scala, Neighborhood Planner City of Charlottesville Council Members Jim Herndon, Neighborhood Planner David E. Brown, Mayor Project Consultants Kevin Lynch, Vice Mayor Frazier Associates, Architects & Planners Blake Caravati 213 North Augusta Street Kendra Hamilton Staunton, Virginia 24401 Rob Schilling (540) 886-6230 City of Charlottesville Planning Commission Members www.frazierassociates.com Cheri Lewis, Chair Kevin O’Halloran, Vice Chair Craig E. Barton Jon Fink Copyright © 2005 Frazier Associates and City of Charlottesville. All rights Karen E. Firehock reserved. No part of this book including interior design, cover design, or icons, may be reproduced or transmitted in any form, by any means (electronic, Kathy Johnson Harris photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without the prior written permission of William Lucy the publishers. This document may be reproduced or transmitted in whole or in use for matters and projects directly related to applications to and review by the Eldon Wood, former member City of Charlottesvilles’ Planning Commission and the staff of Neighborhood David Neuman, non-voting Development Services. 42 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES SP18-00007 RESOLUTION GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A D D I T I O N A L B U I L D I N G H E I G H T FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 140 EMMET STREET NORTH (“GALLERY COURT HOTEL”) WHEREAS, pursuant to City Code § 34-757(2) landowner Incaam Hotels, LLC has applied for a special use permit (“Application”) for property having an address of 140 Emmet Street North, further identified on City Tax Map 8 as Parcel 4, and consisting of approximately 25,483 square feet in area (0.585 acre) (hereinafter, the "Subject Property"); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is zoned "URB" (Urban Corridor Mixed Use District), and Entrance Corridor Overlay District); and WHEREAS, the purpose of the requested special use permit is to allow construction of a commercial project, consisting of a hotel with structured parking, and related restaurant and retail uses, within a building constructed to a maximum height of eighty (80) feet ( “Project”), pursuant to the provisions of City Code §34-757(2), said Project being more particularly described within the materials accompanying City application number SP-1800007 (the “Proposed Development”); and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the this Application was held before the Planning Commission on September 11, 2018, following notice to the public and to adjacent property owners as required by law, and on that same date the Entrance Corridor Review Board reviewed the Application materials and staff’s analysis thereof, and found that the proposed Project would have some adverse impacts on the Entrance Corridor district, and recommended certain conditions which, if imposed, could mitigate those impacts; and WHEREAS, on September 11, 2018, based on the information and materials submitted w i t h i n t h e Application, the staff report prepared by Neighborhood Development Services, the factors set forth within City Code § 34-157, and the comments received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that the Special Use Permit application should be approved by City Council, subject to certain r e a s o n a b l e conditions; and WHEREAS, on October 1, 2018, a public hearing on this Application was held before the City Council, following notice to the public and to adjacent property owners as required by law; and WHEREAS, based on the representations, information, and materials included within Applicant's Application, and upon consideration of the information and analysis set forth within the Staff Report, the factors set forth in City Code §34-157, the recommendations of the Planning Commission and Entrance Corridor Review Board, and comments received at the public hearings, this Council finds that the building height proposed for the Project is appropriate for this location under suitable conditions and safeguards; SP18-00007 NO W , T H E RE FO R E , BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, THAT a Special Use Permit is hereby granted to authorize the construction of the Project on the Subject Property, subject to the following conditions: 1. The building to be constructed for the Project shall not exceed a height of eighty (80) feet. Any proposed final site plan(s) shall include building elevations with sufficient details to allow the City to verify compliance with this condition. 2. The landowner shall provide a Ubike station within the Project, funded jointly by the landowner and the University of Virginia. Prior to submission of a proposed final site plan for the Project, the landowner shall make a request to the University of Virginia, seeking the University’s participation in a written funding agreement for the Ubike station. If the University of Virginia declines to enter into a binding written agreement to fund a Ubike station within the Project prior to the City’s approval of the final site plan for the Project, then the landowner shall be excused from performing the obligation of this condition. If the University of Virginia does enter into a written agreement with the landowner to fund a Ubike station, then a copy of the written agreement shall be submitted with the landowner’s final site plan application and the location of the Ubike station will be shown within the final site plan and approved by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator prior to final site plan approval. 3. Any proposed final site plan(s) for the Project shall show a six (6) foot wide curbside buffer along Emmet St North, to be constructed and planted as part of the Project. 4. Any proposed final site plan(s) for the Project shall show a seven (7) foot wide sidewalk along the length of the Subject Property’s frontage on Emmet St North, to be constructed by the landowner to City standards as part of its development of the Project. 5. The proposed final site plan for the Project shall show a future five (5) foot wide bicycle lane along the frontage of the Subject Property on Emmet Street, with dimensions and details coordinated with the planned public improvements for the Emmet Street Streetscape Project. 6. The Project will include stormwater management providing on-site water quality treatment by using a best management practice (BMP) approved by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) (proprietary or non-proprietary). The BMP chosen by the landowner shall be identified within any proposed final site plan (with reference to both this condition and to the DEQ’s list of approved BMPs), and within the proposed Stormwater Management Plan for the Project, and shall be approved by a City Engineer prior to site plan approval. SP18-00007 7. The Project will be designed to minimize traffic congestion on Emmet Street North resulting from the entry and exit of motor vehicles into and from the Project’s parking garage, and shall take into account planned public improvements for the Emmet Street Streetscape Project. The Project design will incorporate recommendations of the City’s Traffic Engineer, as to the desired ingress/ egress patterns (the Traffic Engineer will give consideration to right turn in only, and right turn out only) consistent with the planned public improvements for the Emmet Street Streetscape Project. 8. The Project will include devices that will detect oncoming pedestrian traffic and that will provide a warning to motor vehicles exiting the parking garage onto Emmet Street North of that oncoming pedestrian traffic. Any proposed final site plan shall depict and identify the device(s) (including the name and manufacturer of the device(s)) that will be installed to satisfy this condition. 9. Lighting installed on the rooftop of the Project shall meet the following specifications: (i) all lighting and light fixtures shall be full cut-off luminaires, and (ii) spillover light from luminaires onto public roads and onto adjacent property shall not exceed one-half (½) foot candle. 10. Parking at the Subject Property shall be restricted to use for and in connection with the operation of business(es) within the Subject Property, and by patrons of those businesses. 11. The Project shall be designed so that services required for and in connection with the operation of business(es) within the Subject Property (such as deliveries, and trash removal) shall be conducted entirely within the interior of the Project. Vehicles providing such services shall not park on any sidewalk, or within the public right-of-way adjacent to the Subject Property (inclusive of motor vehicle travel lanes, bicycle lanes, curbside buffers, and sidewalks within and adjacent to Emmet Street North). 12. The Project design shall include features or elements that will reduce the apparent height of the southwest corner of the building (the “Tower”). Approved by Council October 1, 2018 Brian Wheeler Interim Clerk of Council DIVISION 3. - ENTRANCE CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICTS Sec. 34-306. - Purpose. The entrance corridor overlay district is intended to implement the comprehensive plan goal of protecting the city's historic, architectural and cultural resources, by ensuring a quality of development compatible with those resources through design control measures. The purposes of this article are to stabilize and improve property values; to protect and enhance the city's attractiveness to tourists and other visitors; to sustain and enhance the economic benefits accruing to the city from tourism; to support and stimulate development complimentary to the prominence afforded properties and districts having historic, architectural or cultural significance; all of the foregoing being deemed to advance and promote the health, safety and welfare of the general public. (9-15-03(3)) Sec. 34-307. - Applicability. (a) Subject to subsection (b), below, entrance corridor overlay districts are hereby established upon and along the following arterial streets or highways, which are deemed by the city council to be significant routes of tourist access to the city, or to designated historic landmarks, buildings, structures or districts within the city ("EC streets"): (1) Route 29 North from the corporate limits to Ivy Road; (2) Hydraulic Road from the corporate limits to the 250 Bypass; (3) Barracks Road from the corporate limits to Meadowbrook Road; (4) Ivy Road from the corporate limits to Emmet Street; (5) Fontaine Avenue/Jefferson Park Avenue from the corporate limits to Emmet Street; (6) Fifth Street, SW from the corporate limits to the beginning of the Ridge Street Architectural Design Control District; (7) Avon Street from the corporate limits to the CSX Railroad tracks; (8) Monticello Avenue/Route 20 from the corporate limits to Avon Street; (9) Long Street from the corporate limits to St. Clair Avenue; (10) East High Street/9th Street from Long Street to East Market Street; (11) Preston Avenue from McIntire Road to Rosser Avenue; and (12) McIntire Road, from Preston Avenue to Route 250. (b) Entrance corridor overlay districts are hereby established upon the lots and parcels of land contiguous to the streets and highways enumerated within subsection (a), above, from the edge of the right-of-way to the full depth of the lot or parcel, as the lot or parcel existed on the date the adjacent EC street was designated. (c) The entrance corridor overlay districts are hereby established over the existing zoning district classifications of the land contiguous to the streets and highways enumerated within subsection (a), above. The regulations set forth within this article shall apply to all such land, in addition to the regulations of the underlying zoning district and in addition to other generally applicable zoning ordinance provisions (e.g., generally applicable standards governing parking, lighting, landscaping, signs, etc.). In the event of a conflict between the regulations set forth within this article and those set forth within the regulations of the underlying zoning district classification, or elsewhere within this zoning ordinance, the more restrictive regulation shall govern. Division 3. - Entrance Corridor Overlay Districts (9/2018) 1 (9-15-03(3)) Sec. 34-308. - Review board. (a) The provisions of this article shall be administered by an entrance corridor review board ("review board" or "ERB") hereby created by the city council. The city's planning commission shall serve as the review board. (1) The meetings of the ERB shall be held at the call of its chairman or at such times as a quorum of the board may determine. (2) The ERB shall keep minutes of its proceedings, showing the vote of each member upon each question, or, if absent or failing to vote, indicating such fact. (3) All records of official actions shall become part of the permanent records of the ERB. (4) The ERB shall choose annually its own chairman and vice-chairman, who shall act in the absence of the chairman. (5) The ERB may, from time to time, adopt and amend bylaws for the regulation of its affairs and the conduct of its business. (6) The ERB may, from time to time, recommend areas for designation as entrance corridor overlay districts and may also recommend removal of any such designation. (7) The ERB shall serve in an advisory capacity to city council and the board of zoning appeals in rezonings, special use permits, site plans, subdivisions, variances and other matters within entrance corridor overlay districts. (8) The ERB shall be responsible for issuance of certificates of appropriateness required by this article. (b) The ERB shall develop and recommend to the city council for its approval design guidelines for the entrance corridor overlay districts ("Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines"), consistent with the purposes and standards set forth within this article. The ERB shall develop such guidelines in consultation with the city's director of neighborhood development services and after seeking input from business and property owners in the various overlay districts. Guidelines developed by the ERB shall become effective upon approval by city council and thereafter shall have the status of interpretive regulations. The ERB shall undertake a comprehensive review and update its design guidelines at least once every five (5) years. Until the initial guidelines have been completed and approved, the ERB shall apply the design guidelines developed by the city's BAR for the entrance corridor districts. (9-15-03(3)) Sec. 34-309. - Certificates of appropriateness. (a) The following shall require a certificate of appropriateness issued in accordance with this division: (1) All improvements requiring a building permit (but for which no site plan is required), other than single- or two-family dwellings where the work requiring the building permit (i) is new construction, or (ii) represents an addition or modification of 25% or more of the gross area of an existing building or structure. (2) Regardless of whether a building permit is required: (i) signs; and (ii) installations or replacements of roof coverings, windows, doors or siding on any building or structure, any part of which, once installed, will be visible from an EC street referenced in section 34-307(a) above, other than those installed on a single- or two-family dwelling. Division 3. - Entrance Corridor Overlay Districts (9/2018) 2 (3) All development requiring a site plan. (b) All applications for the certificates required by subparagraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) above, shall be reviewed and approved administratively by the director. If administrative approval is granted the applicant shall post a notice of such approval on the subject property. If the application is denied the director shall mail or hand-deliver notice of his decision to the applicant. In either case, the applicant or any other aggrieved party shall have ten (10) working days from the date of the director's decision to appeal the decision to the ERB; no certificate shall be issued prior to expiration of the ten-day period. (c) All applications for the certificates required by subparagraph (a)(3) above shall be reviewed and approved by the ERB following the process set forth within sections 34-310 through 34-313. (1) The ERB shall approve or disapprove an application and, if approved, shall issue a certificate of appropriateness with any reasonable conditions as it may deem necessary to ensure compliance with this division. Failure of the ERB to act upon an application within sixty (60) days from the date of its original submission shall be deemed to constitute approval of the application. (2) Nothing contained in this subsection shall be deemed to compromise, limit, or otherwise impair the planning commission in its exercise of preliminary or final site plan review as set forth within Article VII, section 34-800, et seq. of this zoning ordinance. (3) It is the express intent of the city council in enacting the provisions of this subsection that matters related to public health and safety, as may be defined by the planning commission, shall prevail over issues within the purview of the ERB. (d) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, no certificate of appropriateness shall be required for the following activities: (1) Interior alterations to a building or structure. (2) Construction of ramps and other modifications to serve the handicapped. (3) Repair and maintenance of buildings or structures which are non-conforming for failure to comply with the provisions of this article. (4) General maintenance of buildings or structures, where no substantial change in design or materials is proposed. (5) Additions or modifications to a building or structure, where no substantial change in design or materials is proposed, as determined by the director of neighborhood development services or his designee. (e) Once issued, a certificate of appropriateness shall be binding upon the proposed development, as to any conditions of issuance specified therein. The certificate shall certify that the proposed development (subject to any conditions stated within the certificate) is consistent with the design guidelines applicable to the specific EC street. Signature by the zoning administrator upon a final site plan or building permit, as the case may be, shall constitute such certification. (f) The validity period of a certificate of appropriateness shall be as follows: (1) A certificate of appropriateness associated with a project for which a valid site plan is not required shall expire and become void eighteen (18) months from the date of approval by the entrance corridor review board, unless a building permit to construct the authorized improvements or activities has been issued; or, if no building permit is required, unless construction of the authorized improvements or activities has substantially commenced. Division 3. - Entrance Corridor Overlay Districts (9/2018) 3 (2) The validity period of a certificate of appropriateness associated with a project for which a valid site plan is required shall be consistent with that of the approved preliminary and final site plan pursuant to sections 34-822 and 34-825, except a certificate of appropriateness shall expire and become void eighteen (18) months from the date of approval by the entrance corridor review board if preliminary site plan approval has not been granted, or upon revocation of an approved preliminary site plan or expiration of an approved final site plan. (3) Prior to the expiration of a certificate of appropriateness, upon written request and for reasonable cause, the director of neighborhood development services or the entrance corridor review board may extend the validity of any such certificate for a period not to exceed one (1) year. (9-15-03(3); 6-6-05(2); 7-18-11; 7-16-12) Sec. 34-310. - Standards for considering certificates of appropriateness. The review board, the city council on review of an application, and the director in conducting an administrative review, shall consider the following features and factors in determining the appropriateness of proposed construction, reconstruction, alteration or restoration of buildings or structures pursuant to this article: (1) Overall architectural design, form, and style of the subject building or structure, including, but not limited to: the height, mass and scale; (2) Exterior architectural details and features of the subject building or structure; (3) Texture, materials and color of materials proposed for use on the subject building or structure; (4) Design and arrangement of buildings and structures on the subject site; (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. (6) Provisions of the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines. (9-15-03(3)) Sec. 34-311. - Sign standards. Signs within any entrance corridor overlay district shall comply with the standards set forth within Article IX, section 34-1020, et seq. (9-15-03(3)) Sec. 34-312. - Application requirements. (a) Application for a certificate of appropriateness pursuant to this division shall be filed with the director of neighborhood development services by the owner, contract purchaser, or lessee of the property, or by the authorized agent of any such person, of the subject property. (1) A complete application shall include all plans, maps, studies, reports, photographs, drawings, building elevations, and other informational materials which may be reasonably required in order to make the determinations called for in a particular case. (2) [ Reserved. ] Division 3. - Entrance Corridor Overlay Districts (9/2018) 4 (3) Each application for a certificate of appropriateness shall be accompanied by the required application fee, as set forth within the most recent zoning fee schedule approved by city council. (b) The director shall establish submission deadlines for applications. For purposes of this division a complete application shall be deemed to be "officially submitted" on the date of the next submission deadline following the date on which the application was received by the director. (c) Each application shall include a landscaping plan, for the uses described following below. (1) For development subject to site plan review, such plan shall meet the requirements set forth below as well as those required within Article VII, section 34-867. (2) For other applications, the landscaping plan shall consist of drawings, documents and information sufficient to allow the director to determine whether the following requirements are satisfied: a. Uses to be screened: Parking lots, loading areas, refuse areas, storage areas, detention ponds and mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from the adjacent EC street. b. Standards for screening: When required, screening shall consist of the following: (i) A planting strip of vegetation or trees, an opaque wall, an opaque fence or a combination of these. (ii) Where only vegetative screening is provided, such screening strip shall not be less than twenty (20) feet in depth and shall consist of a double staggered row of evergreen trees on fifteen-foot centers, a minimum of five (5) feet in height when planted, or a double staggered row of evergreen shrubs on five-foot centers, a minimum of twenty- four (24) inches in height when planted. Alternative methods of vegetative screening may be approved by the ERB or the director in connection with approval of a certificate of appropriateness. (iii) Where a fence or wall is provided for screening, it shall be a minimum of six (6) feet in height with planting required at ten-foot intervals along such structure. (3) Landscaping. All nonresidential uses, including parking lots and vehicular display areas, shall have all of the street frontage, exclusive of driveways and walkway connections, landscaped with trees and other varieties of plant material at least eighteen (18) inches in height at maturity. The tree varieties shall conform to those recommended in the city's list of approved plantings. All uses shall have the side and rear property edges defined with a fence, wall or curbed planting strip of trees and other plantings a minimum of twenty-four (24) inches in height at maturity. (d) Each application shall include information about proposed lighting. Lighting fixtures shall be harmonious with the character of existing and proposed structures fronting along the EC street, and shall not exceed the height of any buildings on the site. Further, lighting shall comply with the provisions of Article IX, Division 3, section 34-100, et seq. (9-15-03(3); 6-6-05(2); 7-16-12) Sec. 34-313. - ERB review process. Following receipt of a complete application requiring review by the ERB, the director shall forward the application, together with all accompanying informational materials, to the ERB. Upon receipt of an application, the review board shall schedule a hearing on the application. (1) Notice of the hearing shall be provided to the applicant and to other persons in the same manner as set forth within section 34-284(a). Division 3. - Entrance Corridor Overlay Districts (9/2018) 5 (2) Written notice of the hearing shall also be provided to each member of the city council, at least (10) days in advance of the hearing. Such notice may be hand-delivered, mailed or transmitted via electronic communication. (3) The notices required by this subsection shall state the type of use or development proposed, the specific location of such use or development, and a general description of the appearance and materials proposed for the development which is the subject of the application. (9-15-03(3)) Sec. 34-314. - Appeals. (a) Following approval of an application by the ERB, the director of neighborhood development services, or any aggrieved person, may note an appeal of that decision to the city council, by filing a written notice of appeal with the clerk of city council within ten (10) working days of the date of the date of the decision. If no such appeal is noted, then upon the expiration of the ten-day appeal period the director of neighborhood development services shall issue the approved certificate of appropriateness. (b) Upon denial of an application (approval of an application with conditions, over the objections of the applicant, shall be deemed a denial) the applicant shall be provided written notice of the decision, including a statement of the reasons for the denial or for the conditions to which the applicant objects. Following a denial, the applicant, the director of neighborhood development services, or any aggrieved person may appeal the decision to the city council, by filing a written notice of appeal with the clerk of city council within ten (10) working days of the date of the decision. (c) In any review of an ERB decision the city council shall review the application as if the application had come before it in the first instance. Any aggrieved person, shall be given an opportunity to be heard on the appeal. City council may consider any information or opinions relevant to the application which is the subject of such decision, including, but not limited to, those provided by the ERB. (9-15-03(3); 6-6-05(2)) Secs. 34-315—34-325. - Reserved. Division 3. - Entrance Corridor Overlay Districts (9/2018) 6