Agenda PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DOCKET TUESDAY, May 14, 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 – April 9, 2019 – Pre- meeting and Regular meeting 2. Entrance Corridor – 1617 Emmet - Recommendation on SUP 3. Critical Slope – 915 6th Street SE 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. HINTON AVE APPLICATION DEFERED UNTIL JUNE MEETING ZM-19-00001 – (750 Hinton Avenue) (Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church) – Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church (landowner) has submitted a rezoning petition to change the zoning district classification for a parcel of land located at 750 Hinton Avenue identified on City Tax Map 58 as Parcel 161 (“Subject Property”), having an area of approx. 0.76 acre. The rezoning petition proposes a change in zoning from the existing R-1S (low-density residential, small lot) to NCC (Neighborhood Commercial Corridor Mixed Use) subject to proffered development conditions. The purpose of the rezoning is to allow construction of a multifamily building containing up to 15 units (for a total density of 19.7 DUA). Within the current R-1S zoning district, multifamily dwellings are not permitted. The proffered conditions include: (i) maximum residential density: no more than 21 dwelling units per acre shall be permitted on the Subject Property; (ii) affordable housing: a minimum of four dwelling units in any multifamily dwelling shall be reserved for persons with developmental disabilities, and shall be restricted to residents with income at 80 percent or less of area median income for the Charlottesville Metropolitan Area; (iii) resident safety: access to all interior common areas serving residential units shall be controlled through the use of entry locks; (iv) future land uses: the landowner proffers that the Subject Property shall not be used for the following: (a) Bowling Alleys; (b)Tennis Club; (c) Swimming Club; (d) Skating Rinks; (e) Full-service and fast food restaurants larger than 750 square feet (SF) of gross floor area (coffee shops or similar small eateries will be allowed, but no such use, itself, will exceed 750 SF) ; (f) Drive through windows (for any use); (g) Consumer service businesses exceeding 1,000 SF; (h) General and convenience grocery stores; (i) Pharmacies; (j) Retail stores exceeding 1,000 SF; (k) Medical and Pharmaceutical laboratories. The Comprehensive Plan calls for Low Density Residential uses in this area (no greater than 15 units per acre). Information pertaining to this application may be viewed online at http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and- services/departments-h-z/neighborhood-development-services or obtained from the Department of Neighborhood Development Services, 2nd Floor of City Hall, 610 East Main Street. Persons interested in this Rezoning may contact NDS Planner Brian Haluska by e-mail (haluska@charlottesville.org) or by telephone (434-970-3186). 2. ZM18-00003 - Flint Hill PUD – Landowners Belmont Station, LLC have submitted an application seeking a rezoning of approximately ten (10) acres of land, including multiple lots identified within City tax records as Tax Map and Parcel (TMP) 20-259.31, TMP 20-259.32, TMP 20-259.33, TMP 20- 259.34, TMP 20-259.35, TMP 20-259.38, TMP 20-259.37, TMP 20-259.26, TMP 20-259.27, TMP 20- 259.28, TMP 20-259.29, TMP 20-259.30, and a portion of TMP 20-196 (collectively, “Subject Property”). The Subject Properties have frontage on two unimproved platted streets (Flint Drive and Keene Court) and are accessible by stub-outs on Longwood Drive and Moseley Drive. The requested rezoning would allow development of a planned unit development (PUD) referred to as “Flint Hill PUD” containing up to fifty (50) townhouses within the Subject Property at an approximate density of 5 dwelling units per acre (DUA), with open space in the amount of about 5.3 acres, and the following unique characteristics/ amenities: townhome style units, rear loading lots off Flint Drive, new dedicated Park land with improved trails, and a central teardrop road. The Subject Properties are currently zoned R-1S (Residential Small Lot), a zoning district which does not allow townhouse developments. The PUD Plan proposes construction of new streets to serve the constructed townhouses, and would require City Council to approve a vacation of Flint Drive and Keene Court, platted but unimproved streets; review of these items for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan will be conducted as part of the public review process. In order for the Landowners to implement the PUD Plan, they will need to disturb areas within Critical Slopes; this application also presents a request for a Critical Slopes Waiver per City Code Sec. 34-516(c). The Comprehensive Land Use Map for this area calls for Low Density Residential (15 DUA or less). Information pertaining to this application may be viewed online at http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and-services/departments-h-z/neighborhood-development- services or obtained from the Department of Neighborhood Development Services, 2nd Floor of City Hall, 610 East Main Street. Persons interested in this Rezoning may contact NDS Planner Matt Alfele by e-mail (alfelem@charlottesville.org ) or by telephone (434-970-3636). 3. SP19-00001 -1617 Emmet St. Drive Through – Landowner Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. by its agent Riverbend Development, Inc. is requesting a Special Use Permit (SUP) pursuant to City Code Sec. 34- 420, to authorize a specific land use (drive-through window for a restaurant) for property identified on City Tax Map 40 C as Parcel 2 (“Subject Property”), having an area of approx. 0.5 acre. The Subject Property is zoned is zoned “HW” (Highway Corridor Mixed Use District) with Entrance Corridor Overlay and has frontage on Emmet Street North and Angus Road. The Comprehensive Land Use Map for this area calls for Mixed Use development. 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 Joey Winter by e-mail (winterj@charlottesville.org ) or by telephone (434-970-3991). IV. COMMISSION’S ACTION ITEMS Continuing: until all action items are concluded 1. Entrance Corridor - Hydraulic Place - Old K-mart site V. FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE/ADJOURN Tuesday, May 28, 2019 – 5:00PM Work Zoning Discussion Session Tuesday, June 11, 2019 – 4:30 PM Pre- Meeting Tuesday, June 11, 2019 – 5:30 PM Regular Meeting Anticipated Items on Future Agendas Zoning Text Amendments –Off-street parking facilities requirements along streets designated as “framework streets” (initiated May 8, 2018), Site Plan Requirements SUP –MACAA (1021 Park Street), 167 Chancellor, 209 Maury Avenue Subdivision – David Terrace, Landonia Circle SUP and Critical Slopes – Seminole Square Apartments Persons with Disabilities may request reasonable accommodations by contacting ada@charlottesville.org or (434)970-3182 PLEASE NOTE: THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PRIOR TO THE MEETING. PLEASE NOTE: We are including suggested time frames on Agenda items. These times are subject to change at any time during the meeting. LIST OF SITE PLANS AND SUBDIVISIONS APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY 4/1/2019 TO 4/30/2019 1. Preliminary Site Plans 2. Final Site Plans 3. Site Plan Amendments a. Murray High School Canopy – March 26, 2019 b. Buford Middle School Drainage – April 11, 2019 c. Johnson Village Ting - April 18, 2019 d. Sigma Phi Epsilon – April 26, 2019 e. Burnley- Moran Elementary (1300 Long Street) – April 30, 2019 4. Subdivision 1 Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DOCKET April 9, 2019 – 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, Lyle Solla-Yates, Taneia Dowell, Gary Heaton, Hosea Mitchell, and Rory Stolzenberg Staff Present: Missy Creasy, Lisa Robertson, Kari Spitler, Lauren Hildebrand, Roy Nester, Matt Alfele, and Joey Winter Chairman Green called the meeting to order at 5pm. Ms. Creasy noted that the June 11 regular meeting will be on a Primary Election day and the Commission has the ability to move that meeting to the next available day per the bylaws. The Commission determined that they would like to keep the meeting on that day and would address it in the meeting this evening. Chairman Green noted there would be one hearing this evening. Commissioner Mitchell asked a question concerning easements for the pump station. Mr. Alfele provided some background. Commissioner Dowell asked what happens if the applicant does not receive the SUP and what would happen if there was a concern with the system. Ms. Robertson reminded the Commission about the standards of review. Commissioner Mitchell noted that since the Commission is tasked with looking at things from a longer term basis, the long term status of how this would work was important. Commissioner Lahendro noted that there are different risks between Public Works and an HOA maintaining a system. Ms. Robertson noted that the code does provide for allowances and that Public Utilities does have some recommendations. She encouraged the Commissioners to review conditions which could assist in the decision making. Additional concerns about the project were noted which will be repeated during the public hearing. II. COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Beginning: 5:30 pm Location: City Hall, 2nd Floor, NDS Conference Members Present: Chairman Lisa Green, Commissioners Jody Lahendro, Lyle Solla-Yates, Taneia Dowell, Gary Heaton, Hosea Mitchell, Rory Stolzenberg, and Mr. Bill Palmer A. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Commissioner Lahendro: Attended a BAR meeting on March 13, which was a makeup day for being snowed out in February. There were 9 projects presented, 7 of which were approved with conditions for COAs. There was 1 preliminary discussion and 1 deferred application. On March 19 there was another BAR meeting, for which he was not in attendance due to a conflict. During this meeting, 5 projects were approved on the consent agenda, 5 were approved with conditions for COAs, and 1 preliminary review. The Tree Commission met on April 2 where there was a discussion with NDS staff to provide an explanation of the process for site plans relative to trees in their 2 review and comment, as well as their protection and preservation during construction. Staff members from the Site Plan Review, Utilities, Traffic, Standards and Designs Manual, and Inspections were all in attendance. Arbor Day will be on April 26 and will be celebrated at Market Street Park at 10am. The ceremony will be held by a large basswood tree. It is a City ceremony in combination with the Charlottesville Area Tree Stewards and the Tree Commission. There is an open house for the Fontaine Avenue Streetscape project on April 18 at the Charlottesville Fire Station on Fontaine Ave from 5:30-7:00pm where preliminary plans and concepts will be presented. Commissioner Solla-Yates: Attended a HAC meeting where the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund and budget was discussed, along with funding. There were discussions about how to use the funding that is already available to subsidize affordable housing but hasn’t been spent, managed by the CRHA. Possibly an institutional support like a nonprofit would be needed to make the money flow. There was a discussion about the IMPACT annual assembly on April 11. We received an update from UVA for a new 400 bed housing project for upper class students going out for bid in the fall. Another first year building is in planning after that. Overall 900 beds would be coming. Councilor Hill indicated that there would be no additional SUPs approved for student housing on West Main. Commissioner Dowell: No report. Commissioner Heaton: Attended both the HAC meeting and the Transportation Advisory Committee meeting on April 12. At the Transportation Advisory Committee meeting there was a lot of discussion about rotaries (roundabouts). The Unity Days Committee is also still meeting every other week. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Attended an MPO Tech meeting where the fate of the $18 million that was left over from some of the 29 Solutions funds was discussed. There have been discussions about this with the Hydraulic Small Area Plan Committee and they would like to see it used for the Zan Road overpass, which will be a pedestrian, bike, and vehicle lane across Rt. 29 at Zan Road. It would cost about $25 million, so there would be about $7 million left that would have to be split by the City and County. The City would prefer that we instead spend the funds on a left turn lane off of 250 onto Hydraulic. Commissioner Mitchell: No report. B. UNIVERSITY REPORT Bill Palmer: No report. C. CHAIR’S REPORT Chairman Green: Attended two TJPDC meetings and several discussions took place on the upcoming budget for the year, as well as personnel evaluations and performance reviews for the Executive Director. They are restructuring planning and transportation planners and they have some vacancies. We looked at the FY20 Rural Transportation Plan, which deals with the rural areas like Fluvanna, Green, Nelson, etc., so sometimes they have different priorities than that of the City. The Regional Housing Study has been released and it will be part of the discussion at the May meeting. She notes that she was on one of the interview committees for the new City Manager and a City Manager has been hired that will start on May 13. We are still awaiting more information regarding the RFP for the Housing Needs Assessment and the remainder of the Land Use Plan, as well as the Long Range Planner position. D. DEPARTMENT OF NDS 3 Missy Creasy: The April work session was planned to be on the Standards and Designs Manual, however a community discussion needs to be had before they meet with Council and the Commission jointly, so that will not be ready for April’s meeting. As of right now, there is not an item on April’s work session. There is a bylaw allowance that allows the Commission to move the regularly scheduled meeting if it falls on an election day, which is the case for the June 11 meeting that falls on a Primary. The Commission will need to provide guidance on that so any logistics for the meeting can take place. NDS is still in the hiring process for some positions and will hopefully be filling them soon. E. MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE FORMAL AGENDA None. F. CONSENT AGENDA (Items removed from the consent agenda will be considered at the end of the regular agenda) 1. Minutes – March 12, 2019 – Pre- meeting and Regular meeting 2. Minutes – March 5, 2019 – Work Session Commissioner Solla-Yates moves to approve the consent agenda as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Stolzenberg. Motion is approved 7-0. Chairman Green: Our bylaws state that if the Planning Commission’s meeting falls on an election day, we can vote to move that meeting to the next available date. There were conversations in the pre-meeting about this and the consensus was that we keep it as is since it is a primary rather than a major election. Commissioner Heaton moves to keep the date for the June 11 Planning Commission meeting as assigned. Seconded by Commissioner Dowell. Motion is approved 7-0. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Notes that he used to live in the Fry’s Spring area off of Moseley Drive. In 2013 in Fry’s Spring there were about 5 vacant parcels of land, however they are starting to fill in. The assessment of the value of the houses here are between $150,000 and $450,000. Between 2013 and now, 3 of them have started to fill in and will be almost completely filled in by the end of the year. Every single one of the houses that are coming in are significantly larger and more expensive than the existing houses. Many parcels that were built a long time ago were downzoned in the 1991 downzoning. The legal requirements we have put into place on these vacant lots and nonconforming buildings are causing this growth in new housing to be extremely high end, which changes the character the neighborhood in built form and in income level. Because there are 2 or 3 big vacant parcels left, all of which have been transacted in the last 2 years, the Planning Commission should do what we can to see that those new developments fit the existing value and built form of the neighborhood. Commissioner Stolzenberg moves to initiate a zoning text amendment to re-designate 34 non-conforming parcels and 33 vacant parcels in Fry’s Spring from R1 to R2. Seconded by Commissioner Heaton. Chairman Green: There is a procedure that we need to follow for this and the best thing to do in these types of situations is to bring it forward in a work session to have the conversation and talk to legal about how to initiate a resolution of intent. 4 Ms. Creasy: How is this request different from the rezoning request put forth for Fry’s Spring about 2 years ago? Commissioner Stolzenberg: That was to rezone things from R2 to R1 and it involves different parcels entirely. Those were affecting Crestmont, and Cleveland and this would be for different nonconforming duplexes on Cleveland and Moseley, as well as vacant parcels on Flint, Belleview, etc. Commissioner Mitchell: This requires a work session and public input. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Believes that the process is to move to initiate it and then staff has 100 days to create a report, and then at that point there would be a public hearing about it. Ms. Robertson: Commissioner Stolzenberg can make a motion to initiate a zoning text amendment and request staff to study it, however a time clock would not be on it because that only applies if City Council refers something to the Planning Commission. The study process would also require a review of land use patterns and there is an upcoming RFP that is about to be issued to have a consultant assist the City with updating the Comprehensive Plan. It is fine to look at it and develop information to give to the consultant, but you may also consider having it looked at in a broader context of updating the entire land use plan as part of the Comprehensive Plan update. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Notes that he considered waiting for the full update of the zoning map, but at this point the RFP is out and we will still have the Comprehensive Plan process, which will be another 2-3 years before that happens. All of the vacant parcels have been transacted recently and are likely to be built on before that process ends. If we don’t want to lock Fry’s Spring into this future forever where it drastically changes, we need to take action now. Ms. Robertson: Sometimes after an amendment of this nature has been initiated, it is discussed in a work session. Before it could be officially considered by the Commission, it would have to be typed up with a staff report and a public hearing. Commissioner Mitchell: Notes that we should take our time and think about it. Recommends Commissioner Stolzenberg withdraw the motion and set up a work session to get the ball rolling. Commissioner Stolzenberg: This is just to initiate the process of studying it, so if we pass this motion now then we have time to consider it. Commissioner Stolzenberg moves to amend his motion to initiate a zoning text amendment and study it in order to re-designate parcels so that the future development of Fry’s Spring is in conformance with the existing patterns. Seconded by Commissioner Heaton. Ms. Robertson: Suggests postponing the discussion until after the agenda item. Chairman Green moves to move this agenda item to the end of the agenda for the evening. 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 5 1. SP18-00009 - Belleview Subdivision Utility Facility (Sanitary Pump Station) Chairman Green: Landowners Core Azalea LLC and Azalea Cottages LLC, are requesting a Special Use Permit (SUP) pursuant to City Code Sec. 34-420, to allow construction of a Utility Facility (Sanitary Sewer Pumping Station) to serve the following properties: Tax Map and Parcel (TMP) No. 20-121, TMP 20-125, TMP 20-126, TMP 20 129, TMP 20-142, TMP 20-144, TMP 20-145, TMP 20-147, and TMP 20-148 (collectively, “Subject Property”). The Subject Properties are zoned R-1S (Residential Small Lot) and have frontage on Belleview Street, currently an unimproved platted street, as well as an unimproved alley, and are directly accessible by a stub out on Azalea Drive. The Subject Property includes approximately 6.80 acres and Landowners propose to construct up to 49 single-family dwelling units within the Subject Property (density of approximately 7.20 dwelling units per acre). The topography of the site does not allow for standard gravity-fed sewer service. The Comprehensive Land Use Map for this area calls for Low Density Residential (15 DUA or less). Staff Report, Matt Alfele: About a year ago the Planning Commission held a meeting on a proposed subdivision to answer outstanding questions. The Commission had a preliminary discussion on December 11, 2018 regarding the sanitary pump station. The applicant is requesting this, as to tie into a gravity fed system would require going further south to tie into the Azalea system. They are proposing a sanitary pump station with an easement to the west to collect the sanitary sewer from the proposed by-right neighborhood and pump it up into the City’s gravity fed system. The Public Utilities department is also here tonight to answer any technical questions. COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS Commissioner Solla-Yates: How common is it for an HOA to survive 20 years in the City? Mr. Alfele: Staff does not want to speculate on how long they exist. The City has HOAs that are tied to a lot of different projects. PUDs are probably what the Commission is most familiar with, where an HOA is formed to maintain storm water systems, open spaces, etc. They are a common practice. Commissioner Solla-Yates: For an HOA of about 40 homes, is that more or less likely to succeed, given the City’s track record? Mr. Alfele: In a City our size, we are fairly small so the HOAs are smaller. Typically larger HOAs of about 200 homes tend to do better because there is a board that is constantly being turned over and people don’t get burned out. HOAs with about 25 or less can become a problem. This one is in the mid-range. Commissioner Solla-Yates: What happens when one of these units fail? Mr. Alfele: Utilities can speak to the details of a system like this, but on the land use side there would be a violation of the SUP and there is a system that goes through zoning. It would follow a pattern in terms of any zoning violation if you are not following what was approved in the SUP. Commissioner Lahendro: Is the pump station on a private property? Mr. Alfele: Yes. The way the code is written, you have to have a lot that has a habitable use on it. You cannot create a lot unless it is going to be created for habitation, meaning you cannot create a lot just for a pump station. That is why this lot has a house on it and the pump station is ancillary. 6 Commissioner Lahendro: So the development can’t set aside land for the pump station and storm water retention devices even though it serves the entire development? Mr. Alfele: Only a PUD can do that. You cannot do that in a by-right subdivision the way the code is written. You can have an easement that’s dedicated to the HOA. Commissioner Mitchell: The closest HOA that does this is Lake Monticello. Are there any others in Virginia that do something similar to this? Mr. Alfele: Staff could not find anything at this scale. Everything was either very large run by the local utility company or some of the private ones were commercial oriented for strip malls. Commissioner Dowell: If the SUP is not approved, how would you develop on this site? Mr. Alfele: The applicant can speak on what they would like to do if the SUP is not granted. Commissioner Mitchell: Where does the creek empty into that runs through it? It looks like the stream is about 15 ft. away from the pump station. Mr. Alfele: The water goes through Azalea Park and goes into Moore’s Creek. Notes that it is unclear how that body of water is defined by the Army Core of Engineers. The proposed development would pipe that water. Chairman Green: What about if it fails? Mr. Alfele: There is a valley where storm water is collecting and that water channel is going to be put underground, but it is not part of the pumping station. Commissioner Lahendro: The write up of the application states that the topography of the site doesn’t allow for standard gravity fed sewer system. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that the topography doesn’t allow for standard gravity fed sewer system within the property lines? Mr. Alfele: That is a fair statement because you would need to procure those easements in order to tie into the gravity fed system. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Are these easements always done through private transactions? Sewer lines seem like a normal place to have eminent domain. Mr. Alfele: Not really. Typically, the developer would put in a new line if they are building a subdivision and it would be built to the City’s standards where they accept it. The City hasn’t come in and said they would take an easement for a new line. There have been cases where easements were never dedicated and they are discovered during the subdivision process and Utilities will ask for an easement over that existing line. Commissioner Stolzenberg: When the sewer system was originally put in, were those lines all running through consenting property owners’ parcels? Ms. Creasy: In the subdivision that is currently there, the lots didn’t even take that into consideration at that point in time. Anything that is coming forward now for greenfield development is because there was a difficult situation and now we are left with land where things aren’t easy. As things get more complicated applications such as this 7 come forward. There are many lots that have been platted there for a long time but there are legitimate constraints for the actual development. Applicant – Justin Shimp, Shimp Engineering.: This is an unremarkable thing and it’s weird that Charlottesville doesn’t have more of them because of the hilly terrain. For example, in Wintergreen on the mountainside there are 26 pump stations similarly sized to this one. It may be unusual to the City, but it is not a complicated engineering feat. As part of the study, we looked at capacity of the sewer to make sure it has available capacity for the lots and pump station. The sewer lines would be privately maintained within the neighborhood and drain by gravity down to the pump station and are then pumped up the hill about 300 ft. to the existing sewer line. The pump station will be in lot 1. The storm water management system has to have a fund to maintain it as well, which is a $300,000-$400,000 system that would need to be replaced if there was ever a problem with it. The HOA would have to put aside money for that, which is why we have HOAs in the City now. This pump station is about a $50,000 item, which is quite small in the scale of the obligations of the HOA. The pump that sits down in a wet well/manhole is the sewer that gets pumped up to the gravity flow and there are floats in the wet well that kick on to pump it up the hill. It cycles on and off depending on the load throughout the day. It is about 31” tall and 14” wide and there are two of them to serve as a backup in case one has an issue. Questions that came up during the neighborhood meeting was smell, which can be a problem on older systems that aren’t equipped with the correct technology. An air pump and a diffuser would avoid that and it’s cycling frequently enough that you wouldn’t smell it. There are also options for filters and other things that can be installed to take care of odors from the vent pipe, although it is not something that is expected to be an issue. As for the noise, the pump sits down in water. If you were standing on top of it you might hear the pumps running, but that’s it. If you were in the yard around it you wouldn’t know it existed. There will be a backup natural gas generator that would be part of the system if the power goes down. Again, it is a very small system and once it is built no one will know that it is there. There are a variety of safeguards built in with the redundancy of pumps, backup power, etc. The HOA will have a property manager and one requirement in staff’s conditions is a yearly inspection report, which would be for the Utilities Department to verify maintenance. This is very common but it just happens to require a SUP in the City. COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS Commissioner Dowell: If this SUP is not approved, how else would you develop the site? Mr. Shimp: We would have to require easements to go to the sewer downstream, which is a possibility. Alternatively, a wastewater plant could be built on the property, which would require a different type of permit. Commissioner Dowell: Have you discussed with the neighbors about the possibility of getting the easement to tie into the City’s system? Mr. Shimp: The owner sent out letters to the 11 or 12 downstream properties. Only 1 or 2 responses were received and no one took him up on that offer. We didn’t expect people to be keen on it because it would require going in a path behind their houses to build a sewer line. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Have you considered raising the price and offering more? Mr. Shimp: Notes that he does not make those decisions, however there is a cost to build the sewer down there. It’s important to note that gravity sewers can also have failures. The City has improved this greatly, but the pump station also has a lot of safeguards so it isn’t necessarily a worse system. 8 Commissioner Dowell: It’s not that it’s a worse system, but the City will maintain the other system. What is your take on having to report to the City annually for the maintenance of the pump? Mr. Shimp: That would be fine. Our HOA will hire a professional operator who will turn in reports at least once a year and a copy of that would be turned into the City. Commissioner Stolzenberg: How often do those HOAs have to lay out money to repair the storm water facilities compared to the pump stations? Mr. Shimp: The cost cycling is 20 years and if the HOA put enough money into a fund every month, in 20 years they can pay for the whole cost of replacement. The lifespan of this is much longer. For instance, the pumps on the mountain at Wintergreen are almost all original and are 40 years old. At the time when something needs to be done, they should have twice as much money as they need. We haven’t had these storm water facilities in the ground a long time and we will likely have more problems with those in 20 years than we will with pump stations. Commissioner Solla-Yates: How did you arrive at the $2,500 figure? Is that a standard amount? Mr. Shimp: The number varies and it is pretty typical. We would usually offer a few thousand dollars for an easement. The cost of the easements alone will be about the cost of the pump station, let alone the cost of putting in the sewer line itself. The actual construction of the sewer line would be way more expensive. Chairman Green: How many times do the pump station cycle throughout the day? Mr. Shimp: It is probably about every 20-30 minutes, but it is multiple times per day. Chairman Green: All of the vents that control the potential for smell are electric, which is a potential for failure. Will the generator be inside the shed as well? Mr. Shimp: If the power goes out, the generator would kick on, but a fan could break. The generator could be inside the building. Chairman Green: How many of these have you designed and built? How many have you put in for some of your developments? Mr. Shimp: Notes that he has only designed one personally. This is being designed by Hurt Proffitt in Lynchburg. About a half dozen have been put in, which were in Louisa, Fluvanna, etc. They are typically more commercial, but the one in Louisa was an apartment complex with 150 units that was put in about 3-4 years ago. Commissioner Stolzenberg: What does the failure mode look like? If both pumps die, does the whole system need to be replaced? Mr. Shimp: The pumps can be replaced one at a time and it has an auto dialer that calls the technician automatically if something goes wrong. There would typically not be a situation where both of them fail because they are inspected frequently, but in the scenario that it did there are a few options. You could simply cut the water off in the neighborhood, but more likely you could bring a pump truck in and pump the wet well out every day until it is fixed. The downtime would be however long it takes to get a pump truck over to the site. 9 Commissioner Stolzenberg: What would be the turnaround on replacing the pumps? Mr. Shimp: It depends. The water authorities in Nelson County keep them in stock and whoever operates this would probably be the same way. A licensed utility operator would likely have this and they would probably be maintaining multiple pumps around the area in Albemarle County. Commissioner Heaton: Are there any in the City? Mr. Shimp: There used to be one in the Woolen Mills neighborhood but it was taken offline because a gravity sewer was put in. It was taken offline because the lots across the street were being developed. Chairman Green: You stated that Lake Monticello had something similar to this. Is that correct? Mr. Shimp: They have a bunch of pumps and Aqua Virginia prefers the pumps because they don’t have as much of a problem with inflow from runoff. Commissioner Mitchell: Is there an audible alarm on these pumps? Mr. Shimp: There is an audible alarm that will go off if it is not working and it is much more industrial grade. In order to stop the alarm, they will have to call the utility technician, who has a key to turn it off. They are on call 24/7. It’s also possible they could turn off the siren remotely. Chairman Green: Didn’t Lake Monticello have failures with theirs where thousands of gallons of sewage went into the lake? Mr. Shimp: Notes that he is unsure but they had trouble structurally because their setup wasn’t good and it wasn’t properly maintained, which created some problems. They haven’t had any problems since Aqua Virginia took that over, but if that issue goes back beyond 5-10 years he is unfamiliar with it. Commissioner Lahendro: You mentioned that a professional firm would be maintaining the lift station. How do we know that? Mr. Shimp: It should be clarified in the conditions by staff and it is a legal requirement that has to be done. Commissioner Lahendro: Would that be the HOAs responsibility? Who would be checking the HOA to see that they do have a professional service? Mr. Shimp: The City’s Utilities folks would handle that. When the report is turned in every year, it would be turned in by someone who is authorized to write it, which would be a professional engineer or a licensed utility operator. Commissioner Lahendro: What is the annual maintenance for this and what are the other maintenance cycles involved? In other words, are there other things that need to be maintained over a period of time? Mr. Shimp: The pumps are frequently maintained with typical mechanical maintenance and the pumps themselves have a grinder of sorts so a piece can be replaced periodically as part of the inspection. It is inspected all the time and need to be replaced every few years. On a monthly basis the generator can be cut on for 10-15 minutes to make sure everything is running properly. However, they are industrial grade so they are meant for 10 sitting for long periods of time and they sit inside a building. The people that go by to inspect it will look at the status of everything else to make sure it’s working and the electrical palette wouldn’t have any maintenance to it since it is in a building out of the weather. The pump itself would require the most maintenance. Commissioner Lahendro: Is a lift station in this type of topography in a low area more prone to odor issues than at the top of hill? Mr. Shimp: If it had an odor, the smell might be experienced differently based on the topography, but if it is functioning like it is supposed to then no odor is expected. Commissioner Lahendro: What if you find out there is an odor after it is installed? Mr. Shimp: If the aerator wasn’t performing for some reason, it would have to be replaced but there would be a fix for it. It isn’t new or advanced technology. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Why not go with triple redundancy for the pumps to make it even less likely that none of them fail? Mr. Shimp: That is not the standard. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Is there redundancy on the air pumps that diffuse air into it so it doesn’t go anaerobic? Mr. Shimp: Notes that he isn’t sure, but it probably could be done. It wouldn’t be difficult to do. Chairman Green: With the recent rainfall, how would that affect overflow with the ground being as saturated as it has been over the past year? Will it have any effect on this? Mr. Shimp: No. The system is sealed tight so ground water does not have an effect on the pump itself. During the study there was over 30 days of testing where we looked at the capacity of the interceptor sewer line down by Moore’s Creek where it eventually would tie into and some of that does peak when rainfall occurs. Because of this, it does affect the main sewer lines but it doesn’t affect the pump station. Councilor Galvin: Is the pump station in a flood plain and if you were to deed this to the City, would the City accept it? Why or why not? Mr. Shimp: No, it is not in a flood plan. It would be the City’s decision to deed it. In the HOA structure there is no intention to dedicate the sewer pump or the storm water systems to the local government, they would be permanently operated by the neighborhood. If it were deeded it would be City Council’s call on accepting it, but as far as looking at City standards, the preliminary design does meet the standards. The comment that was received by Public Utilities was that even though it is private, it can’t be built there unless it meets the standards. If it were ever taken over, it would be a City decision. PUBLIC HEARING Jessica Wegner: Many residents of Fry’s Spring have significant concerns about the proposed SUP for the Belleview sanitary sewer pump station that would be located in the neighborhood. Notes that she spoke before the Commission during the preliminary discussion in December and spoke on behalf of an organized group of 11 more than 30 concerned households and tonight the organized group consists of more than 86 households. Some of the concerns include the odor and the environment. The proposed pump station is sited near an active stream channel, which is shown on the City’s GIS map as well as the City’s waterways map. There is year-round flowing water there, which means that the underground pump station could be installed in saturated soils that could lead to problems with groundwater infiltration and subsequent sanitary sewer overflows if the wet well is not sealed or installed properly. These sanitary sewer overflows would flow through neighboring backyards, through the Azalea Park wetlands and eventually into Moore’s Creek, which is already impaired for bacteria. In addition, the proposed siting of the pump station is in a stream valley, so odors will linger. Odors can linger due to the topography because the proposed site is approximately 34 ft. below in elevation of Monte Vista Avenue to the west and 24 ft. lower than Azalea Drive to the east. Given the topography, the odors will be particularly pronounced during atmospheric inversions. Many municipalities require a study of prominent wind direction before a sanitary pump station can be installed. In this case with a pump station being surrounded by houses on all sides, there is no question that residents will be impacted by odors. There are many engineering solutions for the odors that the engineer touched on and on the surface these sound like a great option. These range from carbon filters, which have been proven to be ineffective in many installations, to chemical treatments, which attempt to mask the odors. Each of these engineering solutions to the odor problem does not actually solve the odor problem. These filters or chemical treatments are either attempting to absorb the smell or cover up one smell with another smell. They do not eliminate the actual odor because they don’t remove the cause of the odor. Raw sewage smells and it smells even worse when the conditions become anaerobic, which produces the rotten egg odor of hydrogen sulfide. OSHA also lists both short and long term health effects from exposure to hydrogen sulfide. If you look online or speak to utility operators who maintain these in other municipalities, you’ll learn odor is a common complaint. While it’s easy for someone who doesn’t live in the neighborhood to say it’s no big deal, it doesn’t take away the fact that there is an odor. The Woolen Mills pump station mentioned earlier was even removed due to odor complaints. Odor is a big deal considering that the proposed pump station will be completely surrounded by current and future Fry’s Spring residents whose homes, property values, and potentially their health could suffer if this pump station is installed. Casey Gioeli: On behalf of this group we express concerns that the sewer pumping station is proposed to be privately owned and operated. Per the draft provided by the developer, the Home Owner’s Association will be responsible for common maintenance facilities. This includes the proposed sewer pumping station and sewer lines, retaining walls, and storm drainage facilities. According to Robert Nordlund from the consulting firm Association Reserves, as many as 70% of these HOAs are undercapitalized. We believe that the relatively small size of the proposed HOA, the scope of its responsibilities, and the unknown timeline for project completion places this HOA in the more than likely position of being undercapitalized. Any failure of this pump station may result in a human health hazard. Expecting the HOA to own, operate, maintain, and have sufficient funding to completely replace one of these systems is unreasonable. It is in the best interest of the community that the developer be required by this Commission and Council to provide an assessment of the envisioned capital adequacy of the HOA, not only in an expected case but in a case that contemplates unforeseen circumstances. At a minimum, this should include a reserve study and sample capital budget. These submissions should then be made available for public review and comment. This review is a prudent requirement to understand and manage the risk, not only for those who live or will live in the immediate area, but for all City residents, as they may be asked to fund remediation in the case of failure. Lastly, there have been preliminary discussions where it has been suggested that in the case of HOA failure, the City will assume responsibility for the sewer pumping station and make its own assessment to homeowners for the cost of maintenance. There is no guarantee for this and we don’t see how this could easily be reassured given the number of unknown factors. Thank you for your serious consideration of this matter that could greatly affect the livability for the residents of the Fry’s Spring neighborhood. 12 Jesse Harper: When we received the letter from the City about this application, it stated that a gravity fed sewer was not possible for this development given the topography. That statement is not factual. It is possible, as confirmed in a conversation by Matt Alfele. A gravity fed sewer was recommended by Roy Nester in his original response to the development. He said that the City prefers a gravity fed sewer for this development and it is still the best long term solution. The reason for this application is because Core Azalea, LLC did not procure easements from the adjacent property owners on Monte Vista because they didn’t offer an amount that was commensurate with the value of what they were seeking to purchase. The reason that they aren’t doing it is for cost savings and Mr. Shimp confirmed that. Ultimately it is not a cost saving measure for the City, it is a measure to maximize the profit margin of this development. The City Code section 34-157 sets the general standards for when to approve or deny an SUP and asks whether the proposed use or development will have any potential adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, such as dust, odor, fumes and other factors that adversely affect the natural environment. There is more in that section and it is worthy of review because this application contradicts many of the guidelines in that section, noise and smell in particular. In the application, the applicant says that you wouldn’t smell it unless you were standing on top of it. The validity of this claim was questioned and the sewage plant manager in Chesterfield County who is employed with the wastewater utility for 37 years was contacted. He said he was responsible for 32 of these pumping stations and laughed when the statement was read. He said the most common complains that they get for them concern the smell and the noise. Every solution offered only masks the smell. When asked about smell mitigation, he said it amounts to putting perfume on the sewage, the smell is still there because it is sewage. It stinks and there is no solution to that. When this application says it doesn’t smell, there is an intent to mislead the Commission on the fact of the smell because a profit margin is at stake. If they are forced to do what the City and Utilities actually recommends, they will have to pay the owners a fair market price for the easements. Samuel Johnston: Notes that he is an environmental attorney and a Fry’s Spring neighborhood property owner where the proposed project borders on the property. The general purpose here is to provide information to the general public. Unfortunately we were not satisfied with many of those answers and we need more information, particularly with respect to the impacts. In any environmental assessment with a project like this, the public has a right to know what the impacts are going to be and how they will be minimized and then mitigated. The Chair has brought up the issue of rainfall and we need to have a much more detailed analysis of the cumulative impacts of the peak flows that are foreseeable in combination with rainfall from climate change. The impacts of the foreseeable water and sewage runoff from this project need to be analyzed. The peak flows need to be quantified and determine what the impacts will be on watersheds, wildlife, and neighboring values. Moore’s Creek is also an impaired waterway and more analysis needs to be done on that. It was troubling to see staff hesitate to call the waterway that is going to be impacted and possibly destroyed a stream. It is a stream and may very well be federal jurisdictional water, which would implicate federal law and needs to be taken into consideration. The City’s input for Virginia’s phase 2 watershed implementation plan dated February 2012 calls for, among other policies, maintaining the designation of a 100 ft. riparian buffer on the City’s three main waterways, one of which is Moore’s Creek. If this is maintained, it would make sense to maintain at least a 50 ft. buffer on a tributary to that creek that would be impacted by this project. The Planning Commission is urged to maintain and remember their duties as trustees of the public to maintain the values of the public trust and public health. Jason Bishop: Notes that he is the lead organizer and the community is engaged with this. We have spoken to a lot of people about this development and no one is in support of a development like this. It is simply not in concert with the surrounding neighborhood, especially if you look at the size of the houses relative to the size of the lots for the proposed development, as well as the already existing lots and their houses. This pump station is another way that it is not in concert with the surrounding neighborhood. There isn’t another one in the whole City. We won’t have everyone in the room speak for three minutes, but we hope that the Commission will take the considerations that we have stated seriously. 13 Susan Quinn: Notes that she is a resident of the Fry’s Spring neighborhood, a member of the board of the Fry’s Spring Neighborhood Association, and is here to read a statement from the FSNA. The FSNA welcomes appropriately designed in-fill and the new neighbors that it brings. The FSNA respects the rights of property owners to pursue all legal activity on their private property while recognizing that some activities can result in negative impacts elsewhere in our community. Regarding the application for an SUP for the proposed Belleview development, the FSNA and the community we represent have concerns that a sanitary sewer pump station could have long-term negative impacts on the adjacent properties and the neighborhood. Specifically, the FSNA has 5 concerns: 1) odors are a common issue with sanitary sewer pump stations and siting the pup station in a valley will result in lingering odor, 2) the planned location has a high-water table, evidenced by naturally occurring springs, and any flaws in the construction would allow water in, potentially resulting in failure and overflows, 3) Charlottesville City code does not currently specify best engineering practices for installing a pump station, 4) Charlottesville City code currently does not allow the City Utilities to step in if the pump station fails, a situation which could result in the release of raw sewage into the backyards of Fry’s’ Spring residents, the adjacent Azalea Park and Moore’s Creek, Which is already impaired for bacteria, and 5) maintenance and replacement of the sanitary sewer pump station are planned as the responsibility of an HOA. If the HOA does not plan its finances properly or fails, the City may be forced to take action, potentially incurring substantial cost to the taxpayers. At the very minimum, the approval of an SUP to allow the installation of a sanitary sewer pump station should be delayed until the necessary regulations are in place to address how the City will handle cost, operation, maintenance, and replacement of a pump station located on a private property should the HOA fail. In summary, given the site conditions and lack of appropriate code to address contingencies, the FSNA does not support the proposed solution at this time and urges the City to deny the permit. Stuart Wilson: Resides at 318 Monte Vista Avenue and worked with the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority for 35 years. One of the main complaints that we would get from citizens was pump stations. Aeration doesn’t work and carbon filters were pretty ineffective as well. There is a chemical solution that can aerate the water without agitating it that may be called bioxide. Rivanna has started using that with a lot of their pump stations, especially at the Farmington County Club pump station because there have been many complaints. Notes that when he bought his house almost 30 years ago he knew that a subdivision was platted in there, but had no idea it would require a pump station. Unlike the folks in Woolen Mills who bought houses with an existing pump station, these residents did not have that choice when they bought their houses. The noise can also be a problem because the air compressors make the most noise if they are used rather than the sewage pumps. Christopher McQuale: Notes that he is a licensed professional wastewater engineer and his family has property on Monte Vista. The idea of having a package plant to treat the water and discharge it to the creek at the bottom of the hill and odors from that would only exasperate the problem. Regarding the discharge to the sewer line on Monte Vista Avenue, the hydraulic capacity for it to receive water coming from a pump station is questionable because it wasn’t designed for that and it is a concern that should be looked into. Nomi Dave: Resides in the Fry’s Spring neighborhood. The experiences as residents with the Porter Avenue development, which is the most recent development that is still ongoing, have been that there is a lack of transparency on their behalf and a lack of enforceability. It seems like the development wants to try out an experiment in Fry’s Spring and we’ve been told to accept their assurances that there won’t be a smell, it won’t have very much noise, etc. The experience with the developer in the case of Porter Avenue was that we were told that there would be a 4 way stop sign put at JPA that never happened. We were told that the tree line would be saved behind our house that never happened. There is a consistent problem with lack of transparency. There is also a lack of enforceability. Today NDS addressed the fact that if there is a failure in the system then zoning regulations kick in. There was also a point brought up about annual maintenance reports that the developer is 14 obligated to make to the City. However, NDS, both in a private meeting and in a City Commission meeting, admitted publically that they do not have the enforcement capacity to actually enforce some of the regulations that are in the books. In the case behind you we were told that City code regulates that developers must keep 20% of the tree canopy and if they cut down trees then they are obliged to replant so that 20% of the canopy is maintained. We were told that was confirmed, however the developer cut down all the trees and never maintained any of that canopy and have continued to violate that code. When this was brought up in a City Commission meeting in front of NDS and Andrew Baldwin regarding the new development, NDS said they don’t have the capacity to enforce these regulations. This is an issue that must be addressed before we are expected to just believe the promises that these developers are making. Peter Rightmyer: Lake Holiday Estates in Frederick County, VA is about 15 miles north of Winchester. It is a plan unit development HOA with a terrible track record. They have their own private utility and all of the equipment, and it was a colossal failure. It was not due to bad planning, it was due to disaffected voluntary board members, of which they had 15 on their utility board and 11 on their HOA. Ultimately that development was taken over by a special commissioner for Frederick County. Chuck Alton was in receivership for about 3.5 years before it was straightened out. If the Commission is inclined to believe that 41 homeowners are going to do their due diligence with collecting funding to provide for future reserves for this, the Commission is encouraged to look again. COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS Commissioner Lahendro: Does City Utilities have standards for a lift station? Ms. Lauren Hildebrand, Public Utilities: No, there aren’t any standards in the Standards and Designs Manual because we currently do not maintain or have any pump stations. The sewer system is entirely gravity fed and we maintain 170 miles of gravity sewer within the system. Commissioner Lahendro: What standards would you use to evaluate the design? Ms. Hildebrand: Currently, the Department of Environmental Quality has state-wide regulations that we have to follow. The short term is SCAT Regulations that were developed by the state that set standards for how wastewater treatment plants are designed, as well as pump stations and gravity sewers. We do have the ability to review the designs against the state standards. Commissioner Lahendro: Why wouldn’t the City take this on themselves since it is for the development of over 40 houses and the larger neighborhood area? Ms. Hildebrand: It takes a little different expertise to maintain a pump station than a gravity fed system. It would take someone who is a little more familiar with control, electrical, and mechanical systems. Within our area, we consulted with Albemarle County Service Authority and they have maintain certain lift stations within their system, but they have people who are trained with those skillsets. They don’t maintain all of the pump stations and there are some in the County that are also private, but that is generally because there is no gravity sewer in the area that could serve the system. Commissioner Lahendro: Are you familiar with the systems to speak to issues of odor and noise? 15 Ms. Hildebrand: Notes that she used to work for an authority where there were over 60 pump stations within the system. They do emit odors. The philosophy behind sewer systems is that they need to breathe a little bit and emit the odors into the air. Commissioner Solla-Yates: There is a question about capacity of the sewer line. Have you looked at that? Ms. Hildebrand: We have looked at the capacity of the adjacent gravity system along Azalea and the system they are proposing to pump to and it is an 8” line. Generally 8” lines have the capacity for about a ½ million gallons and this development will on average generate 20 thousand per day. It has enough capacity, but you have to be careful because you don’t want to hold too much back and pump too much at one time when designing a pump station because it can be odorous. It should pump on a regular basis so the age of the sewer doesn’t get too old. Commissioner Solla-Yates: There was also a question about the shape of the land since this is bowl shape. Does odor linger or spread? Ms. Hildebrand: Notes that she cannot speak to that issue. Commissioner Dowell: To help mitigate the adverse impacts on the neighborhood, in the event that the pump stopped working and they didn’t have enough money in their HOA to keep it going, how would the City handle it? Ms. Hildebrand: Notes that she has developed additional language in the event that this moves forward to be more stringent in looking the HOA documents and making sure they had the right wherewithal to finance future capital improvements. One recommendation is a revision of staff’s first recommended condition to change the 6th line to read three feet, by five feet in dimension, enclosing the SCADA controls to the pump station. Another recommendation is to revise the 8th line to read (v) a private sewer force main, as well as the operations and maintenance condition, which was revised to add that regular maintenance will be conducted by a qualified contractor that is approved by the Director of Utilities. Regular maintenance will be conducted to avoid an adverse impact on the City’s sewer system. Additional proposed conditions include that 1. The design will incorporate the Department of Environmental Quality’s Sewage Collection and Treatments regulations as well as provisions designated by the Director of Utilities as deemed necessary to assure that there is no negative impact on the City’s sewer system, 2. During operation of the Pump Station, in the event the City’s public sewer system experiences a negative impact, caused by hydrogen sulfide or any other cause, then the HOA will be responsible for the cost of repairs and remediation of the adverse impact to City’s system. If these repairs or remedial actions cannot be made in a timely manner determined by the Director of Utilities, then the connection to the City’s sewer system will be terminated, 3. The Landowner(s) shall provide the Director of Utilities a copy of the HOA documents, to allow the Director to verify that the provisions within the documents are adequate to ensure that the HOA will be responsible for all costs and has all necessary authority to make assessments to landowners within the development to cover all costs of construction, operation, maintenance and repair of the Pump Station. At no time shall the City of Charlottesville be responsible for any cost(s) associated with construction, operation, maintenance or repair of the Pump Station, 4. If a sanitary sewer overflow occurs, the overflow must be reported by the System Operator to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality within 24 hours, and then the System Operator must submit to DEQ a 5-day follow-up report. A copy of the initial overflow report to DEQ, and the 5-day follow-up report shall be delivered to the City’s Director of Utilities at the same time as the reports are delivered to DEQ. Chairman Green: Clarifies that the proposed conditions for the SUP would be infringed upon the development of the HOA in addition to the conditions in the staff report if it were to pass. 16 Commissioner Heaton: Does City Utilities have a tap fee established or plans for how the City might do that? Ms. Hildebrand: We have a facility fee, which is intended to handle the additional requirements for the capacity of the system that currently developers pay. It is set up by the size of the meter or the equivalent residential unit and it is prorated based on the size of the meter. The facility fee is applicable to the water meter set at the houses and it has a water component and a sewer component. The intent of the facility fee is to recoup monies that the City spends generating capacity within the system to adequately fund it, whether it is in our system or Rivanna’s. Commissioner Stolzenberg: You stated that there is nothing in the Standards and Designs Manual now, but it is under revision. Was that part of the discussion into the new Manual? Ms. Hildebrand: As part of Utilities, we are having discussions about what will be included in the Standards and Design Manual and then the details on things like a pump station or gravity sewer would be in construction documents that would be referenced in the Manual. Commissioner Stolzenberg: A few commenters noted that there aren’t laws in place in the current City code to adequately manage this, especially in an HOA failure scenario. Are there parts of other cities’ codes that are more comprehensive in how they handle pump stations? Should we look at a zoning text amendment for that? Chairman Green: This is an SUP and all SUPs fall under the zoning ordinance, so it would be under zoning regulations. Ms. Robertson: Public Utilities is in a different chapter of the City code and Ms. Hildebrand manages the public system in accordance with a parallel set of regulations and requirements in a different chapter. Commissioner Stolzenberg: More broadly, what do other cities do? Ms. Hildebrand: It varies, but if there is a gravity solution many places would prefer that over a pump station because of its long term maintenance cost from an electrical standpoint. Commissioner Stolzenberg: When they do have pump stations, do they have regulations in the City code that do things similarly? Ms. Hildebrand: There are design standards that would be followed. Chairman Green: These are not typically occurring in cities, especially in urban environments. Is that the case? Ms. Hildebrand: Usually you will find them located where there isn’t a gravity solution. We do have a gravity system close by, but they do require easements. Chairman Green: The City doesn’t want to take that on because of the long term maintenance costs. Several Commissioners are concerned about affordability, so what do you think this will cost each homeowner in homeowner’s association fees just for this particular system? Ms. Hildebrand: It might not be applicable, but in the previous authority there was a contractor that would regularly maintain household pump stations and they were usually for government agencies. Generally the cost was about $2,000 per month to do regular weekly checks on the pump station to make sure everything is working. 17 Notes that she did not check to see what people around here would charge. That figure does not include setting aside capital improvement funds. Chairman Green: In the future if this were to fail, could this be converted into a gravity system in the future at the cost of the homeowners? Ms. Hildebrand: Yes, if they could acquire the easements through the properties. The only way Utilities could get involved would be if we were expanding our system and there was a public health issue. We typically do not condemn for easements. Chairman Green: If this were to fail and the HOA did not have enough money, even if they were preparing, and sewage was leaking, the last proposed condition says that the connection with the City sewer system will be terminated. In this case, how many homeowners would have their water cut off to prevent overflows? Ms. Hildebrand: They would all have to be cut off. The only way to stop the health hazard would be to stop the water usage. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Do we shut off people’s water when people don’t pay their bills? Ms. Hildebrand: There is a long process for that. Chairman Green: Is it true that it took about $5.2 million for the Rivanna Water and Sewer Department to mitigate the odor control on that? Ms. Hildebrand: That was at the treatment plant and it was close to $10 million. Councilor Hill: What is staff’s general perspective on this project? What is preferred by staff? Ms. Hildebrand: Since the City runs a gravity system that is preferred. Councilor Hill: Do you have any concerns with this coming into one of our City’s neighborhoods? Ms. Hildebrand: Typically, the experience with pump stations has been to not site them close to the houses because they can be odorous. Councilor Walker: Notes that she is concerned about homeowners losing access to a system where the only way we can mitigate the issues is to turn their system off. Future homeowners also shouldn’t have to deal with this if the system failed. Commissioner Solla-Yates: There was a recommendation from the public that we require financial disclosures from the HOA to see that they could actually take care of it if they had the money to do it. Can we require that? Ms. Robertson: We can’t do that under the zoning regulations. Copies of the HOA documents confirm the obligations and there are statutory obligations in the state where the members of the HOAs have fiduciary obligations to impose assessments and obtain enough capital reserves. It doesn’t mean they will do it, but it isn’t in the Commission’s purview as zoning reviewers. 18 Commissioner Stolzenberg: There was mention that an alternative for this is an actual sewage treatment plant on site. Is that by-right? Ms. Robertson: If it was allowed it would be the same type of permit process as this. Chairman Green: In the City, if you have an SUP and someone violates the SUP conditions, how does the City mitigate that? Ms. Robertson: There are a number of different ways. If something is presenting a serious issue you could go to court and seek an injunction to either preclude someone from doing something or to require them to do something. We rarely use that process, but it is available. Chairman Green: In this scenario, what is the timetable to get a zoning case in the court in the City? Ms. Robertson: To get that case through the court it would take quite a while. If there was urgency and you were dealing with a public health situation that could be called a public nuisance you could likely get an emergency injunction fairly quickly. The remedies for that would be quicker under the public utilities and public health codes. If an individual homeowner has a problem with their service lateral and it’s causing a backup in a public sewer, it is a smaller scale but a similar process. The landowner is responsible for resolving any problems with the portion of the line they are responsible for and if it creates a public health situation there are remedies within the public utilities code that include shutting off the water or going to court to require them to fix it. It is not an unusual situation and there are health and utility codes that allow it to be dealt with, which would be quicker than the zoning route. There are also obligations under an MS4 permit and many substantial storm water facilities are being installed in common areas to be maintained by HOAs and if they fail it is a substantial burden. There are some legal remedies even within the development. If the HOA isn’t producing their fiduciary duties the people within the development can bring private actions within them. Liens are placed against properties for charges that have been assessed and not paid, as well as special assessments that can be done quicker than routine annual assessments to cover unexpected expenditures. Chairman Green: So this is passing all of the cost onto the individual homeowner? Ms. Robertson: Yes, and for other requirements such as storm water as well. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Do you mean the individual homeowner that owns the lot it’s on, rather than the other 48? Ms. Robertson: No, it is all 49 lots collectively. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Do the neighbors have standing to bring private action against the HOA if there are odors out of compliance with this? Ms. Robertson: Probably not under the HOA arrangement, but there is a right of action called a public nuisance that could be brought up. Commissioner Solla-Yates: Ms. Hildebrand notes that in more rural areas, there should be a certain amount of space between a pumping station like this and other residences. What is a reasonable buffer? 19 Ms. Hildebrand: It is typically in the back of a subdivision in a low lying area because everything had to gravity feed to it. COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION Commissioner Heaton: Municipalities that are utilities all over the state are finding ways to develop and we have housing issues in Charlottesville and we are growing. There is a high level of confidence in alternative systems and our Utilities should begin exploring what that looks like. In a growing population, you have to find alternative systems. Chairman Green: Is this an alternative system or a way to pass the extra cost onto the property owners? Commissioner Heaton: Gravity systems are better, but they are becoming less mandatory because there are more people. If we don’t have contingency plans for decades out for continued population growth, our Utilities might begin making some of those. Chairman Green: This is not a place where it can’t be done, it is where the easements have not been acquired. Commissioner Heaton: This will happen again. It may be the first special exception before the Commission but it won’t be the last, so we should have a review so we have guidelines as opposed to a special exception every time. Commissioner Dowell: Charlottesville is only a 10 sq. mile radius and we aren’t going to be growing that much more to need the pump. As far as the review goes, we need more information before we can say that this is actually a good alternative. Commissioner Heaton: Utilities need to provide us with were we are going in 20 years because we are going to grow. Municipalities with gravity systems are having to look how to grow. Chairman Green: This is not an alternative system, it is a rural system and you were one of the biggest proponents for density and urbanism. Commissioner Heaton: Exactly. There are systems in place in old municipalities that are also utilities where you have to look at how you can accommodate a higher population. It won’t always be gravity. Chairman Green: That’s fine, but we are passing along cost unnecessarily to people that are about to own homes. It could also have more lots if we don’t put a pump station there to give more housing. Commissioner Heaton: It’s illegal, so it’s a special exception and it won’t be the last one we see, especially as the population stress continues. We need a study to determine where we are going to go so we don’t have to have special use permits over and over. Chairman Green: We are not going to need SUPs for this because people are going to tie into the City’s Utility system. We are creating an urban environment and this SUP would put a rural system in an urban environment because the developer doesn’t want to potentially pay the costs to get the easements. Commissioner Heaton: Agrees, but we shouldn’t always be talking to developers. We need the City Utilities to provide some guidance for how to deal with this 20 years in the future. 20 Chairman Green: Notes that it is a great thing, but this is the first one she has seen in 18 years with the City. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Shouldn’t the people be mad at the 10 selfish property owners? It is understandable that $2,500 is a low ball and they could ask for more money, but they didn’t even respond and now they are going to force it on all of them. Commissioner Mitchell moves to deny the application. The potential adverse impacts of the sanitary pump could create problems in the neighborhood, specifically in the matter of noise, lights, dust, odor, fumes, vibrations, and other factors which adversely affect the natural environment and the surrounding environment. Seconded by Commissioner Dowell. Commissioner Dowell: Notes that she is very concerned that this can have impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, but there are also concerns about how we will develop the property. If we aren’t going to approve the pump but the property owners will not grant the easements, where do they go from here? Will we just not develop the property or are we back at another SUP? Notes that she is against the pump because of the impacts to the neighborhood, but at the same time we are going in circles because if the developer cannot get the easements it can’t be developed. Chairman Green: Absolutely, but we are putting Utilities in a Zoning issue. We talk about density and affordability a lot and we are not making these lots affordable by having this system put into the place. They could rezone it and make more lots and more density, but we need to tie into the systems that we do have and know they work and that the City is going to maintain. The costs should not be passed along to these property owners and new homeowners, who are not going to read all of the content and have no idea what they are signing on to until it fails and they have to pay for it. We cannot talk about affordability and density and allow a suburban rural pump station in the middle of one of our most urban areas. Commissioner Dowell: If the developer can’t get the easements, what happens next? Chairman Green: We can come up with some solutions for that. There are better alternatives than a rural area system. Commissioner Heaton: What we do with this permit is one thing, but we can learn from this moment and ask Utilities to plan for what is going to come so we have some capacities and alternatives. Chairman Green: Notes that this area is going to develop eventually. Commissioner Mitchell moves to deny the application. The potential adverse impacts of the sanitary pump could create problems in the neighborhood, specifically in the matter of noise, lights, dust, odor, fumes, vibrations, and other factors which adversely affect the natural environment and the surrounding environment. Seconded by Commissioner Dowell. Motion for denial is approved 6-1. 2. ZM18-00003 - Flint Hill PUD Deferred by applicant until at least May 2019. 21 3. New Business – Fry’s Spring Zoning Text Amendment Proposal by Commissioner Stolzenberg Commissioner Dowell: What is the goal in going from R1 to R2? Is it to create more density or to create more affordability? Commissioner Stolzenberg: About 34 of the parcels in mind are already single family attached and they are non- conforming and it would be great to bring those into conforming status because it seems unreasonable that they have been downzoned like that. As for the remaining ones, right now we are seeing many large, expensive houses pop up in Fry’s Spring, which is not what Fry’s Spring looks like even though the northwest side is expensive. It is mostly $150,000 - $200,000 houses and if left as is, the giant expensive houses are all you can build and it doesn’t make sense if we want to have homes people can afford. Commissioner Dowell: That is a general thing going on across the City, it isn’t just Fry’s Spring. What makes Fry’s Spring different than any other neighborhood? Commissioner Stolzenberg: It isn’t fundamentally different and broader zoning reform would be beneficial too. It is being brought up now because there is a sense of urgency. Of those 5 vacant greenfield areas, all of them have been transacted or are about be built on. While it would be great to do this across the whole City in the new Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code, we already have consensus that we’re going to allow up to fourplexes in every zone and this is probably going happen faster than that. Chairman Green: Nothing has been passed on that. We are the Planning Commission and that hasn’t gone to the City Council. Commissioner Stolzenberg: That is true, but that is why we need to get it to City Council and into the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Heaton: The process is set in place so there can be quick action from the public. Commissioner Stolzenberg was asking for this to be taken into consideration. Chairman Green: As Planning Commissioners we should take our place on the Commission as a governmental body for the people, not for personal wants and desires. We should not have an agenda and it is unclear what body Commissioner Stolzenberg is representing other than himself. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Notes that he doesn’t live in Fry’s Spring anymore, so it isn’t about him. An observation was made as a Planning Commissioner that the face of Fry’s Spring is changing based on the laws we put in place and are entrusted with the stewardship of. When Fry’s Spring neighborhood association introduced a downzoning in 2014 they didn’t have authority to do that. They didn’t own any of the pieces of property so they couldn’t make a petition to Council to change that, they had to get a sympathetic Councilor to do it for them. Commissioner Lahendro: Notes that he does not feel comfortable voting on something that is brand new and it is not a benign request because it does take staff time. We have to look at the staff workload and understand what the priorities are before we start to commit them to doing something else. We should put this off until a work session to frame what we are going to talk about so research can be done ahead of time. Chairman Green: We also have a housing needs assessment that is the HAC has looked at and that is being very much researched so that we have a plan to do this as opposed to picking an area because we used to live there and like it. We have a plan and it does take staff time. 22 Commissioner Stolzenberg: Reiterates that this is just to initiate the discussion and the natural result of initiating it would be having a work session. Commissioner Dowell: We need to be aware of things like this, not only in Fry’s Spring but throughout the City so people who have lived here can continue to, but it may not have been delivered in the best approach and that is why it isn’t getting the best feedback. If we are going to be a body, everything has to move together. Commissioner Stolzenberg: What is the best practices way to propose something like this? Notes that he apologizes for how it was presented and he doesn’t have an ulterior motive, but his understanding of how the ordinance was written is that now would be the proper time to make a motion in the meeting and once we initiate discussion the rest of it happens. Chairman Green: Agrees, but staff didn’t even have the knowledge of it. Ms. Creasy could have offered advice. Don’t we have a work plan from Council? Ms. Creasy: It is on hold. In fact, any zoning idea that is more than a small tweak that wouldn’t require significant communication public-wise would refer to that process, which is currently not in our control. The RFP is being constructed and staff hopes that the position will be filled before the RFP hits the streets because it would be much more helpful if there was something to start with and they guide it before it goes out so they have ownership of the process. We are awaiting the next steps on the RFP and we would get pushback on anything that wasn’t simple for that process. Right now we have been guided on the path to the RFP and the position to happen in some timeframe and then that process will move forward our processes here. It would also be helpful to structure the conversations in such a way that there are potential outcomes to a concern so that you aren’t talking in circles and it is a productive experience. Chairman Green: The housing strategy is a huge part of this, have we heard anything else about that strategy? Commissioner Solla-Yates: The last time the HAC discussed it, we were waiting on details from the Planning Commission, so hopefully that will move forward and we will be able to get that done. As the Chair of the Planning subcommittee, two years ago HAC recommended updating the ADU ordinance and nothing has been done. About a year ago it was recommended to update the frontage and minimum lot size requirements and nothing has been done. There is a whole pipeline of quick fixes. Ms. Creasy: They aren’t quick fixes, they are significant discussion items. There are a number of boards and commissions around the community that have been putting together a lot of good information and the Commission went through a number of issues, including those, and noted that frontages need to be done in the context of other things. The most recent quick fix from a zoning perspective was allowing for a drive-thru restaurant in the Highway Corridor and even that was controversial. It wasn’t an easy conversation and that would be considered a quick fix. Things like frontage changes will need a lot of discussion from a lot of community partners. Ms. Robertson: Part of the reason we are in this fix is we haven’t been following the methodology we are supposed to use. The Comprehensive Plan does not give us adequate guidance and since 2003 we have been coming up with ideas that are not in furtherance of strategic goals and objectives. Until we get that framework in place that is a guiding document, we can’t fix the problems that we want to fix. It just can’t be done. The Streets That Work document was a great adoption, as it gives very specific guidance and if the rest of the Comprehensive Plan gave as much guidance as that does, we could make great progress. 23 Chairman Green: The zoning ordinance would then have to match the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Robertson: A great result out of this would be a Comprehensive Plan update with very specific concentration on the Land Use Plan including affordable housing and having simultaneous ordinance provisions to implement those recommendations. As always, we are waiting to take the first step. Chairman Green: A third part of that is the housing strategy. It has been very frustrating that these parts don’t talk to each other at all and the biggest mistake we made was not making the changes to the zoning ordinance on the 2013 Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Robertson: Historically we wanted to incorporate a lot of interest and values in the Comprehensive Plan, but we have been short on practical guidance. Ms. Creasy: The Comprehensive Plan can tell you whatever you want it to say to you and we have had a difficult time in the community with taking hard lines on things. It has to be a decision that we take or at least a range of something because it has been so difficult to get folks to grasp as a larger community. Change is hard and we have tried a few bigger zoning things and the time wasn’t right. Hopefully tying these things together and bringing in a group that can guide the community with outside expertise will allow for steps to be taken to move forward. Commissioner Lahendro: We started this with seven lay people that were told to redo the Comprehensive Plan that no one had ever done before. If we would have had the professional guidance from the beginning, it would have helped and given us structure. Commissioner Dowell: When we started on the update we were fine being seven lay people. The incidents that have occurred in Charlottesville about 2 years ago have blown up and we are trying to find the solutions of over 300-400 years in one document at one time. Sometimes we need to take a step back and start over. We cannot wrap everything into one thing because it would never work. Ms. Creasy: All of these things take time as well. We have had some changes that have come over time, but they are slow. Chairman Green: It’s important to remember that we are an advisory Commission to Council and it doesn’t mean that they are going to vote for what we advise. Commissioner Heaton: We have been reminded by the public of our duties and we’ve done a good job. Commissioner Stolzenberg demonstrated before the public that there are ways to bring things forward, as well as staff’s approach to make sure we have a workable workload. Both of those are in the system for a reason. Additionally, having Chair Green tell the public that the site is going to be developed when they didn’t want to hear that was great. Maybe our new City Manager can help this body realize that we need to serve what our duty is in front of the public. The public does need to see that we can be responsive. Chairman Green: The wheels just move very slowly, especially when it comes to enforcement. An enforcement action under the zoning ordinance can take up to 4 months to get to a judge to get an action. It is a slow process that isn’t fun, but the flip side is that if it moves to fast and the pieces aren’t all put together, it can fail. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Going back to the motion on the floor, given that there is a sense of urgency here because in two years it will already have happened and we will be locked in for the next 50 years, the goal was 24 that this could be a manageable chunk that we could look at with the existing set of tools. The existing Comprehensive Plan calls for up to 15 dwelling units per acre. Chairman Green: Would this be more of the form of a small area plan but it is an entire neighborhood? Ms. Robertson: Let’s pick a workshop where information will be provided about the categories of things that the Commission is supposed to look at when making this type of zoning change. Then the Commission can decide if they are ready now or if you want to roll it into the Comprehensive Plan process to undertake the studies and analysis that is needed to move forward with that type of change. Chairman Green: Let’s plan on discussing this at the April work session. Ms. Robertson: We need to have a big picture discussion and the work for staff do to a good analysis takes time when looking at a whole area very specifically. It’s usually preferable to do this at the same time that the Comprehensive Plan is updated. Chairman Green: Anything we do has to have community outreach and engagement. We can’t just initiate a zoning text amendment and in July we make a zoning change. Ms. Robertson: Notes that it hasn’t been unusual over the years for someone to initiate a change on an agenda and then to study it. The question is what level of study staff has capacity for and if you want to start right now before the larger Comprehensive Plan update gets finished. Commissioner Dowell: No. That is half of the reason why we are in this situation now. Let’s get our Comprehensive Plan done first. That is not to say that this is a bad idea because it’s great to get more information and learn about our City, but we don’t need to be running in circles. It is important but if we wait and do it at the right time it can be done at once. Chairman Green: If Ms. Robertson brings us what it would take to look at this we would also need to look at the zoning we have in place because we can’t redo the zoning for just the Fry’s Spring neighborhood because we don’t have a form based code right now and the zoning is for the City as a whole. Commissioner Stolzenberg: This would only be for some minor tweaks to the map. We are running in place right now. Notes that what really prompted this discussion was that there was a site visit last month before the Lyman Street application and he spoke to someone who was rooting for the houses to go in there because it would raise his property value so much. He was hoping that the drinking and smoking neighbors that live behind him that have lived there for 50 years would get priced out of their neighborhood. Chairman Green: Agrees, however we don’t the tools in place to zone that in right now. Commissioner Stolzenberg: We need a ton of changes to the zoning ordinance and a whole new Comprehensive Plan and there is a lot of work to be done. That’s why we should start doing something and take this little chunk to make 30 parcels able to have single family attached houses. It isn’t making ground breaking changes here and half of them already have single family attached houses on them that are just non-conforming. Ms. Robertson: The motion was initiated and someone seconded it. The Commission needs to determine if they want to initiate it, and if so what is the first step in the process to study how to develop the amendments that might later be brought forward for a public hearing. Alternatively, Commissioner Stolzenberg can call the Chair 25 and Ms. Creasy and add an agenda item on the April work session to discuss it and determine if it should be taken any further at this point in time. Ms. Creasy: Commissioner Stolzenberg can also get some bullet points on paper to discuss for a work session. Commissioner Stolzenberg withdraws his motion and requests to add the topic to the April work session. IV. ADJOURNMENT 8:45 pm – Commissioner Lahendro moves to adjourn until the second Tuesday in May 2019. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE Department Of Neighborhood Development Services Staff Report to the Entrance Corridor Review Board (ERB) Entrance Corridor (EC) Special Use Permit Request Date of Planning Commission Meeting: May 14, 2019 Property Street Address: 1617 Emmet Street North Zoning: Urban Corridor Mixed Use (URB) Entrance Corridor: Corridor 1, Route 29 North Sub-Area A Tax Parcel: 40C002000 Site Acreage: 0.5 acres Date of Hearing: May 14, 2019 Application Number: SP19-00001 Staff report prepared by: Jeff Werner, Preservation and Design Planner ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Relevant Code Section: Sec. 34-157(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. Background: This proposal involves an existing structure that had served as a bank, including a two-lane, covered drive-through. There is no record of this site previously being the subject of an ERB review. Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines: Within the City’s EC Design Guidelines there is nothing specific to drive-through windows, however the Recommended General Guidelines for this sub-area acknowledge that this is an auto-oriented corridor intended for commercial retail development. No changes are proposed to the existing structure, however site improvements will include increased plantings, consistent with the General Guideline recommendation for planted parking lots to reduce visual impact. New plantings to include five large canopy tree, three medium canopy trees, four evergreen trees, 20 dwarf fothergill, and 14 dwarf holly. 1617 Emmet Street (DRAFT May 2, 2019) 1 The Guidelines Specific to the Zoning within this sub-area acknowledge that the intent is to facilitate development of a commercial nature that is more auto-oriented than the mixed-use and neighborhood commercial corridors. Development in these areas has been traditionally auto-driven and the regulations established by this ordinance continue that trend. This district provides for intense commercial development with very limited residential use. It is intended for the areas where the most intense commercial development in Charlottesville occurs. (Full text is in the addendum.) Discussion: Before City Council takes action to permit the proposed use, they must consider the ERB’s opinion whether there are any adverse impacts to the Entrance Corridor (EC) district that could be mitigated with conditions. An SUP is an important zoning tool that allows City Council to impose reasonable conditions to make a use more acceptable in a specific location, and to “protect the welfare, safety and convenience of the public.” The parcel’s zoning allows for a drive-through window via a SUP. In reviewing such a request, the first factor to be considered is if the proposed use will be harmonious with existing patterns of use and development within the neighborhood. Under the circumstances, allowing the continued use of the existing drive-through would not introduce something new or different; neither as a use nor as constructed feature. The EC Guidelines, in general, speak to maintaining compatibility with the existing character of a corridor, while promoting new development that is consistent with the vision for that corridor. Retaining the existing resolves the question of compatibility. The proposed new use and landscaping improvements are consistent with the vision for this sub-area. Recommendation: For the reasons stated above, design staff recommends a finding that approval of the requested SUP will not adversely impact Sub-Area A of the 29 North Entrance Corridor. Suggested Motion: I move to find that, as related to the city’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines, the proposed Special Use Permit to allow in the existing building at 1617 North Emmet Street a coffee shop that would use the existing drive-through window will not have an adverse impact on the Route 29 North [Emmet Street] Entrance Corridor. Alternate Motion: I move to find that, as related to the city’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines, the proposed Special Use Permit to allow in the existing building at 1617 North Emmet Street a coffee shop that would use the existing drive-through window will, for the following reasons, have an adverse impact on the Route 29 North [Emmet Street] Entrance Corridor… Addendum: Excerpts from Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines (Chapter V; pages 6, 7, and 10) Corridor 1: Route 29 North from the corporate limits to Ivy Road Sub-Area A: Northern corporate limits to 250 overpass Description: The U.S. Post Office, Seminole Square Shopping Center, and the older K-Mart Shopping Plaza occupy most of the land area north of Hydraulic Road and east of Route 29. South of Hydraulic Road both sides of Route 29 contain older retail businesses and motels, a grocery store complex, and a big box retail store that recently replaced an older motel. • Streetscape: Landscaped edges, significant street trees and plantings, overhead utilities, cobra- head lights, numerous curb cuts, auto-oriented, 4 lanes + 1-2 turn lanes 1617 Emmet Street (DRAFT May 2, 2019) 2 • Site: Pole and monument backlit signs, sites below road and many buildings set deeply back on lots, individual site lighting, post office with parking in front. • Buildings: Hotels, gas stations with canopies, retail chains, large retail, 1-story, national chains, some roof equipment visible, some outparcels developed. Differing scale, architectural forms, materials, and varying setbacks. Vision: As Route 29 traffic enters the City this area should serve to calm traffic and create a transition from auto oriented, suburban development to more pedestrian friendly, urban scale development. Planting and maintaining street trees along the existing Route 29 sidewalks, and locating buildings close to the road will assist in this effort. Although wide roads and large traffic volumes discourage pedestrian crossings, a pedestrian environment can be encouraged within developments. Providing walking and driving linkages between developments and providing for transit will also create alternatives to having to drive on Route 29. Individual building designs should complement the City’s character and respect the qualities that distinguish the City’s built environment. This corridor is a potential location for public way-finding signage. Recommended General Guidelines • Larger scale commercial retail development • Limited residential and mixed-use • Auto-oriented • Surface or structured parking behind buildings • Pedestrian connectivity within developments • Articulated building forms to reduce mass • Divided and planted parking lots to reduce visual impact Guidelines Specific to the Zoning (HW) Highway Corridor district: The intent of the Highway Corridor district is to facilitate development of a commercial nature that is more auto-oriented than the mixed-use and neighborhood commercial corridors. Development in these areas has been traditionally auto-driven and the regulations established by this ordinance continue that trend. This district provides for intense commercial development with very limited residential use. It is intended for the areas where the most intense commercial development in Charlottesville occurs. • Height regulation: o Maximum height: 7 stories, recommend one to three stories. • Setbacks: o Primary street frontage: 5 feet, minimum; 30 feet, maximum. o Linking street frontage: 5 feet, minimum; 20 feet, maximum. o Side and Rear, adjacent to any low density residential district: 20 feet, minimum. o Side and Rear, adjacent to any other zoning district: none required. • Buffer regulations: o Adjacent to any low-density residential district, side and rear buffers shall be required, 10 feet, minimum. 1617 Emmet Street (DRAFT May 2, 2019) 3 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT REQUEST FOR A WAIVER: CRITICAL SLOPES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: May 14, 2019 Project Planner: Carrie Rainey Date of Staff Report: May 3, 2019 Applicant: Rayonix, LLC Applicant’s Representative(s): Shimp Engineering P.C. Current Property Owner: Rayonix, LLC Application Information Property Street Address: 915 6th Street SE (“Subject Property”) Tax Map/Parcel #: Tax Map 27 Parcel 36 Total Project Area (Limits of Disturbance): 0.77 acres Total Area of Critical Slopes on Parcel: 0.26 acres | 34% of total site area Area of Proposed Critical Slope Disturbance: 0.21 acres | 27% of total site area | 78% of total critical slopes area Comprehensive Plan (General Land Use Plan): Mixed Use Current Zoning Classification: Downtown Extended Corridor (DE) Background Rayonix, LLC submitted an application for waiver of critical slopes at 915 6th Street SE on February 8, 2019. Proposed improvements associated with this project will impact critical slopes on‐site and approval of a critical slope waiver is required per Section 34‐1120(b). The applicant previously provided a preliminary site plan proposing a multi‐family development. The applicant has since amended the development to include a commercial component, as reflected in the provided materials for this critical slope waiver request, and the final site plan must conform to all requirements and standards prior to approval. 1 Application Details Rayonix, LLC is requesting a waiver from Section 34‐1120(b) of the City Code (Critical Slope Ordinance) to allow for construction of a mixed use development that would include two (2) buildings with 28 one‐ and two‐bedroom multi‐family residential units and commercial use, and a surface parking lot with vegetated canopies. Improvements specific to areas where critical slopes would be impacted should the waiver be approved are shown on the Critical Slope Exhibit (Attachment 2) and include portions of one building, sidewalk and stairs providing access to 2nd Street SE, portions of the parking lot and parking canopies, and potions of the proposed retaining walls. Existing critical slopes areas located on this Property include 0.26 acres or 34 percent of the site. The applicable definition of “critical slope” is as follows: Any slope whose grade is 25% or greater, and (a) a portion of the slope has a horizontal run of greater than 20 feet, and its total area is 6,000 SF or greater, and (b) a portion of the slope is within 200 feet of a waterway. See City Code Sec. 34‐1120(b)(2). Based on the information presented within the application materials, Staff verifies that the area for which this waiver is sought meets all of the above‐referenced components of the definition of “critical slope”. The following information is relevant to the evaluation of this request:  Large stands of trees: Much of the site is wooded. A single family home is located on the site near 6th Street SE.  Rock outcroppings: None.  Slopes greater than 60%: 4,406 SF (36%) of the total critical slopes on site are greater than 60%. 2,701 SF of critical slopes great than 60% are proposed to be disturbed, accounting for 30% of the critical slope disturbance. See Attachment 2 for location of slopes greater than 60%.  Waterway within 200 feet: The day‐lighted portion of Pollocks Branch is located within 200‐feet of the critical slope area that is located on the proposed project site.  Location of other areas of the Property, outside critical slopes areas, that fit the definition of a “building site” and could accommodate this proposed development: The applicant proposes two buildings, one of which is located almost entirely in the critical slope areas. In addition, a portion of the proposed surface parking lot and associated grading is located within the critical slope areas. The proposed development, as shown with surface parking, could not be accommodated outside of critical slope areas. However, a development of similar use and residential density could potentially be accommodated outside of critical slope areas with a different site design. 2 Vicinity Map Applicant Property Topography Map Applicant Property 3 Pollocks Branch Relative Location Map Additional Images Views from 2nd Street SE 4 Standard of Review A copy of Sec. 34‐1120(b) (Critical Slopes Regulations) is included as Attachment 3 for your reference. The provisions of Sec. 34‐1120(b) must guide your analysis and recommendations. It is the Planning Commission’s responsibility, when a waiver application has been filed, to review the application and make a recommendation to City Council as to whether or not the waiver should be granted based off the following: i. The public benefits of allowing disturbance of a critical slope outweigh the public benefits of the undisturbed slope (public benefits include, but are not limited to, stormwater and erosion control that maintains the stability of the property and/or the quality of adjacent or environmentally sensitive areas; groundwater recharge; reduced stormwater velocity; minimization of impervious surfaces; and stabilization of otherwise unstable slopes); or ii. Due to unusual size, topography, shape, location, or other unusual physical conditions, or existing development of a property, one (1) or more of these critical slopes provisions would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use, reuse or redevelopment of such property or would result in significant degradation of the site or adjacent properties. If the recommendation is for City Council to grant the requested waiver, the Planning Commission may also make recommendations as to the following: i. Whether any specific features or areas within the proposed area of disturbance should remain undisturbed (for example: large stands of trees; rock outcroppings; slopes greater than 60%, etc.)? ii. Whether there are any conditions that could be imposed by City Council that would mitigate any possible adverse impacts of the proposed disturbance? Project Review and Analysis Each applicant for a critical slopes waiver is required to articulate a justification for the waiver, and to address how the land disturbance, as proposed, will satisfy the purpose and intent of the Critical Slopes Regulations, as found within City Code Sec. 34‐1120(b)(1). In order to grant a waiver, City Council is required to make one of two specific findings: either (1) public [environmental] benefits of allowing disturbance of the critical slope outweigh the benefits afforded by the existing undisturbed slope per City Code 34‐1120(b)(6)(d.i), or (2) due to unusual physical conditions or existing development of a site, the critical slopes restrictions would unreasonably limit the use or development of the property, see City Code 34‐ 1120(b)(6)(d.ii.). The applicant has provided information in the attached critical slopes waiver narrative for Findings #1 and #2. 5 Applicant’s Justification for Finding #1 The applicant states this development is consistent in use and scale with the 2013 Strategic Investment Area (SIA) Plan, an amendment to the 2013 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant states the parcel is designated in the SIA Plan to be mid‐rise multi‐family use, and the proposed development would be the first development along 6th Street SE to realize the SIA Plan. Applicant’s Justification for Finding #2 The applicant states combining the same number of residential units in one building fronting on 6th Street SE (outside of critical slope areas) will require a building double in size. The applicant notes the development increases the City’s housing stock, but a single larger building would not fit in with the surrounding residential area. The applicant also notes the development will provide commercial space and residences in a desirable area, which already reflects a mixed area (Downtown Extended Corridor). Applicant’s Information on Potential Impacts Per Section 34‐1120(b)(1), the purpose and intent of the critical slopes provisions are intended to protect topographical features that have a slope in excess of the grade established and other characteristics for the following reasons and whose disturbance could cause one (1) or more of the following negative impacts. Below is a synopsis of the information provided by the applicant regarding each potential area of impact: A. Erosion affecting the structural integrity of those features: The applicant notes stormwater will be conveyed to Pollocks Branch, reducing run‐off and erosion across adjacent slopes. Retaining walls will be used to minimize the grading of slopes where possible. B. Stormwater and erosion‐related impacts on adjacent properties: The applicant states all run‐off from the site will be conveyed with the exception of two areas, totaling 0.13 acres out of the site total of 0.77 acres. The run‐off from these areas will flow through the adjacent parking lot into a drainage inlet. The stormwater will flow directly into existing stormwater systems, avoiding erosion of the surrounding land. C. Stormwater and erosion‐related impacts to environmentally sensitive areas such as streams and wetlands: The applicant states there are no wetlands or streams on or immediately near this site, as they have been previously undergrounded. The applicant states the critical slopes on the property are based on a previous condition which has been altered by neighboring developments. D. Increased stormwater velocity due to loss of vegetation: The applicant states there will be a loss of vegetation across the site to make way from the buildings and required 6 parking area. To make up for the loss of vegetation over the parking area, a vegetated canopy has been proposed to provide covered parking. E. Decreased groundwater recharge due to changes in site hydrology: The applicant states groundwater recharge from this area will be reduced. The developer is open to working with the City on developing stormwater BMPs such as pervious pavers, although the applicant does not know whether existing soil would be suitable. F. Loss of natural or topographic features that contribute substantially to the natural beauty and visual quality of the community, such as loss of tree canopy, forested areas and wildlife habitat: The applicant states the surrounding area has been highly altered from a native condition, and notes portions of Pollocks Branch have been undergrounded, a commercial building was constructed across 2nd Street SE, and new homes have been intensely altered in the area. Staff Analysis Environmental Department Comments: 1. Efforts should be made to limit the disturbance of critical slopes on site to the maximum extent practicable, and particular care should be taken to minimize or avoid impacts to slopes that are greater than 60%. 2. As the site currently has significant tree canopy coverage (including on the critical slopes) which is largely proposed to be removed, the site will produce significantly more stormwater in the post‐development condition. This additional stormwater should be managed on‐site to avoid impacts to Pollocks Branch, to which the site discharges. Given that Pollocks Branch has significant water quality and quantity challenges, all water quality and quantity requirements associated with site development should be completed on‐site. This includes not claiming the 1% rule for water quantity compliance. If not managed properly on site, this additional stormwater will leave the site with increased velocity and have the potential to cause increased pollutant loading and erosion and sedimentation in Pollocks Branch. 3. The critical slope areas that are proposed to be disturbed that will not have improvements on them should be stabilized with heavy planting of locally native woody and herbaceous vegetation. Engineering Department Comments: A significant area of the critical slopes for the site is 60% or greater. Uncontrolled stormwater runoff over these slopes will likely cause these slopes to erode. The displaced soil will travel to the adjoining property or the public right‐of‐way. Planning Department Comments: The property is zoned Downtown Extended Corridor (DE), for which the intent as stated in Section 34‐541(2) is to encourage an inter‐related mixture of high‐density residential and commercial uses harmonious with the downtown business environment, within developments that facilitate convenient pedestrian and other links to the 7 Downtown area. The proposed development has a residential density of approximately 36 dwelling units per acre (DUA), which is high density per the 2013 Comprehensive Plan. The General Land Use Plan of the 2013 Comprehensive Plan calls for the subject property to be Mixed Use. The Comprehensive Plan describes Mixed Use as zones where the City encourages development of a moderate or high intensity, and where a variety of uses will be permitted, including many commercial uses, residential uses, and some limited research and manufacturing where appropriate. The applicant has indicated (Attachment 1) that 28 one‐ and two‐bedroom multi‐family units are proposed, as well as a commercial component will be included in the building fronting on 2nd Street SE. The applicant has not identified the commercial use but states it will be in line with other businesses in the area. In the previously submitted preliminary site plan, the applicant stated the western building (fronting on 2nd Street SE) will be approximately 49‐feet tall and the eastern building (fronting on 6th Street SE) approximately 38‐ feet tall. The property is designated as Mixed‐Use Urban Corridor (Transect T5) in the Regulating Plan‐ Transect Character Areas (page VI‐4) of the SIA Plan. The Plan states the first floor of buildings should be primarily retail with secondary uses of office and civic space. The SIA Plan states Transect T5 should have low‐ and mid‐rise buildings of approximately four (4) to five (5) stories in height with buildings set close to the sidewalk. The SIA Plan’s Regulating Plan‐ Housing Typologies (page VI‐10) designates the property as mid‐rise multi‐family housing type. The proposed development, as shown, could not be accommodated outside of critical slope areas. A development of similar use and residential density could potentially be accommodated outside of critical slope areas with a different site design. Alternative site layouts may reduce impacts to critical slope areas, but may also impact other development factors such as overall building height or housing affordability. The development must conform to a maximum setback of 15 feet along 6th Street SE per Section 34‐578(b)(1). 2nd Street SE is not listed as a primary or linking street per Section 34‐541(2) and does not have a setback requirement. However, the proposed development does generally conform to the SIA Plan’s guidance for building heights and setbacks. Staff Recommendation The purpose and intent of the critical slope provisions in Section 34‐1120(b)(1) are to protect topographic features whose disturbance may cause negative impacts. Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider the following when making a recommendation to City Council: Erosion affecting the structural integrity of the critical slopes, adjacent properties, or environmentally sensitive areas. Both the Environmental Sustainability and Engineering Departments have expressed concern regarding impacts to the 60% critical slopes areas and subsequent effects on adjacent properties and Pollocks Branch. Erosion and sediment control measures can be conservatively designed to minimize the risk for discharge to the critical slopes 8 remaining on the adjacent parcel. For example, wire reinforced silt fence or super‐silt fence could be prescribed. Stormwater impacts to adjacent properties or environmentally sensitive areas. Both the Environmental Sustainability and Engineering Departments have expressed concern regarding impacts to the 60% critical slopes areas and subsequent effects on adjacent properties and Pollocks Branch. All water quality and quantity requirements associated with site development can be required to be completed on‐site, without claiming the 1% rule for water quantity compliance, to ensure additional stormwater will not leave the site with increased velocity and have the potential to cause increased pollutant loading and erosion and sedimentation in Pollocks Branch. Loss of tree canopy and wildlife habitat that contribute to the natural beauty and visual quality of the community. The site currently has significant tree canopy coverage (including on the critical slopes) which is largely proposed to be removed. In addition, wildlife habitat is likely to be reduced by the clearing of existing mature canopy and understory growth on the site. The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries recommends varying levels of vegetation (herbaceous layer, shrub layer, sapling layer, and canopy) to promote a diversity of species. The planting of locally native woody and herbaceous vegetation can be required to both stabilize remaining slopes and minimize impacts to vegetative canopy and wildlife habitat. Comprehensive Plan and Land Use. The General Land Use Plan of the 2013 Comprehensive Plan calls for the subject property to be Mixed Use. The property is designated as Mixed‐Use Urban Corridor (Transect T5) in the Regulating Plan‐ Transect Character Areas of the SIA Plan. The SIA Plan states Transect T5 should have low‐ and mid‐rise buildings of approximately four (4) to five (5) stories in height with buildings set close to the sidewalk. Per Section 34‐ 1120(b)(6)(d)(ii), the shape and location of the critical slopes may unreasonably restrict the use and development of the subject properties in a manner in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and the SIA Plan. Conditions Per Section 34‐1120(b)(6)(e), City Council may impose conditions upon a critical slope waiver to ensure the development will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the critical slope provisions. Should the Planning Commission find recommendation of the waiver to be appropriate, staff recommends the Planning Commission consider including the following conditions to mitigate potential impacts: Staff recommends City Council require erosion and sediment control measures that exceed minimum requirements in order to mitigate potential impacts to the undisturbed critical slope areas, Pollocks Branch, and adjacent properties during land disturbance activities, per Section 34‐1120(b)(1)(a‐c). Staff recommends City Council condition the use of super silt fence with wire reinforcing and six (6) feet stake spacing to ensure adequate protection of the aforementioned items, to be detailed on the site plan and approved by the Engineering Department prior to final site plan approval. 9 Staff recommends City Council require all water quality and quantity requirements associated with site development be completed on‐site, without claiming the 1% rule for water quantity compliance, in order to mitigate potential stormwater impacts to Pollocks Branch and adjacent properties, per Section 34‐1120(b)(1)(b‐c), to be detailed on the site plan and approved by the Engineering Department prior to final site plan approval. Staff recommends City Council require protection of existing tree canopy and additional habitat redevelopment in order to mitigate potential impacts to existing tree canopy and wildlife habitat per Section 34‐1120(b)(1)(f). Staff recommends City Council condition the installation of a fixed, immoveable barrier to protect root zones of existing trees identified to be preserved on the final site plan at the drip line to remain throughout full completion of the construction, and additional species of native woody and herbaceous plantings in the critical slope areas not to contain buildings, the parking lot, sidewalks, and other built improvements, to be detailed and on the site plan and approved by the Environmental Sustainability Department prior to final site plan approval. Suggested Motions Recommended Motion 1. “I move to recommend approval of the critical slope waiver for Tax Map 27 Parcel 36 based on a finding that the public benefits of allowing the disturbance outweigh the benefits afforded by the existing undisturbed critical slope, per Section 34‐ 1120(b)(6)(d)(i), and due to unusual physical conditions, compliance with the City’s critical slopes regulations would prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use or development of the property, per Section 34‐1120(b)(6)(d)(ii). And this motion for approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Require erosion and sediment control measures that exceed minimum requirements in order to mitigate potential impacts to the undisturbed critical slope areas, tributary stream, and adjacent properties during land disturbance activities, per Section 34‐ 1120(b)(1)(a‐c); use of super silt fence with wire reinforcing and six (6) feet stake spacing to ensure adequate protection of the aforementioned items, to be detailed on the site plan and approved by the Engineering Department prior to final site plan approval. 2. Require all water quality and quantity requirements associated with site development be completed on‐site without claiming the 1% rule for water quantity compliance, in order to mitigate potential stormwater impacts to Pollocks Branch 10 and adjacent properties, per Section 34‐1120(b)(1)(b‐c), to be detailed on the site plan and approved by the Engineering Department prior to final site plan approval. 3. Require a fixed, immoveable barrier to protect root zones of existing trees identified to be preserved on the final site plan at the drip line to remain throughout full completion of the construction, and additional habitat redevelopment in order to mitigate potential impacts to existing tree canopy and wildlife habitat per Section 34‐1120(b)(1)(f); and the installation of additional species of native woody and herbaceous plantings in the critical slope areas not to contain buildings, the parking lot, sidewalks, and other built improvements, to be detailed and on the site plan and approved by the Environmental Sustainability Department prior to final site plan approval. Alternative Motions 2. “I move to recommend approval of the critical slope waiver for Tax Map 27 Parcel 36, as requested, with no reservations or conditions, based on a finding that [reference at least one]:  The public benefits of allowing the disturbance outweigh the benefits afforded by the existing undisturbed critical slope, per Section 34‐1120(b)(6)(d)(i)  Due to unusual physical conditions, or the existing development of the property, compliance with the City’s critical slopes regulations would prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use or development of the property, per Section 34‐ 1120(b)(6)(d)(ii) 3. “I move to recommend denial of the critical slope waiver for Tax Map 27 Parcel 36” Attachments 1. Application and Narrative 2. Critical Slope Exhibit 3. Critical Slopes Ordinance 11 SOILS LEGEND F O PR C OMM O ON FE R SS PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WE EXISTING CONDITIONS AND IO R DEMOLITION SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. NAL E E ALTH OF ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - PROJECT MANAGEMENT V Lic. No. 45183 I V NG 915 Sixth Street IN JUSTIN M. SHIMP E IR EE R GI CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA NI A W O PR C OMM O ON FE PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN R WE GRADING PLAN Lic. No. SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. NAL E ALTH OF ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - PROJECT MANAGEMENT V R 45183 V I 915 Sixth Street F S S IO E NGIN JUSTIN M. SHIMP IR E EE R GI CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA NI A W 5/8/2018 Charlottesville, VA Code of Ordinances Sec. 34-1120. - Lot regulations, general. (a) Frontage requirement. Every lot shall have its principal frontage on a street or place (i) that has been accepted by the city for maintenance, or (ii) that a subdivider or developer has been contractually obligated to install as a condition of subdivision or site plan approval and for which an adequate nancial guaranty has been furnished to the city. Except for ag lots, stem lots, and cul-de-sac lots, or other circumstances described within the city's subdivision ordinance, no lot shall be used, in whole or in part, for any residential purpose unless such lot abuts a street right-of-way for at least the minimum distance required by such subdivision ordinance for a residential lot. (b) Critical slopes. (1) Purpose and intent. The provisions of this subsection (hereinafter, "critical slopes provisions") are intended to protect topographical features that have a slope in excess of the grade established and other characteristics in the following ordinance for the following reasons and whose disturbance could cause one (1) or more of the following negative impacts: a. Erosion a ecting the structural integrity of those features. b. Stormwater and erosion-related impacts on adjacent properties. c. Stormwater and erosion-related impacts to environmentally sensitive areas such as streams and wetlands. d. Increased stormwater velocity due to loss of vegetation. e. Decreased groundwater recharge due to changes in site hydrology. f. Loss of natural or topographic features that contribute substantially to the natural beauty and visual quality of the community such as loss of tree canopy, forested areas and wildlife habitat. These provisions are intended to direct building locations to terrain more suitable to development and to discourage development on critical slopes for the reasons listed above, and to supplement other regulations and policies regarding encroachment of development into stream bu ers and oodplains and protection of public water supplies. (2) De nition of critical slope. A critical slope is any slope whose grade is 25% or greater and: a. A portion of the slope has a horizontal run of greater than twenty (20) feet and its total area is six thousand (6,000) square feet or greater; and b. A portion of the slope is within two hundred (200) feet of any waterway as identi ed on the most current city topographical maps maintained by the department of neighborhood development services. 1/5 5/8/2018 Charlottesville, VA Code of Ordinances Parcels containing critical slopes are shown on the map entitled "Properties Impacted by Critical Slopes" maintained by the department of neighborhood development services. These critical slopes provisions shall apply to all critical slopes as de ned herein, notwithstanding any subdivision, lot line adjustment, or other action a ecting parcel boundaries made subsequent to the date of enactment of this section. (3) Building site required. Every newly created lot shall contain at least one (1) building site. For purposes of this section, the term building site refers to a contiguous area of land in slopes of less than 25%, as determined by reference to the most current city topographical maps maintained by the department of neighborhood development services or a source determined by the city engineer to be of superior accuracy, exclusive of such areas as may be located in the ood hazard overlay district or under water. (4) Building site area and dimensions. Each building site in a residential development shall have adequate area for all dwelling unit(s) outside of all required yard areas for the applicable zoning district and all parking areas. Within all other developments subject to the requirement of a site plan, each building site shall have adequate area for all buildings and structures, parking and loading areas, storage yards and other improvements, and all earth disturbing activity related to the improvements. (5) Location of structures and improvements. The following shall apply to the location of any building or structure for which a permit is required under the Uniform Statewide Building Code and to any improvement shown on a site plan pursuant to Article VII of this chapter: a. No building, structure or improvement shall be located on any lot or parcel within any area other than a building site. b. No building, structure or improvement, nor any earth disturbing activity to establish such building, structure or improvement shall be located on a critical slope, except as may be permitted by a modi cation or waiver. (6) Modi cation or waiver. a. Any person who is the owner, owner's agent, or contract purchaser (with the owner's written consent) of property may request a modi cation or waiver of the requirements of these critical slopes provisions. Any such request shall be presented in writing and shall address how the proposed modi cation or waiver will satisfy the purpose and intent of these provisions. b. The director of neighborhood development services shall post on the city website notice of the date, time and place that a request for a modi cation or waiver of the requirements of these critical slopes provisions will be reviewed and cause written 2/5 5/8/2018 Charlottesville, VA Code of Ordinances notice to be sent to the applicant or his agent and the owner or agent for the owner of each property located within ve hundred (500) feet of the property subject to the waiver. Notice sent by rst class mail to the last known address of such owner or agent as shown on the current real estate tax assessment books, postmarked not less than ve (5) days before the meeting, shall be deemed adequate. A representative of the department of neighborhood development services shall make a davit that such mailing has been made and le the a davit with the papers related to the site plan application. c. All modi cation or waiver requests shall be submitted to the department of neighborhood development services, to be reviewed by the planning commission. In considering a requested modi cation or waiver the planning commission shall consider the recommendation of the director of neighborhood development services or their designee. The director, in formulating his recommendation, shall consult with the city engineer, the city's environmental manager, and other appropriate o cials. The director shall provide the planning commission with an evaluation of the proposed modi cation or waiver that considers the potential for soil erosion, sedimentation and water pollution in accordance with current provisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook and the Virginia State Water Control Board best management practices, and, where applicable, the provisions of Chapter 10 of the City Code. The director may also consider other negative impacts of disturbance as de ned in these critical slope provisions. d. The planning commission shall make a recommendation to city council in accordance with the criteria set forth in this section, and city council may thereafter grant a modi cation or waiver upon making a nding that: (i) The public bene ts of allowing disturbance of a critical slope outweigh the public bene ts of the undisturbed slope (public bene ts include, but are not limited to, stormwater and erosion control that maintains the stability of the property and/or the quality of adjacent or environmentally sensitive areas; groundwater recharge; reduced stormwater velocity; minimization of impervious surfaces; and stabilization of otherwise unstable slopes); or (ii) Due to unusual size, topography, shape, location, or other unusual physical conditions, or existing development of a property, one (1) or more of these critical slopes provisions would e ectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use, reuse or redevelopment of such property or would result in signi cant degradation of the site or adjacent properties. 3/5 5/8/2018 Charlottesville, VA Code of Ordinances No modi cation or waiver granted shall be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, detrimental to the orderly development of the area or adjacent properties, or contrary to sound engineering practices. e. In granting a modi cation or waiver, city council may allow the disturbance of a portion of the slope, but may determine that there are some features or areas that cannot be disturbed. These include, but are not limited to: (i) Large stands of trees; (ii) Rock outcroppings; (iii) Slopes greater than 60%. City council shall consider the potential negative impacts of the disturbance and regrading of critical slopes, and of resulting new slopes and/or retaining walls. City council may impose conditions as it deems necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare and to insure that development will be consistent with the purpose and intent of these critical slopes provisions. Conditions shall clearly specify the negative impacts that they will mitigate. Conditions may include, but are not limited to: (i) Compliance with the "Low Impact Development Standards" found in the City Standards and Design Manual. (ii) A limitation on retaining wall height, length, or use; (iii) Replacement of trees removed at up to three-to-one ratio; (iv) Habitat redevelopment; (v) An increase in storm water detention of up to 10% greater than that required by city development standards; (vi) Detailed site engineering plans to achieve increased slope stability, ground water recharge, and/or decrease in stormwater surface ow velocity; (vii) Limitation of the period of construction disturbance to a speci c number of consecutive days; (viii) Requirement that reseeding occur in less days than otherwise required by City Code. (7) Exemptions. A lot, structure or improvement may be exempt from the requirements of these critical slopes provisions, as follows: a. Any structure which was lawfully in existence prior to the e ective date of these critical slopes provisions, and which is nonconforming solely on the basis of the requirements of these provisions, may be expanded, enlarged, extended, modi ed and/or reconstructed as though such structure were a conforming structure. For the purposes of this section, the term "lawfully in existence" shall also apply to any 4/5 5/8/2018 Charlottesville, VA Code of Ordinances structure for which a site plan was approved or a building permit was issued prior to the e ective date of these provisions, provided such plan or permit has not expired. b. Any lot or parcel of record which was lawfully a lot of record on the e ective date of this chapter shall be exempt from the requirements of these critical slopes provisions for the establishment of the rst single-family dwelling unit on such lot or parcel; however, subparagraph (5)(b) above, shall apply to such lot or parcel if it contains adequate land area in slopes of less than 25% for the location of such structure. c. Driveways, public utility lines and appurtenances, stormwater management facilities and any other public facilities necessary to allow the use of the parcel shall not be required to be located within a building site and shall not be subject to the building site area and dimension requirements set forth above within these critical slopes provisions, provided that the applicant demonstrates that no reasonable alternative location or alignment exists. The city engineer shall require that protective and restorative measures be installed and maintained as deemed necessary to insure that the development will be consistent with the purpose and intent of these critical slopes provisions. (9-15-03(3); 11-21-05; 1-17-06(7); 1-17-12; 7-16-12) 5/5 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT APPLICATION FOR A REZONING OF PROPERTY JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF HEARING: May 14, 2019 APPLICATION NUMBER: ZM19-00001 Staff Report Author: Brian Haluska, AICP Presenter: Matt Alfele, AICP Date of Staff Report: April 29, 2019 Applicant: Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church Applicants Representative: Sue Woodson Current Property Owner: Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church Application Information Property Street Address: 750 Hinton Avenue Tax Map/Parcels #: Tax Map 58, Parcel 161 Total Square Footage/ Acreage Site: Approx. 0.758 acres (33,018 square feet) Comprehensive Plan (General Land Use Plan): Low Density Residential Current Zoning Classification: R-1S Tax Status: Parcels are up to date on payment of taxes. Completeness: The application generally contains all of the information required by Zoning Ordinance (Z.O.) Sec. 34-41. Applicant’s Request (Summary) Sue Woodson of Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church, owners of Tax Map 58 Parcel 161 (“Subject Property”) has requested a rezoning to Neighborhood Commercial Corridor (NCC), with proffers. The Subject Property is currently zoned R-1S and is the location of the Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church. The draft proffer statement dated May 3, 2019 would: • limit the maximum number of residential units on the Subject Property to 15 Page 1 of 11 units • designate at least 4 units as affordable housing units • mandate internal locks within the building for security • limit the amount of commercial space within the project to no more than 1,800 gross square feet as well as limit the types of commercial uses, and • close the existing Hinton Avenue entrance to the property upon issuance of a building permit for the new multi-family structure. Vicinity Map Page 2 of 11 Zoning Map KEY - Yellow: R-1 – Single Family, Low-Density Residential; Orange: R-2 – Two-Family, Low- Density Residential; Magenta: Neighborhood Commercial Corridor (NCC); Red: B-2 - Business 2016 Aerial Page 3 of 11 2013 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map KEY – Maroon: Business & Technology; Purple: Mixed Use; Yellow: Low Density Residential; Red: Neighborhood Commercial Standard of Review City Council may grant an applicant a rezoning request, giving consideration to a number of factors set forth within Z.O. Sec. 34-41. The role of the Planning Commission is and make an advisory recommendation to the City Council, as to whether or not Council should approve a proposed rezoning based on the factors listed in Z.O. Sec. 34-41(a): (a) All proposed amendments shall be reviewed by the planning commission. The planning commission shall review and study each proposed amendment to determine: (1) Whether the proposed amendment conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the comprehensive plan; (2) Whether the proposed amendment will further the purposes of this chapter and the general welfare of the entire community; (3) Whether there is a need and justification for the change; and (4) When pertaining to a change in the zoning district classification of property, the effect of the proposed change, if any, on the property itself, on surrounding property, and on public services and facilities. In addition, the commission shall consider the appropriateness of the property for inclusion within the proposed Page 4 of 11 zoning district, relating to the purposes set forth at the beginning of the proposed district classification. Preliminary Analysis The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject properties to NCC with the stated intent of developing a multi-family residential structure. Under the current zoning, multi-family residential development is not permitted. If rezoned to NCC the subject properties DUA would be: • By-right: 21 dwelling units per acre. • Special Use Permit (per Z.O. Sec. 34-700) permits the applicant to seek up to 43 dwelling units per acre, but the applicant has proposed a proffer to limit the residential density on the Subject Property to 21 dwelling units per acre. NCC zoning would also permit some commercial uses on the property. The applicant has submitted a proffer statement that would reduce the number of commercial uses permitted on the property to: consumer service businesses, general retail, coffee shops and/or small eatery. The total amount of commercial space would be limited to 1,800 gross square feet. Zoning History of the Subject Property Year Zoning District 1949 A-1 Residence District 1958 R-2 Residential 1976 R-2 Residential 1991 R-1A Residential 2003 R-1S Residential Sec. 34-42 1. Whether the proposed amendment conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the comprehensive plan; a. Land Use The applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, as required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(d)(2), is provided in the Comprehensive Plan Analysis section of the proposed rezoning application on Page 5 of the Supplemental Information. The applicant has proffered that non-residential uses – with the exception of day care and educational facilities – shall be limited to 1800 gross square feet. The proffer further explicitly prohibits specific commercial uses. Page 5 of 11 Staff Analysis The 2013 Comprehensive Plan’s General Land Use Plan specifies the Subject Property and the surrounding properties as Low-Density Residential. Low-Density Residential use is designated for areas where the city does not envision density greater than 15 units per acre. The proposed development would be 19.7 units per acre. The Subject Property is bordered by: Direction Zoning District Current Use East R-1S Single-Family Residential South R-1S Single and Multi-Family Residential West R-1S Single-Family Residential North R-1S Single-Family Residential Staff finds the proposed rezoning is not consistent with the City’s Comprehensive General Land Use Plan Map. The proposed residential density exceeds that of the future Land Use Map, and the potential for commercial development is not contemplated by the City’s long-range plan for the area. b. Housing The applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, as required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(d)(2), is provided on Page 5 of the Supplemental Information. Staff Analysis As mentioned in the applicant’s application materials, the proposed rezoning would allow the development of a project that would attempt to meet the City’s Goal of “Quality Housing Opportunities for All”. The proposed project is intended to provide housing for developmentally disabled individuals. Along these same lines, the applicant cites the City’s Goals of growing the City’s housing stock and providing a range of housing options, especially for those presently underserved as Goals the project aims to achieve. City staff concurs with the applicant in this regard, and finds that the proposed project does meet the Comprehensive Plans goals for Housing. c. Historic Preservation & Urban Design The applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, as required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(d)(2), is provided in the Background section of the proposed rezoning application on Page 5 of the Supplemental Information. Page 6 of 11 Staff Analysis The property is not within any of the City’s design control districts. The proposed change would alter the maximum permitted height on the property and setbacks. Currently, the property is permitted a maximum building height of 35 feet. The required side and rear yard setbacks are 50 feet, and the required front yard setback is the average established setback along the street. The current building is non-conforming with regards to setbacks on the Hinton Avenue, Church Street and alley sides of the property. The proposed zoning change would raise the maximum permitted building height to 45 feet. It would reduce the side and rear yard setbacks to 10 feet, eliminate the minimum front yard setback, and impose a 10 foot maximum front yard setback. Several members of the public have raised objections over the increase in allowable footprint and height the rezoning would permit. Staff finds that the increase in the overall volume permitted on the property would be a significant change from the current zoning regulations. 2. Whether the proposed amendment will further the purposes of this chapter and the general welfare of the entire community; The applicant’s own analysis of the development’s furtherance of the general welfare of the entire community is provided in the Project Narrative section of the proposed rezoning application on Page 3. Staff Analysis Staff finds that a zoning change to NCC, could benefit the surrounding community by providing additional residential housing options, including unit types that are not permitted under the current zoning of the property. Additionally, while several members of the public have asked whether another zone might be a better zoning classification in light of the proposed project, staff notes NCC is the zone that enables the proposed use the applicant has submitted in conjunction with the request. 3. Whether there is a need and justification for the change; The applicant has provided information on the factors that led to a request to rezone the subject properties to NCC in the Project Narrative section of their application on Page 3 of the Supplemental Information. Staff Analysis The property currently is zoned for low-density residential development. The applicant has indicated in their proposal the desire for housing for developmentally disabled individuals. The goal of providing residential development, particularly to an underserved population in the community is supported by the Housing chapter of the Page 7 of 11 Comprehensive Plan. 4. When pertaining to a change in the zoning district classification of property, the effect of the proposed change, if any, on the property itself, on surrounding property, and on public services and facilities. In addition, the commission shall consider the appropriateness of the property for inclusion within the proposed zoning district, relating to the purposes set forth at the beginning of the proposed district classification. The location of the subject property is currently served by existing public utilities and facilities. The applicant has provided a narrative statement on adverse effects and mitigation in their application materials on Page 7 of the Supplemental Information. Staff Analysis Any development on the subject properties would be evaluated during site plan review and need to meet all current regulations related to public utilities and facilities. Due to the location of the subject properties, staff believes all public services and facilities would be adequate to support development. The applicant has proffered that the entrance on Hinton Avenue would be closed upon issuance of a building permit for the construction of the multi-family building. This would direct all traffic entering or exiting the parking lot onto Rialto Street. One of the main concerns raised by nearby residents is the amount of parking that is currently housed on-site will be reduced with the proposed expansion, which will in turn increase the demand on on-street parking in the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant notes that the existing parking surface at the church is not striped, and is not sized to be used efficiently as a parking lot, thus yielding just 27 spaces that comply with City standards. Redesigning the parking lot within the site plan process will result in no net decrease in on-site parking that meets City standards. Staff notes that more than 27 cars may be parking in the current lot during periods of high demand. The purpose set forth per Z.O. Sec. 34-541(8) is: “The intent of the Neighborhood Commercial Corridor district is to establish a zoning classification for the Fontaine and Belmont commercial areas that recognize their compact nature, their pedestrian orientation, and the small neighborhood nature of the businesses. This zoning district recognizes the areas as small town center type commercial areas and provides for the ability to develop on small lots with minimal parking dependent upon pedestrian access. The regulations recognize the character of the existing area and respect that they are neighborhood commercial districts located within established residential neighborhoods.” In relation to the purposes set forth at the beginning of the proposed district classification, staff finds the development would meet the intent of the NCC district. Page 8 of 11 Public Comments Received Per Sec. 34-41(c)(2), the applicant held a community meeting on December 3, 2018. Neighborhood concerns gathered from the community meeting are listed below. • The size of the proposed addition would be out of character with the surrounding low- density residential properties. • The multi-family residential units will have HVAC systems that create a noise impact for the surrounding properties. • The potential for commercial activity on the site is an extension of the commercial district beyond the current bounds of the NCC zone and downtown Belmont, which would present a host of impacts in terms of parking and traffic. • The proposed reduction of on-site parking on the property will negatively impact on- street parking availability in the surrounding area. • The minimum required parking under the Zoning Ordinance would not result in adequate parking for the surrounding area. Staff has spoken with several members of the public regarding the request. In staff’s opinion, there appears to be almost unanimous opposition to any commercial activity on the site. Public opinion on the multi-family residential proposal is more varied, with some members of the public supporting a strictly residential development, and other raising opposition to the potential impacts of the increased intensity of the site. Staff has attached several letters from the public to this staff report. Staff Recommendation The application as presented raises an interesting question regarding the weight given to different elements of the Comprehensive Plan when evaluating a rezoning. Opponents of rezonings will often cite the Future Land Use Map in their arguments. The map was approved in 2013 and in many ways mirrors the current zoning of the City. As referenced above, staff finds that this proposal is in conflict with this element of the Comprehensive Plan. The text of the various chapters, however, give the City additional guidance in terms of the vision of the community. As the applicant notes in their presentation, many of the City’s Housing goals reference the need to increase the number of housing units in the City – especially units that are affordable and serve underserved populations. Staff finds that this proposal meets those goals. In addition, the project location offers excellent connections to the surrounding community for residents that may not be able to rely on an automobile for transportation. The site features good pedestrian connectivity via sidewalk to the downtown Belmont commercial area, and the Downtown Mall. As stated above, the site is within walking distance to two of the City’s bus routes. Ultimately, whether or not the residential portion of the project complies with the Comprehensive Plan is based on how City Council chooses to weigh the disparate elements Page 9 of 11 throughout the plan. City staff continually stresses that the Comprehensive Plan is a guide, and that proposals need not comply with all items in the plan to receive approval. In evaluating the proposed residential use, staff weighs more heavily the Housing chapters goals, and supports the potential modification of the zoning of the Subject Property to permit multi- family residential development. The proposal is complicated, however, by the dimensional requirements of the NCC zone. The zone requires buildings sit no more than 10 feet from a primary street, and permits buildings as tall as 45 feet. The applicant has provided drawings of how the proposed new building would look on the site. While the peaked roof would serve to lessen the visual impact of the building somewhat, the building would be out of character with the surrounding properties, including the commercial buildings in the downtown Belmont area, because of the long frontage and minimal setbacks. Additionally, staff finds that the concerns raised by adjacent residents regarding the extension of commercial uses into the 700 block of Hinton Avenue to be a compelling argument against the application. The applicant has stated they do not intend to have any commercial uses in the immediate future, and the application reflects this. The applicant has further stated that the commercial allowance will permit the property owner to meet the needs of the residents, should such a need arise in the future. In fact, the location of the potential multifamily building near existing commercial areas would ideally eliminate the need of the property owner to operate a commercial use. All of these considerations come in light of the prior rezoning of 814 Hinton Avenue. In that rezoning, staff felt that 814 Hinton Avenue was an ideal endpoint to commercial activity along Hinton Avenue. The Subject Property (750 Hinton) is several properties further down Hinton Avenue from 814 Hinton Avenue. Based on the concerns regarding the potential expansion of commercial uses beyond the existing limits of downtown Belmont, and the dimensional requirements of the NCC zone, staff recommends that the application for rezoning be denied. Suggested Motions 1. I move to recommend approval of this application to rezone the subject property from R-1S to NCC, with proffers, on the basis that the proposal would service the interests of the general public and good zoning practice. OR, 2. I move to recommend denial of this application to rezone the subject properties from R-1S to NCC, on the basis that the proposal would not service the interests of the general public and good zoning practice. Page 10 of 11 Attachments A. Rezoning Application Received March 19, 2019 B. Re-Zoning Petition Application Supplemental Information C. Draft Proffer Statement Received May 3, 2019 D. Applicant’s Public Meeting Details, dated December 6, 2018 E. Public Correspondence Received as of May 6, 2019 Page 11 of 11 Rachel’s Haven Apartment Project Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church 750 Hinton Avenue, Charlottesville Re-zoning Petition Application Supplemental Information Rachel’s Haven apartment living, the Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church Rezoning Application Supplemental Information Date: March 18, 2019 Project: Rachel’s Haven Applicant: Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church Owner: Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church Project site: Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church, 750 Hinton Ave., Charlottesville, Va. 22902 Property Zoning: currently R-1s, petition for rezoning to NCC zone Index of Supplemental Information pages Introduction 1 1) Project Brief and Vision Statement 2 2) Project Narrative 3-4 3) Comprehensive Plan Analysis 5-6 4) Impacts on Public Facilities and Infrastructure 7-10 5) Maps 11-16 6) Impacts on Environmental Features 17-21 7) Concept Plan 22-31 End notes Introduction This project is being planned because there is a large need in our community for independent housing for people who are developmentally disabled. It is a renovation and addition of the Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church to provide 15 apartments units. About one third of the units will be rent-supported and will provide independent housing for the developmentally disabled and the balance seen as workforce housing for the city. This project is in alignment with the City’s Comprehensive Plan goals to provide housing for residents of all income levels and for those with disabilities –challenges that would otherwise prevent independent living. 1 Rachel’s Haven apartment living, the Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church 1) Project Brief and Vision Statement  This project is the work of the Charlottesville District of the United Methodist Church. The group that is leading this project across the district consists of about twelve people called the Vision Team. Some of us are clergy; most are not. What we have in common is that we are all volunteers and we all feel God tugging on our hearts about one group in particular. That group is adults with developmental disabilities.  Our desire is to create another housing option for people with developmental disabilities so that they can live safely, meaningfully, and as independently as possible.  Our proposed project on the site of Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church would consist of 15 apartments. Four to six of those apartments could be set aside for people with developmental disabilities. The remaining apartments would be rented to the public. People with disabilities and those without disabilities will live as neighbors to each other.  Our motivation for this project is the shortage of residential options for people with developmental disabilities. Many adults with developmental disabilities live at home with their parents, and so you often have parents in their 60’s, 70’s, or 80’s who are still playing a very active parenting role. All of those parents struggle with the question, “What will happen to my son or daughter when I’m no longer able to provide care?” That is an awful question to have to wrestle with.  Another reason we want to do this project is that people with developmental disabilities are just like the rest of us in that many of them want their own place. They want to live on their own, decorate their own living room, decide what they want for dinner, and decide what they will do today.  We want to do what we can to enable people with developmental disabilities to thrive and live lives that are meaningful to them. While an independent living situation is not suitable or preferred by every person with a developmental disability, for many people with developmental disabilities, an independent living situation best supports a meaningful, fulfilling life.  We see the potential for so much beauty in this project, not just in terms of the architecture, but also in how lives are lived. We intend to foster a sense of community so that the neighbors in the apartments know each other, value each other, and help each other. One neighbor helps the other figure out who to call to dispute a credit card charge, the other neighbor helps carry the groceries in, or reaches the high box on the shelf in the closet.  Having Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church attached to the apartment building adds even more potential for people to know and support each other.  Our Vision Statement: We envision a supportive community where each person feels that his unique gifts and talents are valued and utilized for the good of the community, where each person feels respected and enjoyed, and where each person looks out for his neighbors. We long for a community that is welcoming and safe for all people, including people with developmental disabilities. 2 Rachel’s Haven apartment living, the Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church 2) Project Narrative a. Detailed written statement of the project b. Public need or benefit addressed c. The applicable zoning district classification—how the project satisfies its purpose, intent or objectives Rachel’s Haven—residences serving the diverse needs of Charlottesville’s community a. This project is being planned because there is a large need in our community for independent housing for people who are developmentally disabled. The Charlottesville District of the United Methodist Church began the vision for this project with the guidance of the Heart Havens organization to serve adults with developmental disabilities. There is a desire to advocate for the quality of life and independence for people in this population. The effort here is to empower these adults to live as independently as possible, while receiving the support they need to be successful.i The model they hit upon was a relatively new one. It is to provide adults who have developmental disabilities an apartment that, as much as possible, is just an apartment. There are a few of these types of apartment buildings already in use, challenging these adults to live independently. ii The vision is to build a group of apartments where a significant portion, probably around one-third, are set aside as available to those with developmental disabilities. The Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church wanted to participate in this vision. They saw their education wing underutilized day to day, so they suggested that it could be the location for the apartments. The Hinton Avenue Church was a good candidate because it is such an established part of the Belmont Neighborhood, is a well-placed location for transportation, jobs and services, and, most of all, was a need that the congregation really wanted to support. The added plus was that the balance of the apartments could help serve the need in the Charlottesville community for workforce housing. To make this vision and the apartment project happen here, the current zoning for single family houses needs to change to a zone that provides for multifamily uses. Because the Hinton Avenue Church wants to continue to be a vibrant part of the community it is appropriate that the zoning for the parcel be changed to the Neighborhood Commercial Corridor, or NCC, zone so that the Church can remain on the parcel, as well as the apartments as a mixed use. The majority of downtown Belmont is in the NCC zone. With the zoning change, the proposed project is to renovate a portion of Hinton Avenue Church’s education wing into apartments. There would also be an attached compatible addition that would include apartments, giving the apartment project its own front door and identity, separate from the church. Other components of the project include parking, landscaping and other amenities. The church and the apartments may share the community hall space and kitchen. This allows the space to be well utilized throughout the week, giving the apartment residents a place for communal events, meetings, and shared recreational space. The church plans to continue to function in its current capacity as a community of faith. b. Because service to the needs of the developmentally disabled community is the prime reason for undertaking this project, the church is not interested in undertaking a project based on providing just market rate apartments. That said, this project, as envisioned, will serve a diverse cross section of the public. The Hinton Avenue Church will continue to occupy its place of service within the Belmont Community, much has it has done since the early 20th century. The apartment project will serve developmentally disabled people as well as the larger population with a diversity of abilities. It is seen as fulfilling a public need for workforce housing that is desirable because of its location. From a planning and architectural perspective, it is seen as a positive to enliven a space that might 3 Rachel’s Haven apartment living, the Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church otherwise be vacant. Both the church’s education wing and its parking lot could be enhanced by the provision of the new apartments along with their residents and landscaping. c. The intent of the Neighborhood Commercial Corridor district is to establish a zoning classification for the Fontaine and Belmont commercial areas that recognize their compact nature, their pedestrian orientation, and the small neighborhood nature of the businesses.iii This apartment project, including about 15 units, is seen as contributing to the pedestrian nature of Hinton Avenue (listed as one of the primary streets in the zone). The building addition concept is designed to fit the compact character of the neighborhood, work in concert with the historic adjacent church, and the use fits within the 21 dwelling units per acre provision of the zone. Because it is likely that there are not a large percentage of individual car drivers, the population served is highly dependent on the pedestrian environment for work, activities and for service. This project is seen almost as in a symbiotic relation between its residents and the larger neighborhood—each serving needs that the other has—adding to the “localness” of the life in Belmont. 4 Rachel’s Haven apartment living, the Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church 2) Comprehensive Plan Analysis a. Detailed statement of the project’s consistency with the comprehensive plan b. Land use map and any small area, strategic investment area or other plan for the applicable development area. Value 3 in the Charlottesville Comprehensive Plan 2013, Community Values is for Quality Housing Opportunities for All. “Our neighborhoods retain a core historic fabric while offering housing that is affordable and attainable for people of all income levels, racial backgrounds, life stages, and abilities.”iv It goes on to say that our neighborhoods feature a variety of housing types, including higher density, pedestrian and transit-oriented housing at employment and cultural centers. From the Housing chapter of the Charlottesville comprehensive Plan 2013, Goal 2 is to maintain and improve “housing stock for residents of all income levels.” It seeks to “accommodate the housing needs of low-income households, seniors and those with disabilities.” v It promotes the incorporation of “standards that address visit- ability and live-ability.” And it supports “those with challenges that would otherwise prevent independent living.”vi The main goal of this project, providing independent living for those with developmental disabilities, puts it squarely in line with this goal of Charlottesville’s Comprehensive plan. This project and its required rezoning, specifically seeks to provide housing units that encourage those with developmental disabilities to live as independently as possible. The design of the apartment units and the apartment complex is to have a high degree of accessibility. Units are to include accessible bathrooms, kitchens as well as the other spaces. The building is to include accessible routes to the units and to the amenities (ie. laundry, recreational areas, outdoor landscaped activity and lounge areas, common spaces, etc.). This fits with and goes well beyond the City of Charlottesville’s Comprehensive Plan’s goal for the incorporation of standards that address visit-ability and live-ability. While not specifically targeting low income populations, by providing services and support for the developmentally disabled, this project will essentially provide affordability to people that otherwise find independent housing not only non-affordable, but, beyond that, not available. Also from the Housing chapter, Goal 3 is to grow the city’s housing stock, specifically providing affordable housing, achieving a mixture of incomes and uses in as many areas of the City as possible. It encourages “the creation of new, onsite affordable housing as part of rezoning applications.” It suggests the consideration of the range affordability proposed in rezoning applications, “with emphasis on provision of affordable housing for those with the greatest need. “vii It could be said that the developmentally disabled, who have few if any other options for living a full and independent life, have a great need for housing that they can afford. This rezoning application is being brought to the City of Charlottesville to try to enable the alleviation of this great need in a location where it can be realized and implemented in the most effective way. From the Housing chapter, Goal 7, Design Options, is to offer a range of housing options to meet the needs of Charlottesville’s Residents, including those presently underserved, in order to create vibrant residential areas or reinvigorate existing ones. To the greatest extent feasible, ensure affordable housing is aesthetically similar to market rate. It promotes visit-ability/live- ability features and market inclusion. viii 5 Rachel’s Haven apartment living, the Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church In its design, this project seeks to include the presently significantly underserved population of the developmentally disabled in a building that doesn’t visibly differentiate between the apartments of the developmentally disabled and those that are market rate or serving as workforce housing. The units will include significant visit-ability/live-ability features throughout the building. The project seeks to fit in into its context in its scale, materials and in its design. The Housing chapter, Goal 8, Sustainability practices, encourages mixed-use and mixed-income housing developments. It promotes redevelopment and infill development that supports bicycle and pedestrian-oriented infrastructure and robust public transportation to better connect residents to jobs and commercial activity. ix This project both infills vacant / underused space and provides an adaptive reuse of built fabric that is currently under- or un-used. Its reuse of existing buildings and materials is promoted within the principals of “green building” and will upgrade the energy efficiency of the existing structure. It is very likely that the (developmentally disabled and other) population that will be living in this building will be pedestrians and bicycle riders and public transit denizens before they even think about getting in a single occupancy automobile. The project is pedestrian oriented, with its main door on Hinton Avenue, an accessible route around and within the building, and it has several bike lockers planned. This mixed-use project, and the rezoning to NCC zone that it requires, is in line with the thinking in the City’s Comprehensive plan on the design for and implementation of housing for underserved populations in its housing of the developmentally disabled as well as in its provision of market rate housing. Because of the support that Hinton Avenue Church is providing, as well as the connectivity to the neighborhood and city needed by the residents as described above, this location is critical for the rezoning requested. By allowing for diverse needs and gifts, including those of people with developmental disabilities, we can make ours a more humane City. 6 Rachel’s Haven apartment living, the Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church 3) Impacts on Public Facilities and Infrastructure d. Narrative statement detailing the project’s impacts on public facilities and infrastructure e. Pedestrian facilities/sidewalks f. Transportation facilities i. Bicycle ii. Public transit iii. Motor vehicle g. Storm sewers h. Existing platted rights-of-way which have not previously been improved or accepted by the City for maintenance a. Narrative statement detailing the project’s impacts on public facilities and infrastructure Streets and Alleys: The Hinton Avenue United Methodist (HAUMC) is accessed by City Streets along three of the property boundaries: Church Street (West); Hinton Avenue (North) and Rialto Street (East). There is an unnamed public alley to the South of the property. None of these streets is designated within the Streets That Work Design Guide – though these streets seem to be analogous to a Neighborhood B Street Typology since there are no dedicated bicycle facilities and inconsistent sidewalk provisions. Currently, the HAUMC parking lot is accessed in two locations, from Hinton Avenue and from Rialto Street. As a part of the proposed work, access will be provided only from Rialto Street and the Hinton Avenue entrance will be removed. This decision will eliminate a conflict point between pedestrians walking along the sidewalk and vehicles entering the parking area. Evaluating the Peak Hour Trips based on ITE Trip Generation Data: the Peak our trip increases from 11 Peak Hour Trips (Pre-Redevelopmet) to 20 peak hour trips including the Apartment Units as shown in Figure 1, below. Figure 1 – Trip Generation Data of Proposed Re-Development Utilities: The Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church (HAUMC) is accessed by City Streets and utilities provisions are supplied by public utilities. Within the public Right-of-Way along Hinton Avenue the following public utilities are provided:  City Water  City Sewer  City Gas Currently the existing HAUMC utility connections are all provided from Hinton Avenue and will continue to be as a part of this proposed work. 7 Rachel’s Haven apartment living, the Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church It is noteworthy to express that each of the three (3) City streets which border this parcel: Hinton Avenue, Church Street and Rialto Street have access to public utilities. Furthermore, the public utilities that require a pressure network to operate (Water and Gas) are both shown to exist as a looped network – which allows for a steady pressure and reliable service. The additional utility demands generated by this rezoning petition are not anticipated to have a negative impact on the shared public infrastructure. Figure 2 - Utility Calculations b. Pedestrian facilities/sidewalks Currently – there are pedestrian accommodation adjacent to this property along Church Street (West) and Hinton Avenue (North). As a part of the proposed work a new sidewalk will be provided along Rialto St. (East). Thus pedestrian facilities will be available on all sides of this property (not including the alley). The addition of this sidewalk along Rialto Street supports the Vision of the Streets that Work Design Guide by providing a sidewalk (highest priority) where there currently is none. Also, a previously stated, a vehicular entrance along Hinton Avenue will be removed as a part of this work; thus, a conflict-point between pedestrians walking along the sidewalk will be eliminated. 8 Rachel’s Haven apartment living, the Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church c. Transportation facilities i. Bicycle Currently no bicycle facilities are provided, nor proposed, along Hinton Ave., Church St., or Rialto St. Given the proximity of the project to the Belmont, Downtown, IX, Mainstreet and other nearby districts we anticipate bicycle use by those residing on this property to be high. As such, ten (10) bicycle lockers will be provided with this project. Additionally, the provision of ten (10) bicycle lockers allows this project to claim a parking reduction of four (4) spaces. ii. Public transit The measured distance from the HAUMC property to the nearest Charlottesville Area Transit stop is 289 feet. As a result of this proximity the project seeks to claim a parking reduction of four (4) spaces. iii. Motor vehicle Given the nature of the currently building use: most visitors frequent the property on Sunday mornings. Per Section 34-984 of the zoning code places of worship can count available on street parking within 1,000 feet of the property. Because of this provision – there are approximately 82 on-street parking spaces available within this distance. Alone, more than adequate for the parking demand. However, due to the nature of this rezoning petition and the planned uses of the property the following parking required and provides can be found in Table 1. As can be seen in this table, this project satisfies the requirements for off-street parking based on the planned uses. Given the nature of the adjacent urban neighborhood street network near this parcel and the low increase in peak hour demand of the property we do not anticipate any negative effect of this project on macro- traffic movements and/or congestion. 9 Rachel’s Haven apartment living, the Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church Table 1 – Parking Calculations d. Storm Sewers The parcel is essentially located near the top of a hill. Within the adjacent rights-of-way there are currently no stormwater conveyance systems. The project will need to plan to convey the stormwater discharge (which will be reduced in the post-development condition) to the nearest network which is approximately 350 linear feet away. The improvement will be made within existing Right-of-way and may provide an opportunity for the City to improve their stormwater network as well. e. Existing platted rights-of-way which have not previously been improved or accepted by the City for maintenance (including alleys). Of the four (4) boundaries of the property, three of them (West, North and East) are all improved City Streets. To the South of the property is an existing Alley which is not-improved. The proposed project does not intend any improvements or disturbance to this existing alley. 10 Rachel’s Haven apartment living, the Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church 4) Maps a. Zoning map b. Existing natural conditions c. Existing man-made conditions d. Existing topography e. Neighborhood context –land use 11 GAR RET T ST RA IL R OA D HIN TO NA VE R-2 PROJECT LOCATION ZONING PETITION FOR NCC ZONE DE NCC E TS T HS HS 6T RCU 1/4 MILE ST CH CAR LTO N ON BE LM AV ON AVE TA VE MO NT ICE LLO AV E R-1S BO LLI NG AV E T N BL EN OS ZONING MAP (0.25 MILE RADIUS) HE IM LT 1B 1" = 250' 250 500 AV E RIA 12 GAR RET T ST PROJECT LOCATION RA ZONING PETITION FOR NCC ZONE IL RO AD HIN TON AV E E TS T HS HS 6T RCU ST CH CAR LTO N ON BE LM AV ON AVE TA VE 1/4 MILE T MO OS NT ICE LT RIA LLO AV E BO BL LLI EN NG HE AV IM E AV E N EXISTING NATURAL CONDITIONS MAP (0.25 MILE RADIUS) 2B 1" = 250' 250 500 13 GAR SS SS D PP PP WVWV WM D SS WV PP WV RET D PP D PP WM PP D PP D PP D T ST SS PP D D WM PP SS SS PP SS D D WM WM WM PP D PP D PP D PP PP PP PP SS PP PP PP D D PP WV PP WV SS PP WV PP D PP WM D PP WH D D PP D D WM WM PP PP D WM D WV PP D D D WM PP D PP SS D PP D PP D D SS D PP PP D D PP D PP PP PP PP D WH WV PP WM SS D WM D WV D PP WV WV PP SS PP PP WH WV D PP D WH WV WM D WM PP WM WV PP D D SS PP PP WV D D PP WV PP PP D D PP D D D PP SS D D PP D SS WM WM WM WM D PP WM WM PP D PP WV PP WM WM PP PP D D PP SS D SS PP WM D D PP WH WV D D WM PP PP D PP WM SS WM D SS D WM WM D WV PP PP WV D PP D PP PP WVWV WV D D D PP D D WV D WV PP WH WM WH SS PP D PP WVWV WH PP PP PP PP D WM D D WV PP D WV WM PP D WM SS WV D WM D WM D WV WM WM WH D SS SS WV SS PP D WM PP WM WV WM WM WM WM WMPP WM WH WV PP D PP D PP WM WM PP SS WV WM D D D WM PP PP WH PP D PP PP PP WMWM WMWM WM D PP PP PP D SS WM D SS D PP PPWM SS WM SS D PP SS D PP PP RA D PP PP WM PP D PP D SS WM D PP D SS SS SS PP WM IL D WH PP PP WV D SS D D SS D PP D PP WV PP WH WM WV WM D WM RO D WV WV PP PP PP SS WV D WH SS PP WV WV PP PP WM SS PP PP WV WH PP AD WM SS PP WM WM WM WV PP PP PP WM WM PP PP SS D SS PP SS SS PPWM WM D PP PP PP PP PP PP WM WM D WV PP WV D PP SS WM PP D PP WV PP WM WV D SS WM PP D SS PP PP WM WM PP D PP PP WM PP PP SS PP WV PP PP D PP PP PP D D WM SS D D WM PP D D WV D D PP WM PP PP WH WM WV SS PP WM WV D PP WM WM PP WM WM WM PP D SS D WM SS WM PP PP WH WV WMWM PP WM PP D D PP WMPP WM D WM D SS D WM PP SS PP D PPWM WM PP SS D PP WM WM PP WV WV WM WM PP WM WM WM PP WV WM WM PP PP WM WM PP WM SS WV WH WM WM WM WM WM D WM PP SS WM WM D SS PP WM SS PP HIN WM PP PP PP WM SS D D WM WV WV WM SS PP TO WM PP WM WM PP WM WM PP WV PP PP WV D PP SS D D SS WM D WH SS SS WM SS WM WV D WM WM WM WV NA D WM D SS WH PP D WM PP WH WM PP VE D WM PP WM SS D WM D D WV WH WM SS WM WV PP PP WM WM PP PP WM SS D WM WM PP D SS PP WM WM PP D D PP SS WM SS WM WM WM WM PP SS PP SS WM SS WM SS SS PP WM PP PROJECT LOCATION WH D WV WV PP WV D WM D PP PP D SS PP PP WM WM PP WV D WM SS D WM D PP PP WM D PP WM ZONING PETITION FOR NCC ZONE D D WM WM WM WM SS WM WM PP PP D WMPP WM WM D SS WM D D D WM PP SS WM PP WM PP D WM WM WM WM WM WH PP PP WM SS WM WM WV WM PP PP WM SS PP PP WM PP WV WV PP WM WM WM WM D PP PP D WM WM PP WM WM WM WM SS PP PP D PP PP SS WM WM WM WH WM WM WM WM WM PP WV WM WH PP SS SS WV WV WM WM WM PP WM WM WM SS WM SS PP WM WM PP SS PP WM PP PP WM PP WM WM WV PP PP WV PP PP WM PP WM PP D PP SS PP WM PP PP WM D SS PP WM WV WV WH PP D WV SS PP WV PP D WH WVA SS PP D PP WM WV WH WV SS WV PP SS D WM WM PP PP WM WM PP PP D D WV WM WV PP WM WM WM PP WM WM WM PP D PP WM WM WH D WM WM WM D WM WM PP PP PP PP WM D SS WM WM WM WM WM PP PP SS WM PP D PP WM PP PP WM PP PP PP WM WV WM WM PP WM PP WM WM SS D SS D PP WM PP SS SS WM WM WM PP SS SS WM WM WM WM PPWM PP E WMD PP WM PP PP SS D PP PP WM D PP WM PP PP SS WV D WM WM D PP D WM WM PP WM PP SS D TS D SS WM WM WM D WM D PP WM WM D WM D WV WM WM WM D D WV PP WV PP PP WM WM PP PP PP PP WH WM HS WM ST PP WM WM WM SS WM WM D WV PP D WM WM PP SS SS PP D SS WM PP PP 6T PP D PP PP D WM CH PP D PP D D WV D WH WM PP WVWV PP PP PP PP WM WM WV SS UR SS D WM PP WM PP SS PP D PP WM WH WM WV SS WM SS D WM D WV PP PP WM WV WM WM PP WM SS CH D D WV WV D PP D D PP WM WM PP WV PP WV D PP D PP WM WM ST D WV WM WM WM SS PP WV WV WM PP PP D WM CAR WH WM PP WV WVA D PP D WM WM PP L WM WM PP WM WM PP WM PP PP WM PP PP TON D WM PP PP WM PP ON WM WM WM PP WM WM WM PP SS PPWM SS WM WM PP WM BE D PP PP PP PP D WM WM WM WM WM AV D SS WM PP PP PP WM LM PP WM SS WM SS WM SS WM WM SS WM PP PP WM PP WMPP SS PP WM PP ON PP SS PP PP AVE D PP WM WM WM WM WM WM WM PP WM WM WM WM WM D WM WM PP TA WH PP WM D PP WH WV WM WM WM SS WM WM PP SS WV WM VE PP WV SS WM SS PP PP WV WM D WM WMPP WM D PP WM WM D SS WH WM PP D D WM PP WM PP WM SS PP WV WV PP D WH WM PP WM WM WV SS WM WM WM PP D D PP PP PP D WM WM D WV PP SS WH WV PP WV PP WM WM WM WM PP D WH D WM WM PP PP PP D D PP WV SS SS PP PP PP D D WV PP SS WV D D PP SS WM WM PP 1/4 MILE PP WV WV PP SS PP SS WV WM SS WM WV PP PP WV WV PP WM WM D PPWH WM WM PP WV WM SS SS WM WM WM WM PP WM WM WM WM WM PP D WM WM WM D WMPP D WM PP PP WM PP PP D WM PP WM PP PP PP WM PP PP WH PP T WM WM WM WV WM WM SS WM PP WM WM WM WM WM WV WM WM WM PP WM WM D PP WM SS PP WM WM WM WM PP WV PP WM OS WM SS D PP WM PP PP WM PP MO SS WM PP WM WM WM SS PP WM SS SS WM WM LT NT WM SS WM WM PP PP PP D WM PP PP WM WM PP WM WM WM PP PP ICE PP WM WM WM WM PP PP SS PP WM WM WM WM RIA PP WM WM WM LLO WM WMPP WM PP WM WM WV WM WM SS WM PPWH WM PP WV WM PP WM AV PP PP PP D PP PP WM E D PP WM WM PP WM D WM D WM WM SS WM PP WM D WM WM PP WM PP WM WV PP D WH D WM WM PP WV WM WM D WV WH D D D WM WM PP PP PP PP PP SS D D WM D D WM WM WM PP PPD WM WM WV SS PP WV WM D WV D SS D WV WV D PP WH PP WV WM D PP WV PP PP D WM WVSS WM PP WM D D WV PP PP PP D D WV PP WV WV WM PP WM WH BL WM PP WM D PP WM WM D PP WM PP PP EN PPWM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM SS WM WM PP WM WM WM WM WM PP SS HE WM PP WM PP PP SS WM WM WM IM WM SS PP WM WM PP WM WM WM PP SS WM WM AV BO PP PP D WM WM PP PP WM WM PP E PPWM WM PP WM D WM SS LLI WM PP WV PP D PP WM PP PP NG WM PP WH D WV PP WH SS WM PP WM WM WM WM WM WM AV SS WVWM PP WV SS PP WM PP WM WM WM WM WM E WM WM WM PP PP WM PP WM WM PP WM SS WM PP SS WVA D WM WM WM SS PP WM WM WM SS PP SS WM WM WM D PP PP WM WM PP WM WM WM WM PP WV PP WM PP D WH WM WM WM WM D WM WMPP PP WV D WM WM WM PP D PP WM WM WH WM WV D SS D PP WVA PP WV WV D SS D WM WH PP PP D WV SS PP WV SS PP PP PP WM D WM D WV PP WM SS WV D SS PP WH WM SS WV WM WV D SS PP SS SS WM WM WM WM PP WV PP SS PPWM SS WM PP WM PP WM WM PP SS D D PP WM PP PP SS WM D PP WM PP WM WM PP PP WM D WMPP WM PP WM WM WM WM WM WM WM D WM WM WM WM PP WM WVD SS PP WM WM D PP WM PP SS WM PP PP PP PP PP WM WM WM WM WM PP WM WM PP WM WM WM WM WM WM WM N EXISTING MAN-MADE CONDITIONS MAP (0.25 MILE RADIUS) 3B 1" = 250' 250 500 14 PROJECT LOCATION ZONING PETITION FOR NCC ZONE 1/4 MILE N EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY MAP (0.25 MILE RADIUS) 4B 1" = 250' 250 500 15 PROJECT LOCATION ZONING PETITION FOR NCC ZONE 1/4 MILE N LAND USE PLAN (0.25 MILE RADIUS) 5B 1" = 250' 250 500 16 Rachel’s Haven apartment living, the Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church 5) Impacts on Environmental Features a. Trees b. Existing pervious surfaces c. Steep slopes d. Streams Appendix: photos of features a. Trees Several existing native dogwood trees, an existing Korean Dogwood, and several rose bushes will be removed to support the proposed work. These plants appear in the current areas buffering the parking area from Rialto Street and Hinton Avenue. Other than the rose bushes, the planting layer beneath the low existing trees consists of lawn. In accordance with the City’s screening requirements, the proposed plan will provide additional native canopy, medium sized, understory, evergreen trees and shrubs. Interior planting associated with the parking lot will be included as well. Currently, the parking area exists as one expansive space of impermeable paving. The new parking area will include a planted median which is also proposed as a rain garden-like area that will receive stormwater runoff. The proposed planting screen will be more dense and diverse than the existing conditions in its scale and type of plants. The scheme will introduce more native plantings as well as evergreens into the buffer screening and include ground plane plantings other than lawn to aid in screening from the streets and adjacent properties b. Existing pervious surfaces Surface coverage of the site can be described as follows: Existing Impervious Cover: 22,893 SF (70%) Existing Pervious Cover: 9,978 SF (30%) Proposed Impervious Cover: 25,751 SF (78%) Proposed Pervious Cover: 7,120 SF (22%) As can be seen from this break-out the percent pervious cover on the site is reduced by 8% or, 2,630 SF. However, given the implementation of Runoff Reduction Strategies associated with the Stormwater Management Plan, the effective Impervious Cover will be reduced by some percentage. c. Steep slopes In several select locations near the perimeter of the site there are steep slopes, according to City GIS topographic data. As can be seen from Figure 1, below, the only steep slopes to be impacted are adjacent to the proposed parking area and these slopes will be lessened as a result of the proposed grading scheme. The resulting on-site steep slope disturbance is estimated at 772 SF. However, upon visual inspection of the site these “steep slopes” appear to be the result of a retaining wall which the GIS contours could not accurately reflect. 17 Rachel’s Haven apartment living, the Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church See Photograph 3 See Photograph 1 See Photograph 2 Figure 3 - d. Streams There are no streams on, or near, the parcel. 18 Rachel’s Haven apartment living, the Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church Appendix: photos of features 19 Rachel’s Haven apartment living, the Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church Photograph 1 – Elevation of Subject Property looking southward across Hinton Avenue Photograph 2 – Looking at Existing retaining wall at the corner of Hinton Avenue and Rialto St. 20 Rachel’s Haven apartment living, the Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church Photograph 3 - Looking at Existing Entrance at the corner of Hinton Ave. and Church St. 21 Rachel’s Haven apartment living, the Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church 6) Project concept plan First floor plan schematic Second floor plan schematic Exterior elevations schematic Exterior elevations schematic Site concept plan Site perspective Northeast view of the building-schematic North view of the building-schematic Northwest view of the building-schematic 22                                                  23                                      24                  25                  26 Rachel’s Haven Apartment Project Schematic March 18, 2019 27 Rachel’s Haven Apartment Project Schematic March 18, 2019 28    Northeast View of the Building   Rachel’s Haven Apartment Project     Schematic March 18, 2019   29    North View of the Building   Rachel’s Haven Apartment Project     Schematic March 18, 2019   30    Northwest View of the Building   Rachel’s Haven Apartment Project     Schematic March 18, 2019   31 Rachel’s Haven apartment living, the Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church End Notes i Heart Havens website http://www.hearthavens.org/services/group-homes/ ii For one regional example see the Faison Residence website https://www.faisonresidence.net/ iii Code of the City of Charlottesville, Chapter 34 Zoning, Art.VI Mixed use corridor districts, Sec. 34-541. Mixed use districts— intent and description, (8) Neighborhood Commercial Corridor district. https://library.municode.com/va/charlottesville/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CO_CH34ZO_ARTVIMIUSCODI_DIV1GE_ S34-541MIUSDINTDE iv Charlottesville Comprehensive Plan 2013, Community Values, p.2 http://www.charlottesville.org/home/showdocument?id=35055, italics by the author. v HAC Housing Policy 1 Objectives for Use of Affordable Housing Funds And Criteria/Priorities for Award of Funds includes in its Target Populations the “Special Needs Population.” p.2, http://www.charlottesville.org/home/showdocument?id=12131 , italics by the author. vi Charlottesville Comprehensive Plan 2013, Housing, p. 2 http://www.charlottesville.org/home/showdocument?id=35049 , italics by the author. vii Ibid, p. 3 viii Ibid, p. 7 ix Ibid, p. 7 32 PROFFER STATEMENT May 2, 2019 Before the City Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia In re: Petition for Rezoning Petition by Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church Project Name: Rachel's Haven City of Charlottesville Rezoning Application No.: ZM19-00001 Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial Corridor ("NCC") zoning district RECITALS WHEREAS, Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church is the owner of real property described as Lots 1 through 7 of Block 12 in the Belmont Subdivision, being located at 750 Hinton Avenue in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia and further described in the tax records of the City of Charlottesville as Tax Parcel Number 580161000 (the "Subject Property"); and WHEREAS, Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church (the "Applicant") has petitioned for rezoning of the Subject Property to the Neighborhood Commercial Corridor ("NCC") zoning district with associated proffers; NOW THEREFORE, the Applicant as owner of the Subject Property hereby proffers and agrees that if the Subject Property is rezoned as requested, the Subject Property shall be subject to, and the Applicant and all others as may be in legal possession of the Subject Property or any portion thereof shall abide by, the following conditions: 1. Residential Density: No more than 15 dwelling units shall be permitted on the Subject Property. 2. Affordable Housing: A minimum of four residential units within a multifamily dwelling building shall be restricted to residents with income at 80 percent or less of area median income ("AMI") as defined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Charlottesville Virginia Metro Area. 3. Resident Safety: Access to all interior common areas serving residential units shall be controlled through the use of entry locks. 4. Uses: All non-residential uses other than educational facilities (non-residential) and day care facilities, which are not accessory to a house of worship located on the Subject Property, shall be limited to a maximum total of 1800 square feet gross floor area. The following uses shall not be permitted on the Subject Property: a. Bowling Alleys b. Tennis Club 1 of 2 c. Swimming Club d. Skating Rinks e. Full-service and fast food restaurants provided a single coffee shop or similar small eatery not exceeding 900 square feet gross floor area may be permitted f. Drive through windows (for any use) g. Consumer service businesses exceeding 900 square feet gross floor area h. General and convenience grocery stores i. Pharmacies j. Retail stores exceeding 900 square feet gross floor area k. Medical and pharmaceutical laboratories l. Banks 5. Access: Permanent vehicular ingress and egress to the Subject Property shall be restricted to Rialto Street, provided that this restriction on vehicular access shall not take effect until such time as a building permit is issued for construction of any multifamily building. The City may require any site plan for any multifamily building proposed on the Subject Property to adhere to the vehicular ingress and egress limitation under this condition. The Applicant stipulates and agrees that use and development of the Subject Property shall be in conformity with the conditions stated hereinabove, and that said conditions shall run with the land and be binding on the Applicant as landowner, and the Applicant's successors-in-interest, until such time as the conditions may be amended or removed by further legislative action of the City Council of the City of Charlottesville in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charlottesville. Respectfully submitted this _____ day of ____________, 2019 Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church, Applicant By: ______________________________ Title: ______________________________ 2 of 2 May 6, 2019 Dear Planning Commissioners, I am writing regarding the re‐zoning application by the Hinton Ave Methodist Church to change their property from R‐1S to NCC. I have lived in the Belmont Carleton neighborhood for over 15 years, have been an active member of the BCNA and was recently reelected to the BCNA board. That disclosed, I am not writing you as a BCNA board member but rather as a concerned resident and property owner of a house on Belmont Avenue. Below are my thoughts and concerns. The vision of the church is laudable and seems to align with needs for housing of a variety of occupant types. I support the church’s mission, but I have great concern about changing zoning for this property to NCC. If another residential zoning type does not work and NCC is the only avenue possible, I could support NCC re‐zoning if the proffer statement excluded more uses, but also limited zoning‐controlled aspects of the building envelope to mitigate impact and to better work with the surrounding residential area. The church is on a prominent site, adjacent to the historic Belmont farmhouse (mansion), at the peak of a hill, and on a significant corridor into Belmont Carleton Neighborhood; the site is not in the commercial, restaurant “Downtown” part of Belmont. These features of the site mean that development allowed by NCC, which reduces setbacks (an especially significant impact along Hinton Avenue, a major pedestrian route through Belmont and to Clark School) and extends the allowable building height beyond the limits of the current zoning and existing building, will have a significant impact on the residential character and pedestrian experience. Below are additional proffered limits that would help mitigate NCC zoning impact for this project: 1. Building envelope to be more consistent with existing neighborhood:  Minimum setbacks to match existing building setbacks along Hinton Ave and use R‐1S or existing building setbacks for other sides, whichever is smaller.  Maximum height to match the existing building: eave for new sloped roof, existing parapet for new flat roof. (I believe this could still allow for a 3‐story building with proposed courtyard concept design) 2. Additional uses to add to those already excluded through the revised proffer to allow quiet, low impact (environmental, traffic, parking, hours of operation, etc.), non‐residential uses and excludes all food/drink related uses:  Non‐residential uses: General and Misc. Commercial to exclude: o Art Studio that produce noise, fumes, hazardous and food waste at any time, traffic/parking needs before 8am, after 5pm (Are these impossible to proffer? If so, proffer all.) o Art workshop that produce noise, fumes, hazardous and food waste at any time, traffic/parking needs before 8am, after 5pm (Are these impossible to proffer? If so, proffer all.) o Bakery wholesale o Catering business o Clinics: any over 1,000 sqft gross and that produce noise, fumes, hazardous and food waste at any time, and traffic/parking needs before 8am, after 5pm (Are these impossible to proffer? If so, proffer all.) o Communications Facilities o Data centers Page 1 of 2 May 6, 2019 oEducational for Artistic Instruction over 1,000 sqft gross and that produce noise, fumes, hazardous and food waste at any time, and traffic/parking needs before 8am, after 5pm (Are these impossible to proffer? If so, proffer all.) o Offices: that produce noise, fumes, hazardous and food waste at any time, and traffic/parking needs before 8am, after 5pm (Are these impossible to proffer? If so, proffer all.) o Recreational facilities: that produce noise, fumes, hazardous and food waste at any time, and traffic/parking needs before 8am, after 5pm (Are these impossible to proffer? If so, proffer all.) o All Restaurant o Technology‐based business: that produce noise, fumes, hazardous and food waste at any time, and traffic/parking needs before 8am, after 5pm (Are these impossible to proffer? If so, proffer all.) o Transit facility  Non‐residential uses: Retail to exclude: o Consumer Service Businesses under 900 sqft gross not related to the church or special needs housing function and that produce noise, fumes, hazardous and food waste at any time. o Grocery stores o Pharmacies o Other retail stores  Non‐residential: Industrial exclude all I have additional thoughts, but I am not sure they can be mitigated through zoning and proffers:  Mechanical noise: provide acoustical screen for any new rooftop mechanical equipment from adjacent neighbors.  Site lighting: provide controls on building perimeter and parking lot lighting to prevent site lighting from spilling onto neighbor’s property and align with dark sky principles. (Maybe occupancy sensors and significant year‐round vegetative screening could be implemented at parking lot to diminish impact on Hinton, Rialto and alley neighbors.)  Trash & recycling management: provide a system that does not put trash & recycling bins on the street or sidewalk except on pickup days and limits pickup days to once a week, as typical for residential neighborhood. In summary I feel the re‐zoning application including the revised proffer statement (based on Proffer Analysis received 5/4/19 from Brain Haluska’s) does not adequately mitigate impacts on the existing residential neighborhood. In addition, this re‐zoning conflicts with a justification made by the City when re‐zoning 814 Hinton to NCC, that 814 Hinton created a better zoning line/buffer between R‐1S and NCC, and thus this re‐zoning has the feel of spot zoning. I greatly appreciate the care you are taking to shape the future of our neighborhoods and the service you provide the city. Thank you for your consideration of these concerns. Sincerely, Julia Williams 751 Belmont Avenue Charlottesville VA, 22902 (434)531‐2570 Page 2 of 2 Dear Members of the Planning Commission for the City of Charlottesville, I write today as a 20 year neighbor (across the street) of the Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church concerning the proposed change from the current R1S zoning to the possible designation of NCC. Let me start by saying that we have loved having the Church as neighbors. The congregation takes great pride in it's appearance and are a lovely group of individuals as are the many groups that use the church on a regular basis for meetings. The primary concern does NOT lie in the church's plan to provide a affordable housing for developmentally disabled individuals, though I do have several concerns about the specifics of how this will be accomplished with the current plan that I would still like to discuss, but rather with the specific zoning designation the church seeks to gain. None of the immediate Belmont neighbors or nearby residents can deny the changes, good and bad, that the restaurants and businesses in the downtown Belmont area have brought to our desirable area of Charlottesville. The traffic, noise, litter, and parking issues have been many. Personally, my vehicle has been struck 3(!) times while parked outside my home, two of which have caused my car to be TOTALLED. It has also had windows broken into twice to search for valuables. I did not have a single incident prior to these restaurants and businesses moving to the area. The concern I have with the NCC zoning designation is that, while we believe the church to be serving an important need in earnest, should they elect not to move forward now or in the future with said planned project, any number of large scale commercial enterprises could find that spot to be ripe for development thereby changing the quality of life for the surrounding homes indefinitely. I remember the change in zoning on the 800 block of Hinton when Southern Crescent came along and while concerns were raised about similar issues then, there seemed to be more of an effort to be clustering the commercial businesses and restaurants to a clearly defined area. The same can not be said for jumping the intersection at Rialto and Hinton where all but one home on the 700 block of Hinton is owner occupied, many of which housing very young children. In the 20 years that we have loved living on Hinton Ave, we have watched the demographic change drastically from rental/investment properties with a huge amount of deferred maintenance to largely owner occupied homes filled with families of young children who are investing in improvements to their homes in favor of putting down roots and living in a walkable residential neighborhood with character rich older homes. All but one home on the 700 block of Hinton is owner occupied and modifying the parcel that the church occupies to NCC does not seem in keeping with the idea of being "harmonious with it's surroundings". Despite the fact that the restaurants are only one block down the hill, most patrons find the 800 block farther than they'd like to park except for on prime weekends. While it can be very attractive to have the ability to walk to great businesses nearby, the idea that they are clustered together makes so much more sense. No one moved to this neighborhood to have business dotted throughout in between homes and allowing a NCC zoning change has the very real potential for that in the future. In my opinion that would be terribly detrimental to the quality of life in Belmont. The project the Church is seeking doesn't even conform to what the NCC designation provides. It's very clear that a zoning modification for a multifamily residence is much more appropriate. I urge you to consider the negative changes that NCC zoning could make to the residential area of Belmont and to deny the request to allow the commercial encroachment to continue. It seems to me, and many of my neighbors, that modifying the zoning to something more like R-3 (multi-family) would satisfy both the intended uses for the church at present day and would protect the nearby residents from further impacts that commercial spaces may create. While there seem to be some R3 requirements that are not contained in the church's current proposal, perhaps there could be some exceptions made. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Grier Murphy Dear Missy, As a resident of Belmont for 11 years and as a parent of 2 children at the International School of Charlottesville, I have some real concerns for the proposed zoning for the Hinton Avenue Methodist Church. The church and all that it offers has been an ideal community partner for as long as I have been here. It does not create traffic, it serves many important uses to the community (including the school, the church, meeting space and a clothes closet). That said, I have many concerns about changing the property to NCC zoning, especially as it is proposed now. The proposal is way too open, allows for too many and undefined uses, and I worry that there is no effort to mitigate impact on the neighborhood and to work well with the Belmont residents. We moved to Belmont from NYC because we wanted a vibrant, colorful and mixed use place to live. However, the recent growth seems unbridled and we residents are suffering the consequences. Traffic and noise levels have increased tremendously and with a new development on that important corner, I fear that traffic and chaos will only increase. We do NOT want Belmont to become an extension of the Downtown Mall. We are asking for your help in deciding to have mindful growth for Belmont. If we do not make wise choices, we will lose the essential character that is key to Belmont. Thank you for all that you do and please make wise decisions for our future. Best, Emmie Wright Dear Ms. Creasy, As a resident of 711 Hinton Avenue, I was excited by the initial redevelopment plans for the Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church at 750 Hinton Avenue, as presented at a community meeting in, I believe, the spring of 2018. It was my understanding then that their intention was to create approximately 15 units of higher density housing to serve primarily lower-income and developmentally disabled citizens. In spite of some myopic concerns expressed by some neighbors about parking pressures that that redevelopment plan might create on Sunday mornings and some weekday evenings when the church is especially active, I supported that initiative whole-heartedly as one that would help address some important housing, equity, and environmental needs in our Charlottesville community. Regarding the modified proposal to include retail space in the redevelopment, however, I have considerably more concerns around traffic, parking, and safety, which I will share, along with a couple of potential stipulations that could help alleviate those concerns. First, within a two block vicinity, a very high percentage of homes is occupied by families with children, and on the north side of Hinton Avenue, children ranging in age from 5-18 live in five consecutive residences from 709 Hinton through 717, and several more who live on the 600-800 blocks of Belmont Avenue and frequently come to and cross Hinton Avenue at the intersection of Church Street and Hinton Avenue. With the street being the primary main artery into the downtown Belmont area, and traffic calming measures currently in place on the 700-800 block of Hinton Avenue, little wiggle room remains for additional and perhaps considerable everyday traffic and parking pressures likely to be created by possible retail business. Already, neighbors who park on the north side of the street across from the church have on multiple occasions over the years had their parked cars hit by passing vehicles. Whether the retail spaces were positioned along Rialto, Hinton, or Church, parking adjacencies for those businesses would be very tight and/or very hard to come by. And in a neighborhood with so many children and in an era of so much distracted driving, I think safety for all could become a very legitimate concern in this scenario. I offer two suggestions as potential solutions for consideration. First, perhaps the zoning for the building parcel under consideration could be altered to an R3 high-density residential designation rather than the mixed-use zoning currently being sought. Alternatively, if businesses were to be allowed within the new zoning designation, I wonder if it would be possible to at least discourage vehicular flow in favor of foot-traffic by establishing new restrictive parking codes that would allow only neighborhood residents or drivers with legally designated disabilities to park anywhere on the 700-800 blocks of Hinton Avenue, Church Street, and Rialto Street during the hours in which the businesses would be open, thus incentivizing the kinds of alternative modes of transportation that our city ought to be encouraging to reduce environmental impacts, traffic congestion and safety hazards, and promote public health through increased walking and bicycling. I thank you and the entire team at NDS for your always very conscientious and capable work to promote thoughtful, sensible, and informed development and building in our community. If any of my concerns or suggestions are unclear and it would be helpful for me to elucidate, please just let me know. Sincerely, Eric Anderson Dear Missy, My wife and I have been residents of Belmont for 11 years and are parents of 2 children. I have some concerns for the proposed zoning for the Hinton Avenue Methodist Church. The proposal is way too open and allows for too many undefined uses. Development isn't bad. What doesn't work which we have all seen in the last several years is not having a clearly communicated plan that is enforced. We are asking for your help in deciding to have mindful growth for Belmont. Thank you for all that you do and please make wise decisions for our future. Best, Jon Wright, CFA Managing Director Missy- I just wanted to drop you an email with a few of my thoughts about the rezoning for the church on Hinton Ave. I'll be brief, since I know how long days can be in the digital world. I've lived at 733 Hinton for sixteen years, and have seen things change quite a bit. I fear my words won't make any difference based on recent years. In any case, I am opposed to the rezoning for many reasons. My top reason is that once an area has been rezoned for business, there is absolutely no doubt that more will follow, and the residential community will fade away. I'm sure others will point out the numerous concerns. Noise from people, vehicles, HVAC, and early morning trash service. Lights on the building and within the units remove the feeling of a residential area. Several dozen new cars driving down a small road where people walk their dogs in the morning will cause unease, along with people that choose to park on the road, honk horns when picking someone up, or emergency vehicles having to deal with issues at a higher density building. Turning Hinton into another dark Main Street tunnel. As I said, I’m sure others will be speaking up, so I’ll stop. I’ll be attending the meeting next week. From what I have heard I’ll have three minutes to speak. I won’t take that long, but I am glad I get a chance to speak my thoughts. Raman Pfaff Dear Planning Commission, We are the Lorenzonis. We have lived across the street from the Hinton Avenue Methodist Church since 2000. We are fortunate to have them as our neighbors. We realize the Congregation has had to find ways to sustain the Church. We are supportive of the concept of affordable housing and feel it would be a nice addition to our community. At the same time, we are very concerned with the request to alter the zoning to Neighborhood Commercial Corridor. Any possibility of adding more commercial activity to this part of Belmont would "tip the balance" to a historic neighborhood that has had to already digest a large influx of commercial activity in recent years. Our concern goes beyond parking, traffic, noise. It is the character of the neighborhood that is in jeopardy. Belmont is a very unique part of our city, in large part because the sensitive balance of commerce to residences. If this property were to eventually incorporate any commercial activity, that balance would be lost. Please carefully consider this. Thanks for your consideration. Peter, Cari, and Roman Lorenzoni CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT APPLICATION FOR A REZONING OF PROPERTY JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF HEARING: May 14, 2019 APPLICATION NUMBER: ZM18-00003 Project Planner: Matt Alfele Date of Staff Report: May 2, 2019 Applicant: Belmont Station, LLC Applicants Representative: Charlie Armstrong (Belmont Station, LLC) Current Property Owner: Belmont Station, LLC Application Information Property Street Address: 100 – 109 Keene Ct., 304 -306 Flint Dr., and 306 Camellia Dr. Tax Map/Parcels #: Tax Map 20-259.31, TMP 20-259.32, TMP 20-259.33, TMP 20-259.34, TMP 20-259.35, TMP 20-259.38, TMP 20-259.37, TMP 20-259.26, TMP 20-259.27, TMP 20- 259.28, TMP 20-259.29, TMP 20-259.30, and a portion of TMP 20-196. The Subject Property has frontage on Flint Drive (the unimproved portion) and Keene Court (unimproved), and is accessible by stub-outs on Longwood Drive and Moseley Drive. The entire development contains approximately 9.81 acres or 427,323 square feet. Total Square Footage/ Acreage Site: Approx. 9.81 acres (427,323 square feet) Comprehensive Plan (General Land Use Plan): Low Density Residential Current Zoning Classification: R-1S Tax Status: Parcels are up to date on payment of taxes. Completeness: The application generally contains all of the information required by Zoning Ordinance (Z.O.) Sec. 34-41 and (Z.O.) Sec. 34-490. Other Approvals Required: Critical slopes waiver (P19-00013); as part of the PUD application. The vacation of Keene Court and Flint Drive from City Council. Page 1 of 23 Comp Plan Land Use Goal: he ity’s omprehensive lan and and se ap calls for the area to be used and developed for low density residential uses. Low density residential in the Comprehensive Plan is defined as single or two-family housing types with a density of no greater than 15 DUA. !pplicant’s Request (Summary) he proposed  evelopment lan is titled “ lint ill  evelopment lan dated !pril 17, 2019”/ Charlie Armstrong (of Belmont Station, LLC, landowner) has submitted an application pursuant to City Code 34-490 et seq., seeking a zoning map amendment to change the zoning district classifications of the following thirteen (13) parcels of land: 100 – 109 Keene Ct., 304 – 306 Flint Dr., and a portion of 306 Camellia Dr. (Tax Map 20-259.31, TMP 20-259.32, TMP 20-259.33, TMP 20-259.34, TMP 20-259.35, TMP 20-259.38, TMP 20- 259.37, TMP 20-259.26, TMP 20-259.27, TMP 20-259.28, TMP 20-259.29, TMP 20-259.30, and a portion of TMP 20-196) (together, the “ubject roperty”)/ The application proposes to change the zoning classification of the Subject Property from “-1” (Residential Small Lots) to “” (lanned nit evelopment) subject to proffered development conditions/ Summary of Proffers: The proffered development conditions include: (i) density: the density shall not exceed a maximum of 50 residential units; Staff Comment: The proposed number of units renders approximately 5 dwelling units per acre (DUA). For purposes of comparison: in the current R-1S zone, in theory 9.81 acres of land (427,323 square feet) could have a maximum by-right buildout of 71 units. 427,323sqft / 6,000sqft minimum lot requirement = 71 single family lots (townhouse developments are not allowed within R-1S zones). This is an approximation that does not take into considerations site limitations and road placement. The true number would be lower, but not low as 5 DUA. This calculation is not taking into consideration Accessory Apartments which are permitted in the proposed proffered Use Matrix (Attachment C, page 5). The application materials do not indicate how Accessory Apartments (internal or external) will function in the development. There is the possibility of conflict, with the development reaching the proffered maximum “50 residential units” before all townhouses shown are completed. If 25 townhouses are built and each unit has an Accessory Apartment, no additional townhouses could be built. If 50 townhomes are constructed, there will be no ability to include accessory apartments Page 2 of 23 (ii) new City Park: prior to project completion, the developer shall offer approximately 3 acres of land to the City to be added to the adjacent Longwood Park; Staff Comment: While City Parks & Rec would be glad to have additional acreage within Longwood Park, the wording of this proffer is unclear: what is the specific indicator of “project completion”? s the developer offering the ity an opportunity to purchase the land, or is the developer offering to dedicate the land for public use at a later date. In the meantime, will the approximately 3 acres be indicated on the subdivision plats as being “reserved”? (iii) affordable dwelling units: (a) the developer shall cause a minimum of 5 affordable dwelling units to be built on site as defined in Sec. 34-12(c) for a minimum of 10 years (b) during home construction ADUs shall be provided incrementally such that at least 1 incremental ADU shall be under construction prior to the issuance of every 10th Certificate of Occupancy (c) As an alternative to the Developer building the ADUs, as is contemplated in Proffer 3.b. above, the Developer may deed the ADU lots to a non-profit affordable housing provider for construction by the non-profit entity. If the required ADU lots are deeded to a non-profit affordable housing provider in accordance with the incremental timing specified in 3.b. then the transfer of the lot shall be deemed to have satisfied the timing requirement specified in 3.b. taff omment. his proffer doesn’t speak to how the !s will be guaranteed/ Will there be deed restrictions requiring the promised number of units to be reserved for the minimum 10 years, so that any transfer to a non-profit or others will be subject to the restriction? What documentation will be provided to the City over the course of the 10-year period to ensure compliance with the proffer and that the dwellings are in fact occupied by income-qualified households? Even if at last 1 ADU must be under construction prior to issuance of every 10 COAs, what’s the relative timeline on which the !’s must be completed? !lso. the affordable housing proffer contains the following qualifier. “if the required ! lots are deeded to a non-profit affordable housing provider in accordance with the incremental timing specified in 3.b; then the transfer of the lot shall be deemed to have satisfied the timing requirement specified in 3/b”/ taff notes that this is not an optimal or “best practice” that will achieve !s reasonably concurrently with market-rate units. Page 3 of 23 Key Features and material Representations about the Specifics of the Proposed PUD Development: The PUD Development Plan for this proposed development includes the following key components and the applicant’s representations as to the elements that will be included within the development:  8 rows of townhouses, in the general or approximate locations depicted within the PUD Development Plan, with architectural elements as follows: mix of two and three story townhouses with traditional and modern facades illustrated in the PUD application materials.  The PUD narrative states that a variety of housing sizes will be included, as follows: the development will primarily be single housing type to encourage density, but will promote inclusion of houses of various size, architectural styles, and price points with varying width and square footages, including some townhouses with rear- alley-loaded garages.  The PUD narrative states an Architectural Review Board will be established by the homeowner association to create a coordinated architectural style.  5.1 acres of open space, in the general or approximate location(s) depicted with the PUD Development Plan. Among other specific promises, the applicant is promising to preserve 60% of existing tree, streams, and sensitive topography on site.  The new dedicated park land will account for approximately 3 acres of the 5.1 acres of open space.  heltered 5’ sidewalks located along eene ourt and lint rive- natural trails dedicated for public use within the development site to provide access to Longwood Park.  On-street parking generally located as depicted within the PUD Development Plan. Rear loaded parking will be provided behind townhouses constructed on Flint Drive.  ! teardrop layout of eene ourt/ his layout is not an option under the ity’s standards within the Standards & Design Manual.  A preliminary landscape plan promising the following key features, which would not otherwise be required by the ity’s standard landscaping regulations. o Preservation of the wetlands and buffer along the tributary streams 1 and 2 and Moores Creek. The application contains no information about how the preservation will be accomplished, either through restrictive covenants, or otherwise.  A use matrix that allows residential and related uses such as single-family attached, townhouses, family day home, and residential treatment facilities up to 8 residents; non-residential uses such as house of worship, ball fields, and swimming pools. The use matrix prohibits such uses as multifamily apartment, nursing homes, animal shelters, and gas stations. Page 4 of 23  No phasing. The PUD is proposed to be developed all at once. Vicinity Map Zoning Map Page 5 of 23 Yellow: (R-1S) Residential Small Lots, Orange: (R-2) Residential two-family, Green: (PUD) Longwood Drive 2018 Aerial 2013 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Page 6 of 23 Yellow: Low Density Residential, Blue: Public or Semi-Public: Purple: Mixed Use, Green: Parks Rezoning Standard of Review City Council may grant an applicant a rezoning request, giving consideration to a number of factors set forth within Z.O. Sec. 34-41. The role of the Planning Commission is and make an advisory recommendation to the City Council, as to whether or not Council should approve a proposed rezoning based on the factors listed in Z.O. Sec. 34-41(a): (a) All proposed amendments shall be reviewed by the planning commission. The planning commission shall review and study each proposed amendment to determine: (1) Whether the proposed amendment conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the comprehensive plan; (2) Whether the proposed amendment will further the purposes of this chapter and the general welfare of the entire community; (3) Whether there is a need and justification for the change; and (4) When pertaining to a change in the zoning district classification of property, the effect of the proposed change, if any, on the property itself, on surrounding property, and on public services and facilities. In addition, the commission shall consider the appropriateness of the property for inclusion within the proposed zoning district, relating to the purposes set forth at the beginning of the proposed district classification. Planned Unit Development Standard of Review Sec. 34-490. - In reviewing an application for approval of a planned unit development (PUD) or an application seeking amendment of an approved PUD, in addition to the general considerations applicable to any rezoning the city council and planning commission shall consider whether the application satisfies the following objectives of a PUD district: 1. To encourage developments of equal or higher quality than otherwise required by the strict application of zoning district regulations that would otherwise govern; 2. To encourage innovative arrangements of buildings and open spaces to provide efficient, attractive, flexible and environmentally sensitive design. 3. To promote a variety of housing types, or, within a development containing only a single housing type, to promote the inclusion of houses of various sizes; 4. To encourage the clustering of single-family dwellings for more efficient use of land and preservation of open space; 5. To provide for developments designed to function as cohesive, unified projects; 6. To ensure that a development will be harmonious with the existing uses and character of adjacent property, and/or consistent with patterns of development noted with respect to such adjacent property; Page 7 of 23 7. To ensure preservation of cultural features, scenic assets and natural features such as trees, streams and topography; 8. To provide for coordination of architectural styles internally within the development as well as in relation to adjacent properties along the perimeter of the development; and 9. To provide for coordinated linkages among internal buildings and uses, and external connections, at a scale appropriate to the development and adjacent neighborhoods; 10. To facilitate access to the development by public transit services or other single- vehicle-alternative services, including, without limitation, public pedestrian systems. Preliminary Analysis The applicant is proposing the rezoning in conjunction with a critical slope waiver and a road vacation request to accommodate the construction of up to fifty (50) townhouses distributed within eight rows. The proposed development would also re-plat the right-of- ways for Flint Drive and Keene Court and involve road improvements that would connect Longwood Drive to Mosely Drive. Currently Flint Drive and Keene Court are unimproved platted roads with subdivided lots of record that have never been developed. A by-right development at this location would result in twelve single family homes and the connection of Keene Court to Longwood Drive, Mosely Drive, or both. Zoning History of the Subject Property Year Zoning District 1949 Subject Property was in the County 1958 Subject Property was in the County 1976 R-2 Residential 1991 R-2 Residential 2003 R-1S Residential Small Lots Z.O. Sec. 34-42 1. Whether the proposed amendment conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the comprehensive plan; a. Land Use he applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, as required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(d)(2), is provided in the Page 8 of 23 development plan and supplemental information packet (Attachment C & D). Staff Analysis The Subject Property is currently zoned R-1S. The R-1S district was established to provide and protect quiet, low-density residential areas wherein the predominant pattern of residential development is the single- family dwelling. R-1S districts consist of low-density residential areas characterized by small-lot development. The 2013 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map indicates the Subject Property remain Low Density Residential. Low Density Residential is described as land occupied by single or two- family types of housing. The density in these areas by-right should be no greater than 15 units per acre. The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the Subject Property to PUD to accommodate a different type of housing unit that is not currently allowed in the R-1S district or in the Low Density Residential areas of the City. Although the overall density for the site would be below the max 15 DUA as designated for Low Density Residential (the DUA for this site would be approximately 5) townhouses are not permitted in the R-1S district or Low Density Residential areas. Due to the townhouses configuration of the site, the subject property would be considered High Density Residential per the 2013 Land Use Map. High Density Residential includes all land intended to be occupied by multi- family residential types of housing (townhouses, apartment, condominiums. The density in these areas should be greater than 15 units per acres. According to the Development Plan Use Matrix (Attachment C) uses permitted within the PUD would be consistent with most of the current R-1S uses, with some exclusions and additions. Rowhouse/Townhouse, two- family, surface parking lot, surface parking lot (more than 20 space), and temporary parking facilities are added while libraries are removed. Should the rezoning be approved, the overall density for the site will decrease from 7 DUA to 5 DUA. With a maximum DUA of 5 this development would conform to the 2013 Land Use Map. With the building type of townhouse, this development would not conform to the 2013 Land Use Map. Page 9 of 23 The Subject Property is bordered by: Direction Zoning District Current Use East R-2 and PUD Duplexes and Townhouses on Longwood Drive South R-1S Undeveloped land West R-1S Single family homes on Mosely Drive North R-1S Single Family homes that front on Mosely Drive taff finds the proposed rezoning is consistent with the ity’s Comprehensive General Land Use Plan Map for density, but not consistent with housing type. The development may contribute to other goals within the Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff also finds the type of use, residential, would be consistent with the existing development pattern in this area. A transition from the higher intensity development on Longwood Drive (townhouses) to the lower intensity development on Mosley Drive (single family detached) would be more appropriate on the subject property than a continuation of townhouses that would abut single family homes. b. Community Facilities he applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, as required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(d)(2), is provided in the proposed rezoning application materials (Attachment C & D). Staff Analysis he ity’s omprehensive lan identifies community facilities as fire protection, police enforcement, and emergency response services; public utilities and infrastructure; and public parks and recreation opportunities. Each of these departments reviewed the Development Plan and provided the following analysis.  Public Utilities: Per Z.O. Sec. 34-517(a)(7), the ity’s ublic tilities Department has verified that water and sewer infrastructure has capacity for the proposed land uses. Page 10 of 23  Fire Protection: Per Z.O. Sec. 34-517(a)(8), the ity’s ire arshal verified that adequate fire flow service exists for the proposed land uses. o No details were provide as to the type of curbing to be used. Roll-over curbing is the preferred standard for fire in townhouse development. o he location of “o arking” signs are not included in the application materials.  Parks & Recreation: o Staff is appreciative of the possibility of additional land being donated and incorporated into the ity’s ark system for public use. Staff is concerned that the application materials do not clearly indicate how the City would obtain access to the additional park land for maintenance. A larger easement and suitable trail could address this issue. c. Economic Sustainability he applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, as required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(d)(2), is provided in the proposed rezoning application materials (Attachment C & D). Staff Analysis Staff finds no direct conflict with Chapter 3 (Economic Sustainability) of the Comprehensive Plan with a change of use from R-1S to PUD as the allowable uses will stay the same. d. Environment he applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, as required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(d)(2), is provided in the proposed rezoning application materials (Attachment C & D). Staff Analysis The Development Plan was reviewed by the ity’s nvironmental Department and provided the following analyses.  Goal 2.2 in the Environment Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan references expanding and protecting the overall tree canopy in the city. o Preservation of the existing tree canopy by nearly 55% of the site that is proposed open space is commendable, and helps meet the goal of protecting existing tree canopy. However the preliminary landscape plan does not, at this time, provide Page 11 of 23 information as to the composition of the existing canopy (for example, what percentage are trees in the excess of 8” caliper? What species of trees are present, etc.) or indicate how this preservation will be accomplished.  Goal 3.2 in the Environment Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan references providing an interconnected system of green space and buffers along streams. o Preservation of the wetlands and buffer along the tributary Streams 1 and 2 and Moores Creek, which are contiguous to existing wetlands and stream buffer, furthers this goal.  Goal 3.3 in the Environment Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan references providing additional habitat corridors. o Preservation of the wetlands and buffer along the tributary Streams 1 and 2 and Moores Creek, which are contiguous to existing wetlands and stream buffer, furthers this goal.  Goal 5.1 in the Environment Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan references creating policy and financial incentives to encourage increased building and site performance. o Both staff and the applicant acknowledge that this application presents no provisions for enhanced energy performance features for the welling within the development.  Goals 6.1 and 6.2 reference reducing energy demand, increasing energy efficiency community-wide by 30%, and pursuing renewable energy generation. o The applicant has stated the importance of energy efficiency as one of the pillars of its business, particularly over the past 5 years, and referenced energy performance ratings (HERs scores) for a number of homes it built during that period. The HERs scores indicate an average level of energy performance that meets, and exceeds, oal 6/1’s target of 30%/ However as noted above, this application makes no particular commitment in that regard. o The applicant states that solar PV systems are offered to every customer, but are not a standard inclusion.  Goal 6.3 supports reductions in vehicle-related emissions through a variety of efforts including reducing vehicle miles traveled. o The application supports this goal to some extent through increased street network connectivity (connection of Mosely to Longwood) and through connections to the Parks and Rec trail Page 12 of 23 systems. The nearest bus stop is located at Longwood and Harris Road, approx. 0.3 miles away (<10 min walk), the proximity of which helps to enable transit use.  Goal 8 supports waste reduction through increased recycling, composting, and waste diversion. o The application is silent on this goal. Having insufficient storage space for containers for multiple waste streams (trash, recycling, and composting) can impede waste reduction. The application does not mention (and staff did not ask in the first round of comments) whether the HOA bylaws will commit to multiple waste streams, whether there is sufficient storage space for more than a single trash can per unit, and if the HOA will utilize city-provided curbside waste services. As such, staff is unable to comment on whether this goal is supported or not by this application. e. Housing he applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, as required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(d)(2), is provided in the proposed rezoning application materials (Attachment C & D). Staff Analysis: see analysis of the Housing Proffer on page 3 of this report. f. Transportation he applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, as required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(d)(2), is provided in the proposed rezoning application materials (Attachment C & D). Staff Analysis he evelopment lan was reviewed by the ity’s raffic epartment and provided the following analysis:  Parking for this development would meet minimum standards. The 104 spaces being proposed would provide each unit with two spaces per unit.  Staff is concerned the layout of Keene Court would not conform to the ity’s Standards & Design Manual or good traffic engineering principals. The design could also create future maintenance problems for the ity’s ublic Works epartment as it relates to snow removal and maintenance. Staff is concerned with the bottleneck intersection Page 13 of 23 of Keene Court at Flint Drive and the turning radius for large automobiles such as firetrucks. The one-way design of the road creates conflicts for cars entering or leaving Keene Court from Flint Drive at the same time/ !t the narrowest point (approximately 10’) one car would block the entire intersection. The City would not accept the streets, which would not meet requirements of the Standers & Design Manual or allow them to be private as they cannot be built safely as designed. Streets that Work Plan The Streets that Work Plan (approved September 2016 as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan) and can be viewed at: http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and-services/departments-h- z/neighborhood-development-services/streets-that-work/streets-that- work-plan Keene Court and Flint Drive are platted streets, but have never been improved and accepted into the ity’s street network/ !s part of the  application, the developer is requesting the vacation of Keene Court and Flint Drive from City Council. They would then re-plat the streets in generally the same area, but with modifications to accommodate the proposed PUD layout. As the streets would be new, they would not be listed in the current Street Typology. Based on the location and use associated with this development, the new streets would have a typology of 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 W, 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. Local Streets do not have priorities and Neighborhood A or B should be looked at when determining design elements. !s part of the ommission’s review of this application, the ommission should consider whether the vacation of Keene Court and Flint Drive, as currently platted, and re-establishment in a slightly different layout would be substantially in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. As Keene Court and Flint Drive would be new streets, Neighborhood A typology should be examined for design elements. The Streets that Work Plan notes the highest Page 14 of 23 priority design elements for Neighborhood A Streets are sidewalks with a minimum of five (5) to six (6) feet of clear zone and bicycle facilities such as 5 feet bike lanes and 6 feet climbing lanes. On street parking is also a high priority for Neighborhood A Streets. Staff believes the new Keene Court and Flint Drive would meet these criteria. g. Historic Preservation & Urban Design he applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, as required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(d)(2), is provided in the proposed rezoning application materials (Attachment C & D). Staff Analysis The proposed PUD is not within or adjacent to any of the City Architectural Controlled Districts. Staff also reviewed the development based on Urban Design and notes the following:  The proposed layout does not create a development of a higher quality than otherwise allowed by zoning which is one of the objectives of a PUD per PUD Objective One, see Section 34-490(1). The proposed development is non-distinguishable from a typical townhouse development that would be allowed by-right in other zoning districts in the City.  The application does not promote a variety of housing types, only one type (townhouses). The PUD narrative materials state that a variety of housing sizes will be included, which is shown to some degree in the illustrative graphics and supporting photos, but the plan graphics show building footprints of relatively the same size and the narrative does not specify a range of square footages that will be included. The application does not indicate what measures will be taken prior to final site plan approval to implement homes of various sizes (square footages).  While varying building heights and varying materials can help to visually break up large building masses, horizontal variation is also important. The application does not indicate by elevations, or otherwise, how architectural features referred to will actually be delivered. To that extent, the application materials do not demonstrate that PUD Objective 8 will be satisfied.  n staff’s opinion, the application as presented, does not do an excellent job of ensuring that development will be harmonious with existing uses and character of adjacent properties (PUD Objective 6) transitioning from higher density (the proposed townhouses) to Page 15 of 23 lower density (the existing single family homes on Moseley). This development could also be a great opportunity for transitioning from higher density to lower density.  PUD Objectives 9 and 10 call for coordinated linkages and facilitated pedestrian access systems. The sidewalk around Keene Court requires pedestrians to cross many driveways. This is not a pedestrian-friendly pedestrian system.  The open space within the traffic loop does not provide much beyond visual interest and use of the southern open space is limited due to steep slopes. 2. Whether the proposed amendment will further the purposes of this chapter and the general welfare of the entire community; he applicant’s own analysis of the development’s furtherance of the general welfare of the entire community is provided in the Background section of the proposed rezoning application (Attachment C & D). Staff Analysis Staff finds that a land use change from R-1S to PUD, with proffers, as described in the application materials, could benefit the surrounding community by providing additional residential housing of a type that is not prevalent in this area of the City and substantial open space. 3. Whether there is a need and justification for the change; Staff Analysis !ccording to the ity’s 2013 Future Land Use Map, this portion of the City should be Low Density Residential and allow single and two-family dwellings types. The proposed PUD would not alter the density range in this area of the City, but would change the housing type allowed (townhouse). Based on the application materials presented, staff are not of the opinion that the proposed development would further the PUD Objectives in Sec. 34-490 or promote the public welfare, convenience or good zoning practice. 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. Page 16 of 23 The location of the subject properties is currently undeveloped, but would be served by public utilities and facilities. Staff Analysis Any development on the subject properties would be evaluated during site plan review and need to meet all current regulations related to public utilities and facilities. Due to the location of the subject properties, staff believes all public services and facilities would be adequate to support any development contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan for this area. Staff is concerned the roads (Keene Court and Flint Drive), as designed and presented in the application materials, will not be acceptable as a publicly maintained City road. Planned Unit Development Standard of Review Sec. 34-490. - In reviewing an application for approval of a planned unit development (PUD) or an application seeking amendment of an approved PUD, in addition to the general considerations applicable to any rezoning the city council and planning commission shall consider whether the application satisfies the following objectives of a PUD district: 1. To encourage developments of equal or higher quality than otherwise required by the strict application of zoning district regulations that would otherwise govern; he applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the standard of review is found in the Development Plan (Attachment C page 7). Staff Analysis Staff finds the development of townhouses at this location, with the architectural features and sizes proposed, would be equal in quality to townhouses located in other areas of the City that are by-right. Staff does not see anything in the proposal that would indicate buildings within the development or their location would be of higher quality. Although townhouses might be appropriate in this location, the same building type could be achieved by rezoning to an existing district (like R-3). Staff does find that the addition of open space and the preservation of sensitive areas adjacent to Moores Creek introduce elements that are of a higher quality than a new subdivision of single-family homes under the R-1S standards, or construction of townhouses under City standards within an R-3 zoning at this location. Staff does find the portion of the development that fronts on Flint Drive to be designed to a higher quality than otherwise required by the strict application of the zoning district regulations. These townhouses are sited close to the road and activate the street while providing a comfortable pedestrian experience. The Page 17 of 23 parking is located behind the buildings and the properties enjoy a shared open space to the north. 2. To encourage innovative arrangements of buildings and open spaces to provide efficient, attractive, flexible and environmentally sensitive design. he applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the standard of review is found in the Development Plan (Attachment C page 7). Staff Analysis Staff does find the portion of the development that fronts on Flint Drive to be designed in an innovative arrangement with regards to building placement and open space. The proposed donation of approximately 3 acres for extending Longwood Park is a benefit to the community and shows environmentally sensitive design but is not particularly innovative in concept or programming. 3. To promote a variety of housing types, or, within a development containing only a single housing type, to promote the inclusion of houses of various sizes; he applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the standard of review is found in the Development Plan (Attachment C page 7). Staff Analysis Staff finds the developer is proposing only one housing type (townhouse). Within this housing type the developer says that it is proposing a verity of sizes and styles, but the differences aren’t significant either from an architectural diversity perspective, or from an affordability perspective. The applicant has indicated the size will vary from 16 to 20 feet in width and some could be as much as 25% larger in square footage than others. 4. To encourage the clustering of single-family dwellings for more efficient use of land and preservation of open space; he applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the standard of review is found in the Development Plan (Attachment C page 7). Staff Analysis The development plan indicates the townhouses will be clustered in a way that will preserve open space. 5. To provide for developments designed to function as cohesive, unified projects; Page 18 of 23 he applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the standard of review is found in the Development Plan (Attachment C page 7). Staff Analysis As this is a townhouse development, nothing indicates it would not function as a cohesive project. Nothing in the plan indicates this is a phased development, in fact, the application materials indicate that there will be no phasing. Because this is not a phased development, the City will require all public improvements, and site amenities be in place prior to issuing the first CO. 6. To ensure that a development will be harmonious with the existing uses and character of adjacent property, and/or consistent with patterns of development noted with respect to such adjacent property; he applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the standard of review is found in the Development Plan (Attachment C page 7). Staff Analysis The development is not harmonious in use (residential) to the surrounding neighborhood because no transition is provided between the higher density use (townhouse) to the existing single-family dwelling pattern of development on Longwood Drive and Moseley Drive. The applicant is proposing robust landscape screening on the western edge of the development to screen it from the single family homes on Moseley Drive, but landscape screening is common per the normal City development standards. 7. To ensure preservation of cultural features, scenic assets and natural features such as trees, streams and topography; he applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the standard of review is found in the Development Plan (Attachment C page 7). Staff Analysis The development will impact critical slopes and require the removal of some large existing trees. By clustering the townhouses, large portions of the property can be preserved as open space. 8. To provide for coordination of architectural styles internally within the development as well as in relation to adjacent properties along the perimeter of the development; he applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the standard of review is found in the Development Plan (Attachment C page 7). Page 19 of 23 Staff Analysis The application materials indicate a variety of architectural styles that could be used in the development. They include a mix of two and three story townhouses with traditional and modern facades. All the styles would be compatible with the surrounding built environment. 9. To provide for coordinated linkages among internal buildings and uses, and external connections, at a scale appropriate to the development and adjacent neighborhoods; he applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the standard of review is found in the Development Plan (Attachment C page 7). Staff Analysis Coordinated linkages among internal buildings, open space, and the surrounding neighborhood is provided and to scale with the neighborhood. Residents of the development and the neighborhood would have access to the new park land by a trail on the western edge of the development. A key element of the proposal would be the linkage of Longwood Drive to Mosely Drive by way of an improved Flint Drive. This would create more connectivity in the neighborhood for pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles. The portion of the development that fronts on Flint Drive provides a friendly pedestrian experience as the parking is located behind the buildings and the townhouses are sited closer to the street. The sidewalk around Keene Court requires pedestrians to cross many driveways. This is not a pedestrian-friendly pedestrian system. 10.To facilitate access to the development by public transit services or other single-vehicle-alternative services, including, without limitation, public pedestrian systems. he applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the standard of review is found in the Development Plan (Attachment C page 7). Staff Analysis heltered 5’ sidewalks will provide better pedestrian access for the neighborhood and create an alternative route for students to Jackson-Via Elementary. No new bus route is planned, but the development would be served by CAT route 4 (Cherry Ave & Harris Rd.). Page 20 of 23 Public Comments Received Community Meeting Required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(c)(2) On December 13, 2018 the applicant held a community meeting at City Hall in the eighborhood evelopment ervices’ onference oom/ The applicant gave an overview of the project as it related to the need for a rezoning. Six members of the public attended the meeting and voiced the following concerns:  The density is too high. The City does not have the infrastructure to support more development (roads, sidewalks0)  Traffic will be a problem.  The land that is being given to Parks also needs to be programed and money provide so it does not end up being just “land” like at the back of ongwood /  Need more pedestrian connectivity.  This development could lower the quality of life for people in the area by increasing traffic and removing forest.  Could the developer work with Habitat on the affordable units?  Parking is always as problem with new developments.  Would like to see more parking.  The townhouses might be too close to the existing on Moseley Drive. As of the date of this report (March 26, 2019), staff has received the following concerns through email, phone calls or in person conversations (any email staff received was forwarded to Planning Commission and City Council Attachment G):  The number of units and type of development in this area is not appropriate. The development should include a mix of single family homes, duplexes and townhouses.  Concerned about construction noise and environmental damage.  50 townhouses will add unwanted traffic Staff Recommendation Staff finds the proposed development, as presented in the application materials could contribute to some goals within the ity’s omprehensive lan/ The uses presented in the proposed development are consistent with the current R-1S District. As presented in the application, staff finds the PUD to be desirable as to open space, density, and connectivity along the Flint Drive. Staff is concerned about other aspects and recommends denial for the following: 1. Significant portions of the development as presented are very similar to townhouse developments allowed by-right in the R-3 districts. The portion of the development fronting on Flint Drive is more constant with innovative Urban Design promoted by PUD Objectives 2 and 9. Page 21 of 23 2. Staff is concerned with the layout of Keene Court and the intersection with Flint Drive. In the current configuration Keene Court and Flint Drive are not safely designed and could not be accepted for maintenance as public streets or function as private streets. 3. Staff is concerned with the affordable dwelling unit language in the proffer statement. It does not address several key administrative details or provide sufficiently concrete information regarding establishment of a firm affordability period. Summarizing the Standard of Review, staff finds: (1) Whether the proposed amendment conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the comprehensive plan. Staff finds the proposed rezoning (as presented in the application materials) would not comply with the City’s Comprehensive General Land Use Plan Map, but would contribute to other chapters of the City’s 2013 Comprehensive Plan. (2) Whether the proposed amendment will further the purposes of this chapter and the general welfare of the entire community. Staff finds the proposed rezoning (as presented in the application materials) would further the purposes of this chapter and the general welfare of the entire community. (3) Whether there is a need and justification for the change. Staff finds no justification for the change. (4) When pertaining to a change in the zoning district classification of property, the effect of the proposed change, if any, on the property itself, on surrounding property, and on public services and facilities. In addition, the commission shall consider the appropriateness of the property for inclusion within the proposed zoning district, relating to the purposes set forth at the beginning of the proposed district classification. Staff finds the proposed rezoning (as presented in the application materials) would have an impact on public services or facilities (road layout for Keene Court and utility layout for sanitary sewer). Suggested Motions 1. I move to recommend that City Council should approve ZM18-0003, including the critical slope waiver requested in P19-00013, on the basis that the streets proposed within the PUD Development are laid out in a manner substantially in accord with the Comprehensive Plan, and approval of the proposed PUD Development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. OR, 2. I move to recommend that City Council should deny approval of ZM18-00003 and P19-00013. Page 22 of 23 Attachments A. Rezoning Application Dated November 16, 2018 B. Proffer Statement Dated October 10, 2018 C. Flint Hill Development Plan Dated April 17, 2019 D. Flint Hill Supplemental Information Packet Dated April 17, 2019 E. Flint Hill Preliminary Plat dated February 7, 2019 F. Flint Hill Right-of-way Vacation and Dedication Dated February 7, 2019 G. Emails received prior to May 2, 2019 H. Link to Critical Slope Wavier Application: http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and-services/departments-h- z/neighborhood-development-services/development-ordinances/city-planning- commission/agendas/2019-agendas Page 23 of 23 ,• . ~' .I O~. l!!J: ~•ii City of Charlottesville ~~~ .Application for Rezoning ~GINIA. .. '\(\. Project Name: _ F_lin_t _H_ill_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Addressof Property: _1 _0_1_K _e_e_n_e_C_o_u_rt_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Current Zoning: R-1 S NOV t 6 2018 Proposed Zoning: PUD SE!MCES Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: ---=L=o:.:v->=--~l.aApment (check one): ~ Owner's Agent Owner of Record: B €:'-~o,.,,.,.. ~ 8-0 {C: 1-.E 'f c ~itPJJ, '­ C... Address: S a."""~ ct,. a..bo.1e 660 J.l"o f.•u V1 5J-.g. J~ \ ...tiJ ~~Cit ~ C..'°"' l1, f Phone: ~o.~ Email: . . ·.____~ ....Sa --=-------------- er specify): (2) Signature ~ --P-rl-nt----. ~cl.,. ., -- . J ~_ Ifft~ , Date /~/P-/r (Circl~mbe I Owner's LC Manage Corporate Officer (specify) - - - - - - ­ Other (specify:_ _ _ _ _ _ __ ZM tra-00003 .' ~OTT.Esp City of Charlottesville - ~II~ < B... l P re-Application Meeting Verification I ~ ... C\l ~ l=f 1nf: H, ·11 ~GJN1A - \(\ Project Name: Pre-Application Meeting Date: October 10, 2018 -----~-----------~ Applicant's Representative: Dustin Greene, Charlie Armstrong' Planner: Matt Alfele 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. See attached sheet 2. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ­ 4. --------------------------- 5. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Planner Signature: ~ /o/10/ r I IB 2 .,, i , City of Charlottesville Application Checklist Project Name: _F_li_nt_H_i_ll_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ I./I 34-157(a)(2) Narrative statement: applicant's analysis of conformity with the Comprehensive Plan I./I 34-157(a)(4) Narrative statement identifying and discussing any potential adverse impacts, as well as any measures included within the development plan, to mitigate those impacts I./I 34-158(a)(6): other pertinent information (narrative, illustrative, etc.) I./I Completed proffer statement I./I All items noted on the Pre-Application Meeting Verification . Applicant Signatur~ By Its: t1 t n...be " (For entities, specify: Officer, Member, Manager, Trustee, etc.) 3 .. I City of Charlottesville Community Meeting Project Name: _F_l_in_t _H_ill_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Section 34-41(c)(2) of the Code of the City of Charlottesville (adopted October 19, 2015) requires appli­ cants seeking rezonings and special use permits to hold a community meeting. The purpose of a communi­ ty meeting is to provide citizens an opportunity to receive information about a proposed development, about applicable zoning procedures, about applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan, and to give citizens an opportunity to ask questions. No application for a rezoning shall be placed on any agenda for a public hearing, until the required community meeting has been held and the director of neighborhood development services determines that the application is ready for final review through the formal public hearing process. By signing this document, the applicant acknowledges that it is responsible for the following, in connection to the community meeting required for this project: 1. ·Following consultation with the city, the applicant will establish a date, time and location for the community meeting. The applicant is responsible for reserving the location, and for all related costs. 2. The applicant will mail, by U.S. mail, first-class, postage pre-paid, a notice of the community meeting to a list of addresses provided by the City. The notice will be mailed at least 14 calendar days prior to the date of the community meeting. The applicant is responsible for the cost of the mailing. At least 7 calendar days prior to the meeting, the applicant will provide the city with an affidavit confirming that the mailing was timely completed. 3. The applicant will attend the community meeting and present the details of the proposed application. If the applicant is a business or other legal entity (as opposed to an individual) then the meeting shall be attended by a corporate officer, an LLC member or manager, or another individual who can speak for the entity that is the applicant. Additionally, the meeting shall be attended by any design professional or consultant who has prepared plans or drawings submitted with the application. The applicant shall be prepared to explain all of the details of the proposed development, and to answer questions from citizens. 4. Depending on the nature and complexity of the application, the City may designate a planner to attend the community meeting. Regardless of whether a planner attends, the City will provide the applicant with guidelines, procedures, materials and recommended topics for the applicant's use in conducting the community meeting. 5. On the date of the meeting, the applicant shall make records of attendance and shall also document that the meeting occurred through photographs, video, or other evidence satisfactory to the City. Records of attendance may include using the mailing list referred to in #1 as a sign-in sheet (requesting attendees to check off their name(s)) and may include a supplemental attendance sheet. The City will provide a format acceptable for use as the supplemental attendance sheet. Applicant: f3~~o""+- Sta.+.\. ... By: Signatur - - - - - - - - - - ­ Print c L,u l: 0 A/Y\, ft r~:::1 Date _ e.____ _._f-=o_,_,/r......,o.._,1-"/,...... Its: -~r{ ~~-~~h_e.r ________ _ _ _ (Officer, Member, Trustee, etc.) 4 .: . ~ =: liif:J" . ® r ~ City of Charlottesville Owner's Authorizations ~..-. a~ ~~,...__---------------------------~ (Not Required) ~GINIA • '\(\. Project Name: _F_lin_t_H_ill_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Right of Entry- Property Owner Permission I, the undersigned, hereby grant the City of Charlottesville, its employees and officials, the right to enter the property that is the subject of this application, for the purpose of gathering information for the review appli tion. Owner:_.c.."""--"~~-0 -~-,,..,.,,~-=---.L-...!..IW~1ot--.i...:...J:::::c....li:. .r"3i=: :"._....:~_;L=-c-- -=------ Date / J -j'o - / r Owner's: LLC Member Corporate Officer (specify): --------- Other (specific): _ _ _ _ __ Owner's Agent I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I have authorized the following named individual or entity to serve as my lawful agent, for the purpose of making application for this rezoning, and for all related purposes, including, without limitation: to make decisions and representations that will be binding upon my proper­ ty and upon me, my successors and assigns. Name of Individual Agent: - - - - - - - - - - - ­ Name of Corporate or other legal entity authorized to serve as agent: Owner: ~ Q.._1-.-+--S"""hi - 1,_LC.. Date: _ lc_,_/,-'l-"- - o,..._/,_8..___ __ By (sign name; _____________ Print :ame: _(; : : a. .:lot:.: . : :'" "'l. :.~·-'=. ct. '- _A. . L. .:.,_.. . '--'1~ tr. . .3 " "'-~"' . __....... Circle one: Owner'~ LLC Manager Corporate Officer (specify): _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Other (specific): - - - - - ­ 6 ~ tf.jl;f • 0 r" City of Charlottesville ::Z:: - ~ Personal Interest Statement -~ a~ ~GJN1A-~ ~~ ~ Project Name: Flint Hill ~~~~~~~~~~~~- 1swear under oath before a notary public that: D A member of the City of Charlottesville Planning Commission (identified below), or their immediate family member, has a personal interest in the property or transaction that is the subject of this application. Planning Commissioner(s): -------------------------~ Or ~No member of the City of Charlottesville Planning Commission, or their immediate family member, has a personal interest in the property or transaction that is the subject of this application. And D A member of the City of Charlottesville City Council (identified below), or their immediate family member, has a personal interest in the property or transaction that is the subject of this application . City Councilor(s): - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - 0r ~o member of the City of Charlottesville Planning Commission, or their immediate family member, has a personal interest in the property or transaction that is the subject of this application. Applicant: By: Signatur~ Print C~a,t,._ A.l'"""·Hv"'v Date topo/1a Its: -----'M ----'.e_._-. _k-P""-'-'c'------------ (Officer, Member, Trustee, etc.) Commonwealth of Virginia City of Charlottesville The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn before me this JD\J/J day of Ocb bee, . , 20J.L by Cha.th£ AnYlsh1S a& u_._e_m_f:e_r_ol fe)m s.. Po. ~ j.!)S llL ' 2- 1--q ( l Name &a. . k. 8c. lt·P Address 11 0 s. ,Pa,. hf2..I. I ~c i.. '2-Cf-i 1 Name Address Attach additional sheets as needed. Note: The requirement of listing names of stockholders does not apply to a corporation whose stock is traded on a national or local stock exchange and which corporation has more than five hundred (500) shareholders. Applican~ 0~t,__o~+ s~h"'o- LL~ f By: Its: _ _ _.._M---'-""e""'- -.....:.Ub...._•.._r_ . _ _ _ __ _ _ __ (Officer, Member, Trustee, etc.) 7 . '. City of Charlottesville Fee Schedule Application Type Quantity Fee Subtotal Rezoning Application Fee x $2000 Mailing Costs per letter $1 per letter Newspaper Notice Payment Due Upon Invoice TOTAL Office Use Only Amount Received:_ _ _ _ Date Paid_ _ _ _ _ Received By: - - - - - - - - - - ­ 8 City of Charlottesville Pre-AppJicatio11.Meeting Verification Project Name: l=l1n f: H1'll Pre-Application Meeting Date: _O _c_t_o_be_r_l_O_, _2_01_8_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Applicant's Representative: Dustin Greene, Charlie Armstrong' Planner: Matt Alfele 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. See attached sheet 2. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - ­ 3. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- ---------­ 4. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- ---------­ 5. --------------------------- Planner Signature: ~ 1o/10 I I 1e ( 2 Sheet 2 -A Supplemental Information required for a completed application package (October 10, 2018) Sec. 34-490: site plan/ schematic plan, phasing plan if development will not be completed in one phase, open space plan, examples of housing type (if only one type examples different sizes), massing plan, inventory of natural features, examples of housing type compared to existing units around the property, internal {and adjacent) linkage plan (pedestrian and/or transit plan), Sec. 34-500: development plan {site plan) that list the restrictions on height, area, location and arrangement of buildings and structures, lot area requirements, uses, and required yards (this can be represented in tables or spreadsheets). 34-501: diagram showing any low-density residential zoning that is within 75 feet of the proposed PUD Sec. 34-501(b)(1): massing plan Sec. 34-501(b)(2): site plan Sec. 34-501(b)(3): inventory of natural features Sec. 34-501(b)(4): utility plan, pedestrian systems and bicycle path plan (and/or transit plan), easement plan. Sec. 34-501(b)(5): Can be within the narrative statement. Sec. 34-502: Existing Tree plan with graphic distinction on trees of 8 11 caliper and lager and in-place natural buffers, landscaping plan per Sec. 34-861, Sec. 34-503: A plan showing any sensitive areas (floodway and wetlands). Sec. 34-504: Parking Plan Sec. 34-505: Phasing Plan Sec. 34-515: Unofficial preliminary studies Sec. 34-517: Survey plat, utility plan, (existing and proposed), street layout, proposed land use plan, landscape plan, phasing plan, statement from the City's Utilities Department verifying whether water and sewer infrastructure capacity exist, statement from the fire marshal verifying fire flow, Sc. 34-517(a)(9): • Traffic study as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. • Use Matrix • Information that may be in the site plan/ development plan, but will also need to be standalone sheets o Phasing Plan o Open Space Plan o Examples of Housing types (can be architectural drawings or photographs) comparative housing (can be photos of homes in the area compared to the proposed housing type) o If only one housing type, examples of different sizes o Massing Plan o Plan showing an inventory of natural features (existing tree plan Sec. 34-502) o Linkage plan (a plan showing pedestrian and bike paths, and transit) o Preliminary Plat o Easement Plan o diagram showing any low-density residential zoning that is within 75 feet of the proposed PUD o Parking Plan o Critical Slope map as defined in the Subdivision code {29-3) o Critical Slope map as defined in the Zoning code {34-1120(b)(2) o Preliminary BMP I Stormwater Management Plan (not detailed, but enough information to insure it is viable per City Engineering) o Preliminary Land Disturbance Plan (not detailed, but enough information to insure it is viable per City Engineering) • Work Session with Planning Commission prior to a Public Hearing .. # AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE OF COMMUNITY MEETING To: The City of Charlottesville, Virginia I, Frank T. Ballif, as the Manager of Belmont Station, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company (the "Company"), do hereby state the following: 1. The Company acknowledges that on November 21, 2018 that it mailed a Notice of Community Meeting ("Notice"), via U.S. First Class mail postage pre-paid, to a list of addresses provided by the City of Charlottesville, and related to a copy of the Notice that is attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. Atrue and correct copy of the Notice is attached hereto. 3. This affidavit is made pursuant to Section 34-41(c)(2) of the Code of the City of Charlottesville, requiring applicants seeking a rezoning and/or special use permit to hold a community meeting and to provide notice the same. The undersigned further states that he is familiar with the nature of an oath and with the penalties provided by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia for falsely swearing to statements made in an instrument of this nature. BELMONT /'i C, a Virginia limited liability company By: FrankT Commonwealth of Virginia, County of Albemarle: I, the undersigned, a notary public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, do hereby certify that Frank T. Ballif, Manager of Belmont Station, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, who is known to me, appeared before me on the Q/ll!:ctay of November, 2018, and acknowledged the foregoing instrument under oath. My commission expires: ·1-31-d...0@-0 LOIS A. HAVERSTROM NOTARY PUBLIC COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 31, 2020 REGISTRATION NO. 298946 November 20, 2018 NOTICE OF COMMUNITY MEETING RE: Flint Hill, approximately 10 acres of land off Flint Drive and Keene Ct SUBJECT: Application for Rezoning to Planned Unit Development (PUD) DATE: December 13, 2018 TIME: 6:30pm LOCATION: Neighborhood Development Services Conference Room, City Hall, 605 E Main St. Dear Neighbor: An application to rezone approximately 10 acres of land off of Flint Drive and Keene Court is being processed by the City of Charlottesville. The application currently depicts a plan for 42 homes, with a maximum of 50 homes allowed in the proposed zoning. The application also proposes a minimum of 5 affordable housing units and a donation of approximately 3 acres to the City of Charlottesville to enlarge an existing City park adjacent to the property. If you would like information about the proposal or have feedback or ideas about the proposal the applicant would welcome your participation in the meeting at 6:30pm on December 13th in the Neighborhood Development Services Conference Room in City Hall. The applicant's goal is to improve the housing stock in the City by satisfying the goals set out in the City's Comprehensive Plan and meet several vital community needs. A rendering of the layout of the proposed homes is enclosed. Sincerely, Charlie Armstrong Owner/Applicant Belmont Station, LLC ~oTTEsp City of Charlottesville ~11a !e n~ Comm.unity Meeting ~ ~~ Project Name: ....i::-....1........ a +-....._.._ µ __,__.... ~GJN1A· \(\ l - - -- - - - - - - - - - ­ Section 34-41(c)(2) of the Code of the City of Charlottesville (adopted October 19, 2015) requires appli­ cants seeking rezonings and special use permits to hold a community meeting. The purpose of a communi­ ty meeting is to provide citizens an opportunity to receive information about a proposed development, about applicable zoning procedures, about applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan, and to give citizens an opportunity to ask questions. No application for a rezoning shall be placed on any agenda for a public hearing, until the required community meeting has been held and the director of neighborhood development seNices determines that the application is ready for final review through the formal public hearing process. By signing this document, the applicant acknowledges that it is responsible for the following, in connection to the community meeting required for this project: 1. Following consultation with the city, the applicant will establish a date, time and location for the community meeting. The applicant is responsible for reserving the location, and for all related costs. The applicant will mail, by U.S. mail, first-class, postage pre-paid, a notice of the community meeting to a list of addresses provided by the City. The notice will be mailed at least 14 calendar days prior to the date of the community meeting. The applicant is responsible for the cost of the mailing. At least 7 calendar days prior to the meeting, the applicant will provide the city with an affidavit confirming that the mailing was timely completed. t1 a.e.fi:r ~'k-- ?- 12.- /,3 BJ, 3. The applicant will attend the community meeting and present the detai(s ~fthe proposed application. If the applicant is a business or other legal entity (as opposed to an individual) then the meeting shall be attended by a corporate officer, an LLC member or manager, or another individual who can speak for the entity that is the applicant. Additionally, the meeting shall be attended by any design professional or consultant who has prepared plans or drawings submitted with the application. The applicant shall be prepared to explain all of the details of the proposed development, and to answer questions from citizens. 4. Depending on the nature and complexity of the application, the City may designate a planner to attend the community meeting. Regardless of whether a planner attends, the City will provide the applicant with guidelines, procedures, materials and recommendecitc;pics for the applicant's use in conductingthe community meeting. 5. On the date of the meeting, the applicant shall make records of attendance and shall also document that the meeting occurred through photographs, video, or other evidence satisfactory to the City. Records of attendance may include using the mailing list referred to in #1 as a sign-in sheet (requesting attendees to check off their name(s)) and may include a supplemental attendance sheet. The City will provide a format acceptable for use as the supplemental attendance sheet. Applicant: Ac ~rooo+-S+~~ , LLC.­ By: ;/­ Signature_ _....,..._____,,.......,,...._ __ _ _ Print 0 o.o t'., T. '?u\\.f , ~s r-\ei.v1Q.41Date 1l l2.c.:.l \~ // J - \ \ Its: t\ U.f'\U..£..,,£,V (Officer, Member, Trustee, etc.) 4 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA IN RE: PETITION FOR REZONING (City Application No. ZM-18-xxxxx) STATEMENT OF draft PROFFER CONDITIONS For the Flint Hill PUD Dated as of October 10, 2018 TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE: The undersigned limited liability company is the owner of land subject to the above-referenced rezoning petition (" Subject Property"). The Owner/ Applicant seeks to amend the current zoning of the property subject to certain voluntary development conditions set forth below. In connection with this rezoning application, the Owner/Applicant seeks approval of a PUD as set forth within a PUD Development Plan dated xxxxxx. The Owner/Applicant hereby proffers and agrees that ifthe Subject Property is rezoned as requested, the rezoning will be subject to, and the Owner will abide by, the approved PUD Development Plan as well as the following conditions: 1. Density shall not exceed a maximum of 50 residential units. 2. At or prior to project completion, the Developer shall offer to donate approximately 3 acres of land to the City of Charlottesville to be added to the adjacent Longwood Park. 3. Affordable Housing a) The Developer shall cause a minimum of 5 affordable dwelling units (ADUs) to be built on site (as defined in City Code §34-12 ( c ), with affordability over a term of a minimum of l 0 years. b) During home construction ADUs shall be provided incrementally such that at least 1 incremental ADU shall be under construction prior to the issuance of every I 0111 Certificate of Occupancy. c) As an alternative to the Developer building the ADUs as is contemplated in Proffer 3.b. above, the Developer may deed the ADU lots to a non-profit affordable housing provider for construction by the non-profit entity. If the required ADU lots are deeded to a non-profit affordable housing provider in accordance with the incremental timing specified in 3.b. then the transfer of the lot shall be deemed to have satisfied the timing requirement specified in 3.b. WHEREFORE, the undersigned Owner(s) stipulate and agree that the use and development of the Subject Property shall be in conformity with the conditions hereinabove stated, and requests that the Subject Property be rezoned as requested, in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charlottesville. Respectfully submitted this XX1h day of XX, XXX. Owner: Owner's Address: Belmont Station, LLC 170 South Pantops Drive Charlottesville, VA 22911 By:_ _ _ _ __ __ _ __ Frank Ballif, Manager Flint Hill PUD Development Plan April 17th, 2019 ftlll:D 1.......... M.srn --- I --of--ftl])•Qj)di--•• nlil1't.IDDo: 1 f'",.Ml'kn~t .......1)-IM""'loh 'fofc:>rl tt :llltai,O....-sut7(&). 'lb -lllbl'UDDl......-l'la1M1Wjidt-­ c­ 34-517(1)(1)A_P.d_...mllk!ll"1lo,&ll:o_laell_tobo!m:bidoc!w!ll:ID1bli'UD.i-l-1tllo,iubt!I!& MtintlB t' nd'paml'llN~~~~o"•B ,, (t)of1lopimd(t)eo'bolookidtdwitbhltboPUD. Aw-:J.:lbb:tbwC ..,. :M-517(1X2) A--ofllo-.""'1 w1i11o. .r plQojiqil:1o &P cod ...i,.;,. Ui I ! 4 1; , . . 4: Landu.-. .. !..-al""" of..rsq ad po>JIOIOll.._ l'"f!ll-l:U1'llU•-. f. i . . - . . r - , m 1 . _ . 1 I l:(a)nlldo,de'-:-~o<•• ~,...,_,.adlooll; P111J14: ltJlt4 U# PIM.. NM: Q}t~tJNIMqt:N bMl,,,,..,,.l~llM~ ~ swatfnya>~ Rd' .~,,., kl }' NJl«il Tltl~ DrlH fllt4 HMrll ll.M4. a. Alln-y,llymmoppc..:J_.ml._--.of.n~pmoe11-•l"'5-!oot.-or111o ~oftl:oPUD, ~ltJtadllln&""""'-dwH!•llloa or-. l'fl(lf 1: °""'hit b. Am-,. ofdie ripiilpnr! ..-i_«uil M"'4-too:t.....of •a. I ' ab OOlllllimd.....,.-.,,. a.i..I nPsllr. n e 101; :i;.....,. ""btiol "1• miizimom: lzilba; _of~Wi;:lr or_.-: ...U...-. topi..,p.,, lllowii"1imm!>ofJ!ve(S)1liM. . . . criti.ool alopoo.- - · .milv I ·n;..... t.t-. al.pie tli1 I _....~otilmoscod/aJ~----lb~ad~oftbo_,PUD. ,..,,. 2: ~°""'*""': ~$:.SW.l: .... t 1F6111Mru;lllli ,..,,. ,, t..tl u..-. 34-517(1)(4) A~ --Pim- Sllollplmwlll ldoo!l\Y: L~-----'l~l.-ia-limlllk\,l!alldlagad~ ,.....4: Lal UHPi411;­ , , _U: UHJ/­ t>.P.mpoled.dmdtiotdp;t:plOdnrttrr:J ~ 1"'l' 4: ~ U..Plalo •. i.a..ticmal-..tnqlliroit--: .,,..,,.4: ""'4 u.. i'ltat d.~ . . . . tlof-aliddol.-: ~--""~ o. K..a-bia!it ol.'looililiopal....-ill-ofl'lll), """4: """V# l'IA 34-517(&)(5) A e::i-1 lni""P' pla<> wtil looadtn wl i,ptoflMd.....11>1alf-.-Jil;uollb&ll~-11m"""*www<>fll:il-. PidllqilllJI~ _.la! )4.'17(<)(7)A-4-lbooo. a.""'11/ablo ,,..,.,.,.,..,.. .Woi>rl 1""'.,..,..Loorw•o4.­ ... -for. 34-517(1)(11) A--lblln>aalal~ -~11n> 8ow .....i.o&a<11rdool.,._t11flllo1""l)GICl'llao.t -C•l· 'l'Mfinfl-_ _ _ _ _ -'_.....wr.w111i..,..,,.-.--........ Co..r Sheet Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc. Pago 1 of 8 CborlottollVlll•. Vlrglnla April 17111, 2019 Conditions \ \ \ '' '\ \ \ I \ II PARCEL 200259220 @ 0 PARCEL 200277000 PARCEL 200271200 \\ILSON, JEFFREY M & RVH~N L ZONE: R-1S @ 11 GOODSCN, STANLEY A & BRENDA M TR ZONE: R-2 MCCC(oJNELL, JUSTIN R & HEATHER M ZONE: PUD PARCEL 200259230 PARCEL 200276100 PARCEL 200271100 0 \\ICKUNE, Ko\ROLD E ZONE: R-1S @ NEIGMBORHOOO IN'KSThlENTS, LLC ZONE: R-2 ® RUTKOWSKI, AUGUST J & MELANIE ZONE: PUD PARCEL 200259240 PARCEL 200276000 PARCEL 200270400 SS~H ljCHolH-~ 0 ~ORRIS, AMOS E JR & MILDRED K ZONE: R-1S @ NEIGHBORHOOO IN'.l:SThlENTS, LLC ZONE: R-2 @ GOPALAN, VAR UN & NARAYAN, SHILPA M ZONE: PUD PARCEL 200259250 PARCEL 200275000 PARCEL 200270300 \ 0 SPENCER, JOYCE P ZONE: R-1S @ CAIM:R, ADR~A R ZONE: R-2 @ ™C, Sfl.\UN L & KRISTA M ZONE: PUD PARCEL 200274000 PARCEL 200270200 \ @ NEIGMOORHOOO IN'KSThlENTS, LLC ZONE: R-2 @ METZGER, JUSTIN C & M>\UREEN J ZONE: PUD PARCEL 21AD99800 GAO, JWllNG @ PARCEL 200273000 GOODSCN, BRENDA M & STANLEY A TR @ PARCEL 200270100 SOOBRA, ~f P ZONE: R-1S ZONE: R-2 ZONE: PUD PARCEL 21AD99700 PARCEL 200272000 PARCEL 200278000 flo\iES , CHARLES 'II & ROSEMARY A ZONE: R-1S @ NEIGHOORHOOO lrM:SThlENTS, LLC ZONE: PUD @ CITi' OF CHAALOTTE~LLE ZONE: R-2 ,,.-, PARCEL 21AD9950D PARCEL 200271400 PARCEL 2001 96000 f I I I " " 0 WIDER, JANINE Cll'JRE ZONE R-15 @ BUSTOS, FRANCIS P & CHRISTINA C ZONE: PUD ® MOOORS, GEORGE S JR & FRANCES B ZONE: R-1S \ \\ I, SCALE 1"=50' Pqe2of8 Flint Hill Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc. April 17th. 2019 Charlottemlle, V'qinia r.h11.1'lntt-ITif!. Vtnlnt.11. '[~ ,. .. :; "' I"~ ~., sc "'~ WILD~GINGER ~ n FIELD SERVICES 0 ill ~ 78"30'30''W ~ ~ I -'• 1 I '1 ~ Q' I I ~ ~ !­ .., I " Ir 0 11 1\ - ... ,.o-.•~,•'t . !"' • ~ 0 t.n - __, 0 ,, I"' • ~ Ill ,..,,,, 13 "' .• I. I . r ...s II "' ~,~, ~~:_~_\\'_ \ , , , "' I:"'.! ~ (:utitert 11 • f'I I :'fire ~ecbinlng w~•! ~ ~ . .iy.J, ..$. ""_ ~ r7 j I I. ~ . Chimney ~,, .,, A v, Q .. :z: :s::: , ,. 1~ ~ Pu'7~':us7 l:"'.I ' ,er z -3 ,. ::c: ~ :z< -· c;; v ~.. ' t""""' I! ~ '"J:j I:"'.! - " ~ c::: ::ti l:"'.I en ....... ,-_5 ' ·- ' ~ II Legend 0 ~ Le I Site li!9~f1<;f~ry 0 •00 • Si te Features. "' ·-· ·· Broken Pipe - - Comour Line$ (2 10 - ~. ,... ,, it~ ~ V~nlands. Streams sourc.es. Ea.ti, HE.RE Delorme, USGS, 1t11erm1p. INCRE~e~~RCl1l1 Esrl JaPiln. ME.Tl, Esri CAM {folO'l"Q Kol'tg)_ Esrl K«e1. Estl CTti ), Mllln>Ylndl• te•SU.•IM8Jl cooirlbutors- llllld Ill• GIS ~ Commun~ .-'-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~· ~ S' ~i CJi'eated by ~fl 0 16 0 320 48 0 640 Wild Ginger Field Services, LLC !" i~ ?' ---ic:::===----==== F'eet Charlottesville, VA .. """ g:­ :g .. 12• ff 5' !' .Qlllifill; BELMONT STATION, !LC llifilS: llEYElllI'.Elt EE!MONT STATION, fLC I THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) SHALL BE IN SUBSTANllAL CONFail011TECTURE, AND, 11'E REQJLATORY APPROVAL PROCESS, \ ~ ROUDABUSH, GALE & ASSOCIATES \\IHICH \\ILL RESULT IN SOME PLAN MOOFICATION. "­ \ '­ ' \ SOURCE or BOUNDARY SURVEY: PLAT OF RECORD 2. THERE WILL BE A MINIMUM Cf T\\\J DIFFERENT TYl'ES Cf HOUSES IN THIS DEVELOPMENT 3. SllJEWAUJ ~TH PARKS AND THE PROPER'I'Y IS LOCATED IN ZONE X AS SHOWN ON FEDERAL EMERGENCY RECREAllON. MM!AGJ:llENT AGENCY FLOOD INSURANCE MAP NUl!Bl:R 51003C028BD, DATED 7. LIMITS CF llSTUR!lANCE = 4.50 AC. 02-04-2055 MM!MU!I BUILDING HEIG!IT: 35' IN HEIGHT ll.ENfilTl'.; 5.2 UNITS/ACRE MAXIMUM CURRENT USE: VACANT WTS PROPOSED USE UP TO 50 RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOMES (5 AFFORDABLE DWELLING UNITS) OPEN SPACE OllNERS!llP AfL OPEN SPACE TO BE OWNJ:Il AND llAINTAINED BY A HOldE OWNERS ASSOCIATION AND/OR DONATED TO THE CITY. IJ!ililJ.fil<; NO LIGHTING FIXTURES SHAIL EXCEED 8000 LUMENS. BUILDING SETfilCXS: FRONT: o· SIDE: Q' REAR: 10' •10' !!IN BETWEEN ROWS or TOWNHOUSES JB' l!INIMUM DRIVEWAY LENGTH 1.-lllD USE SUMMARY TOTAL SITE AREA: 9.Bl Ac. (1007.) 306 CAMILlA DR ±0.97 Ac. (9.97.) LOT AREA: ±2.90 Ac. (29.Bf.) RIGHT-OF-WAY AREA: ±0.76 Ac (7.97.) OPEN SPACE AREA: ±51 B Ao. (52.6r.) 806 CAMILlA DRIVE TO REMAIN R-IS TRAFF1C STUDY: TOWNHOUSES TRIPS PER DAY (TPD) • 7 42 UNTIS + 7 TPD = 294 EXTRA TPD 1/2 TPD (147) ON MOSEIEY DRIYE AND 1/2 TPD(147) ON LONGWOOD DR AM PEAK HOUR llJ;EKDAY SSt.ti WO-IN1-!W­ /,,..,.-_ Flint Hill Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc. April 17th, 2019 Charlott.ellVllle, Virginia Yqe4of8 Charlotte89llle, Virginia Matrix of Use Types-Flint Hill PUD Use Types Use Types FLINT HILL Flint Hill PUD Existing Zoning- R-lS (for reference) Flint Hill PU D Existing Zoning - R-lS (for reference) RESIDENTIAL AND RELATED USES NON-RESIDENTIAL: GENERAL and MISC. Accessory apartment, internal p p COMMERCIAL Accessory apartment, external p p Access to adjacent multifamily, commercial, industrial Accessory buildings, structures and uses B B or mixed-use development or use Adult assisted living Accessory buildings, structures and uses 1-8 residents B B Amusement center Greater than 8 residents Amusement enterprises (circuses, carnivals, etc.) Adult day care Amusement park (putt-putt golf; skateboard parks, Amateur radio antennas, to a height of 75 ft. B B etc.) Bed-and-breakfast: Animal boarding/grooming/kennels: Homestay B B With outside runs or pens B&B Without outside runs or pens Inn Animal shelter Boarding: fraternity and sorority house Art gallery: Boarding house (rooming house) GFA 4,000 SF or less Convent/monastery s s GFA up to 10,000 SF Criminal justice facility Art studio, GFA 4,000 SF or less Dwellings: Art workshop Multifamily Assembly (indoor) Single-family attached B Single-family detached B B Arena, stadium (enclosed) Rowhouse/Townhouse B Auditoriums, theaters Two-family B Houses of worship B B Family day home Assembly (outdoor) 1-5 children B B Amphitheater 6-12 children s s Stadium (open) Home occupation p p Temporary (outdoor church services, etc.) T T Manufactured home park Assembly plant, handcraft Night watchman's dwelling unit, accessory to Assembly plant industrial use Automobile uses: Nursing homes Gas station Occupancy, residential Parts and equipment sales 3 unrelated persons B B Re nta I/lea sing 4 unrelated persons B B Repair/servicing business Residential density (developments) Sales Maximum of 50 units in the PU D B Tire sales and recapping 22-43 DUA Bakery, wholesale 44-64 DUA GFA 4,000 SF or less 65-87 DUA GFA up to 10,000 SF 88-200 DUA Banks/ financial institutions Residential treatment facility Bowling alleys 1-8 residents B B Car wash 8+ residents Catering business Shelter care facility Single room occupancy facility Cemetery s s Temporary family health care structure T T Clinics: Health clinic (no GFA limit) Health clinic (up to 10,000 SF, GFA) Health clinic (up to 4,000 SF, GFA) Page 5 of 8 Flint Hill Roudabush, Gale 8c Associates, Inc. April 17th, 2019 CharlolteSYille, V°ll'ginia CharlolleRVille. VirPinia Matrix of Use Types-Flint Hill PUD Use Types FLINT HILL Use Types FLINT HILL Flint Hill PUD Existing Zoning- R-lS (for reference) Flint Hill PUD Existing Zoning- R-lS (for reference) Public health clinic Microbrewery Veterinary (with outside pens/runs) Mobile food units Veterinary (without outside pens/runs) Movie theaters, cineplexes Clubs, private s s Municipal/governmental offices, buildings, courts s s Communications facilities and towers: Museums: Antennae or microcells mounted on existing towers Up to 4,000 SF, GFA established prior to 02/20/01 B B Up to 10,000 SF, GFA Attached facilities utilizing utility poles or other Music halls electric transmission facilities as the attachment Offices: structure B B Business and professional Attached facilities not visible from any adjacent Medical street or property B B Philanthropic institutions/agencies Attached facilities visible from an adjacent street or Property management property Other offices (non-specified) Alternative tower support structures Outdoor storage, accessory Monopole tower support structures Parking: Guyed tower support structures Parking garage Lattice tower support structures Surface parking lot A Self-supporting tower support structures Surface parking lot (more than 20 spaces) A Contractor or tradesman's shop, general Temporary parking facilities A Crematorium (independent of funeral home) Photography studio Data center Photographic processing; blueprinting Daycare facility s s Radio/television broadcast stations Dry cleaning establishments Recreational facilities: Educational facilities (non-residential) Indoor: health/sports clubs; tennis club; swimming Elementary s s club; yoga studios; dance studios, skating rinks, High schools s s recreation centers, etc. B Colleges and universities s s Outdoor: Parks, playgrounds, ball fields and ball Artistic up to 4,000 SF, GFA courts, swimming pools, picnic shelters, etc. B B Artistic up to 10,000 SF, GFA Vocational, up to 4,000 SF, GFA Outdoor: Parks, playgrounds, ball fields and ball Vocational, up to 10,000 SF, GFA courts, swimming pools, picnic shelters, etc. (private) B s Electronic gaming cafe Restaurants: Funeral home (without crematory) Dance hall/all night GFA 4,000 SF or less Drive-through windows GFA up to 10,000 SF Fast food Funeral homes (with crematory) Full service GFA 4,000 SF or less 24-hour GFA up to 10,000 SF Taxi stand Golf course Towing service, automobile Golf driving range Technology-based businesses Helipad Transit facility Hospital Utility facilities s s Hotels/motels: Utility lines B B Up to 100 guest rooms 100+ guest rooms Laundromats Libraries B Manufactured home sales Page 8 of 8 Flint Hill Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc. April 17th, 2019 Charlottemne, Virginia Charlottesville, Virginia Narrative per Sec. 34-517(2) Narrative Project Description Flint Hill PUD April 17th, 2019 Flint Hill is a PUD on Flint Drive adjacent to the Longwood PUD. The PUD is intended to provide increased density and housing affordability, and meets the objectives in Sec. 34-490 ofthe Planned Unit Development ordinance as follows: 1. To encourage developments ofequal or higher quality than otherwise required by the strict application ofzoning district regulations that would otherwise govern; This proposal is ofequal or higher quality than otherwise required by the strict application ofzoning district regulations that currently govern because itproposes to provide higher density and more affordable housing options than would be built on the existingplatted, but unbuilt, 13parcels that make up the project. Ifbuilt by-right, the existing 13parcels would be large singlejamily homes on large lots that cost substantially more than what will be provided in the proposed PUD. In addition to the natural increase in affordability provided by townhomes versus singlejamily homes, the developer is proffering additional deed-restricted affordable housing that will remain affordable even ifthe marketprices ofother homes rise. The PUD also proposes to donate alargeparcel ofpark land along Moore's Creek to the City ofCharlottesvillefor preservation, conservation, and/or passive recreation uses, andproposes to constroct apocketparkor rain garden in a central open space within the PUD and apocketparkon the north end ofthe site. 2. To encourage innovative arrangements ofbuildings and open spaces to provide efficient, attractive, flexible and environmentally sensitive design; The proposeda"angement ofbuildings avoids the large areas ofsteep slopes, avoids the riparian areas alongMoore's creek, builds on an upland area already subdividedfor development long ago, andpreserves large areas ofopen space providing efficient, attractive, flexible and environmentally sensitive design. 3. To promote a variety ofhousing types, or within a development containing only a single housing type, to promote inclusion ofhouses ofvarious sizes; The development willprimarily be ofa single housing type to encourage density, but willpromote inclusion ofhouses ofvarious sizes, architectural styles, andprice points by including townhomes ofvarying widths and squarefootages, including some townhomes with rear-alley-loadedgarages, and by proffering guaranteed affordable housing. 4. To encourage the clustering ofsingle-family dwellings for more efficient use ofland and preservation of open space; The proposed PUD clusters the new single-family housing on less than 4 upland acres ofthe site andpreserves more than halfthe site, while donating land to the Cityfor addition to an existingpark as well as preservation ofother open spaces. 5. To provide for developments designed to ftmction as cohesive, unified projects. The proposed PUD will be cohesive and unified in itsform andfunction, and will have a homeowners association to assure its long-term success. 6. To ensure that a development will be harmonious with the existing uses and character ofadjacent property, and/or consistent with patterns ofdevelopment noted with respect to such adjacent property; The project will have housing types very similar to what was built in the adjacent LongwoodPUD. The PUD also causes 306 Camellia Drive to remain as alarge 1-acre lot, consistent with development patterns along that street. 7. To ensure preservation of cultural features, scenic assets and natural features such as trees, streams and topography. The proposed PUD preserves the trees, streams, and sensitive topography on roughly 60% ofthe site, a significant achievement in a development that also provides significant density and affordability. 8. To provide for coordination ofarchitectural styles internally within the development as well as in relation to adjacent properties along the perimeter ofthe development; and The proposed PUD will have coordinated architectural styles, governed by an ArchitecturalReview Board that is part ofthe homeowners association. 9. To provide for coordinated linkages among internal buildings and uses, and external connections, at a scale appropriate to the development and adjacent neighborhoods; The proposed PUD provides coordinated road andpedestrian linkages via a new road and sidewalks that will connectMoseley Drive to Longwood Drive. The PUD will also providefor trail connections to Moores Creek and the adjacent Longwood Park owned by the City. 10. To facilitate access to the development by public transit services or other single-vehicle-alternative services, including, without limitation, public pedestrian systems. The proposed PUD will have the public pedestrian systems mentionedabove. It is located only one blockfrom Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT,) Route 4. In addition, the constroction ofthe road and new sidewalks on Flint Drive will connect Moseley Drive to LongwoodDrive, allowing pedestrians, particularly students that live on Garden Dr, Camellia Dr, Shasta Ct, Hilton Dr, and Moseley Dr, to walk to Jackson Via Elementary School and the Food Lion shopping center on neighborhood streets, spending less time walking along Harris Rd, abusier street. Pqe 7 of 8 Flint Hill Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc. April 17th, 2019 ViJ1inia Cbarlottenille, C:t111Tlott.r.mTie. Vinrinia Proffer Conditions BEFORE TIIB CITY COUNCIL OF TIIB CITY OF CHARLOTIESVILLE, VIRGINIA IN RE: PETITION FOR REZONING (City Application No. ZM-18-xxxxx) STATEMENT OF draft PROFFER CONDITIONS For the Flint Hill PUD Dated as ofOctober 10, 2018 TO TIIB HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF TIIB COUNCIL OF TIIB CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE: The undersigned limited liability company is the owner ofland subject to the above-referenced rezoning petition ("Subject Property''). The Owner/Applicant seeks to amend the current zoning ofthe property subject to certain voluntary development conditions set forth below. In connection with this rezoning application, the Owner/Applicant seeks approval ofa PUD as set forth within a PUD Development Plan dated xxxxxx. The Owner/Applicant hereby proffers and agrees that ifthe Subject Property is rezoned as requested, the rezoning will be subject to, and the Owner will abide by, the approved PUD Development Plan as well as the following conditions: 1. Density shall not exceed a maximum of50 residential units. 2. At or prior to project completion, the Developer shall offer to donate approximately 3 acres ofland to the City ofCharlottesville to be added to the adjacent Longwood Park. 3. Affordable Housing a) The Developer shall cause a minimum of5 affordable dwelling units (ADUs) to be built on site (as defined in City Code §34-12 (c), with affordability over a term ofa minimum of 10 years. b) During home construction ADUs shall be provided incrementally such that at least 1incremental ADU shall be under construction prior to the issuance of every 10th Certificate ofOccupancy. c) As an alternative to the Developer building the ADUsas is contemplated in Proffer 3.b. above, the Developer may deed the ADU lots to anon-profit affordable housing provider for construction by the non-profit entity. If the required ADU lots are deeded to a non-profit affordable housing provider in accordance with the incremental timing specified in 3.b. then the transfer ofthe lot shall be deemed to have satisfied the timing requirement specified in 3.b. WHEREFORE, the undersigned Owner(s) stipulate and agree that the use and development ofthe Subject Property shall be in conformity with the conditions hereinabove stated, and requests that the Subject Property be rezoned as requested, in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance ofthe City of Charlottesville. Respectfully submitted this XXth day of:XX, XXX. Owner: Owner's Address: Belmont Station, LLC 170 South Pantops Drive Charlottesville, VA 22911 By:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Frank Ballif, Manager PapBcdB Roudabush, Gale ac Associates, Inc. April 17th. 81111 Cllarlatt.lnlll, Ylrllnla SUPPLEMENTAL lNFORMATlON REQUESTED BY STAFF ll!llBli: l!!J.l(O!rJ sr.!l'lON, w: lN ADDlTlON TO PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONTENTS bl'l'ELOPD: llllllD!"1 srmoi1. w: llllllQl: llOD1lAB1lllll. C.111 ~ AmOCL\118 SOUJg; 9I! BOORJ)ABX SVR1RX· P'L.'f 01 l(SQ')J@ SOJRQt {)F roprcyam. E!ll!!ll!G OOPOGl!Al'Bf Pl!Ol'IDED er lUIUD.ll!OSlf, c.u.i: & ASiOOA'Jl!S lll!C, ens '1BE PIUlPlm'l'I' IS LOCAtED Ill :!DllE I A!l SKOJll Off l'EDEB.ll. l!llm::EllCY ~ AG!!t'CT FLCOD Di!URJliCB M1P )M(BE'.fl. 5106SC02E>, IW'll) 112-11<-20\!S~ Vicinity Map YaXT!!'IDf RQJJmKQ mqgnr; w m KE!Gff'l' Vlll40l = 6.2 Ul!lra/ACRS llAXIllUl! CUBID1l USl!: Vt.£Jll7 LOl'9 P'BOP(l'!IJ) tmt· 1JP 11> 60 RB:llDl!llI1AL l'mlllOllES (6 Arn)Rl>AB!.B Dlll!WllG lllflrn) OfllH SPA&• {)11agrmp· w. OP121 BPACI 'm BB onm !)ID M'.AD1W!ll!I) BT A S:Olll "'1 I 1 flt-Y'S tP•IHC • ,,.. ~ ....... I i - SHITT !!l{fX' 1, COVtR 2. CRlnCJll 9..CPES Pt.AH J, ARE JRUQ( AUTUTURll 1 01llEBS I 4, ARE JRUQ( AUTUTURll 2 A!lSllCIAtulff .Ulll/OR OOHil!O 11> 1'llB ~~eioro l'lmlm SllALL E'l'.CEll) SOM Wllll/3. cm. / -· 5. 8. ARE ARE JRUQ( JRUQ( AUTUTURll AUTUTURll 7, IJIJIOSCJlPE Pt.All 8. IAlsSSUIC Pt.Ml I J 4 RIDIDIXC 3f1MCD: !1!0«'!: SIDI: O' O' ,·' 9. IAlsSSUIC Pt.Ml II 10. l.\ASSNC A.PJ1J II - 11. a>EN SPACE Pl.A11 l!E.IRI 10' 12. PtiRll!IC Pl.A11 •ur MIU mmfE!!l R07i'S GP 101lmou919 13. PmESTRIAH Pt.Ml 18' Ml!IDlU\J DRIVEf.lY U2lClff 14.. PRQJVlllAAY IJ!IP Pl.All 15. PRQJVlllAAY A.AT IJtH'!) 1§8 SUVMABJ 18.. lREE 9.R'1,1r'f 1'01AL Sl'Jl! .IR8A: a6! .le. (IOO!I) 17. lREE 9.R'1,1r'f ::m QUOLL' OR I.Of .!RSA: RIGB'l-OP-WA\' ABFA: CHU SPJ.C:B JR&A: sna c.uaw oM.ri ro Rml'.Am a-1s 10Jl7 .lo. (U.<:) ±UO .lo. {fU'r.) ±o.?! Ab. (U:i) we "'· (5U") -­ 1& lREE 9.R'1,1r'f H\ UllUN A.NiJ 'I1UP'ltC SlUbY! 'OOWllHOIJlllll MPS Pl!R DAY (l'PD) - ? ~ U>lITTI ' 1 'l'PO = Z94 mRA lPD l 'll'O 047) Oll irosm.E'{ ORl\'I Al8I l 1l'l> 047) Oll LOJIGl!OOll Dmt l'1l! (l.llO) RJSIDl!ITW. alllOOlOl!IUl!/001'l!KOlaS rt' - D.78 1'>(t) - UOJ.n(X)+4.28. llUl!lll!!! (fl' Ullll'S. All PW: IWUl! Wl!Em\T SCALE 1• = 500' T = Ill TM' PII! OAr Flint Hill Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc. April l 'l'tb, 2019 Charlottesville, Vlrginia Chorlollesville, Virginia Critical Slope Map: Zoning Critical Slope Map: Subdivision 50 0 50 100 150 (J+-1120(b)(2)) ~~~--~--~--ril_--~--ril.--'!iii. ~.--~--~~~~~~~~!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~~~~~~~~i (29-3) SCALE:1"=50' SCALE:! "=50' DEflNITION Of CRITICAL SUJ'E. A CRITICAL SLOPE IS ANY SLOPE 'llllOSE GRADE CRITICAL SLOPE REFERS TO lHE PORTION OF A LOT lHAT HAS A GRADE IN IS 25S OR GREATEii AND: EXCESS OF l'llENTY-Fl'IE (25) PERCENT. f... A PORTION OF THE SLOPE HAS A HORIZ M.ClliOl4o'flA BtEWllHtAXf 9CBOOL D::EaB A&E A:flll..CIO.CA?BLvua Bl'JUlllll 11lA!' UllDSIN'llllllBAllllDAlllAl'lllOWlllDON'JIDlllllllll'. ~iJITIS RrJ 1 'ViRouglily Jaokson-Vla ~qwre EIEITI ent19 Cbertotl.e::rl'file, Vlrgfnla Cbarloll!l 'ntnl/ flfl'"..,.'"' '" rwfn~ !It'd 1.12 A'!O ,.. "'' O.A.A .... c O.A.O ..... TOTAL ..._.. lutflKfftl- • •tiriotll.••-.ctfcw -'-rcklll'~............ toltll! 2.UI .... llUNON' JllOUCllOHYOUJMl AbtlCW.O (ft') Tl' lOAbA\/AU.\llU fOR *™OVAi llb/ytI ... 3.61' us 0 .... 0,00 ..•.. 0 000 0.'. ,... lm,.......•l;-1~ •hlrtC/OfJ "'"' 1? LOAD fWMtHIHG (lb/Y')t ltO.V.INlNG TP WAD lttOUCTION lltQUlltfD [lb/'frl: lM 0.00 --- •• fAllt(iO T, lllDUCTION tKUEDrD av O.Dt la/rlAJI •• Post-Development Requiremenl for Site Area Total Nitrogen (For Information Purpo$.C S)~---~ POST.OMU>,MEHTLOAD llbhfl ~J NmtOGlH lCAO 1ttoucn:urtAOUCYlD IJb/l') ll.71 ltfMA.lNmG POSJ· OEVUO,MtNT NfTllOGf~ lOAO (lb/¥') l"1 4J Drainage Area A Fof~tiOl>«l SCloK• (acrft) I A Sollt I ...,. I ,..., I DSolb l ot.lb 0.00 l.fftd Ci>Ytt Rv 0.00 Mal\llll'ftd tUri t.JI. 'DIE roJA1 Ol8 fW.SIDJlAlID ARU FOR '00: PROJBC1 IS 4.60 AC JBlCB OICLITOIS 1Bl RO.mi 'IO 81 BVIJa' TO UOSlUT DBii'B ARl> LOWrfl>OO IHU\11, 11lBXI.: mt 131 nm:E£ DISCHARGI POIH7S rOR 'IBJS DIYEL1)00 11.ml'DI!\, U£ ~IE:. l!-l @ ..... 18 ,., """ ''''"'"' u.srns. .m1u:a • uiwa nt: Cf\~~ Ill[ WO ~!18) IS '1elll Ill[ @ 0 l'IWa~m l!UO'I,. s:rrPD • (I;«(; lt-1S .t llll!Wo'\1 ~ ® mm=­ OOlO!O'' nw II • ~IE:. l!-l MD.Ill H " ..... """''''"'"' @ ,., w::oll.llQL IOl!t!'fl l t llorn£'1t ~ Ata 0011w1r or .uo 11 '1CCCRl"a wnc 111€ OCIE fX "»£ UIOOl:9Q'G> !J'A'ot IRllS'!tI$. Ot @ ,.,..... l'IWa~Z» l'NlCO. 200r.?71 I (O P'9).7'l'lt'llll'!S. UV Aa'OtDltE JO fV!Ul'E POltlllW. OC\El.CA«l'tl' IS JO ff: (tl)ID> M nt:lffllt"l. OlllY. AU ~Tr.!DOl!l M't>EI 10 ntf> Pl.Al J.IE. 1111.E .UO 0 KXUtt ~3.0 € (I;«(; lt-1S @ 1\11':0.l!-lzo::rmi(O llo:J(9)1!>1)00 IW.ml'OI!\, U£ ~IE:. llll!lal''9<,>l.QAIJt~.IE CQ "1CT TO nt em or HY '31V~ 0 l'IWa~~ ~~~€;ft.ti (I;«(; lt-lS Vl.Cl'ID l @ mm=­ llo:J(9l11>1loo 1W.ml'DI!\, ~IE:. l!-l u.c 80.MlllT runa~ u.c: no!.. PMRP.. CR.t ............. CK~Tlt!\U£. W1 UBll e mm=­ r:uuo.~~11 ~IE:. l!-l C:CWVtf/G.nt O~ l'Alll>l - @ 1\11':0. zo:x?)'fOCO llo:J(9)1!>1)00 IW.ml'OI!\, U£ ~IE:. l!-l @ ,.,..... """"""""' .t llliroER M!'fl C W«.11001 J :r~w~=,,-~-•-•...... --.­ ...- ..-.-.-...,=.-. @ mm=­ OOlO!O'' 8ffXlro II .t: SN\£\' I\ 1' @ ,.,..... l'NlCO. ~~, 20Qrml '° 80'41£ K: ntS - ­ OAY (f 20....... l!-l~IE:. mm=­ Sl'l4'ME or 1.1'.iTAtf Mll.X: @ llo:J(9l11>1loo 1W.ml'DI!\, ~IE:.l'l.O u.c @ """""""" 2«E:. l!-l CRY ~ CIWl.D!!89.'U.E ,.~ W),; - - - - - ­ "" (<)HS$(11 00\ffs: _ __ @ 1\11':0. zo::rmf\:J'-r'"' / ~~ \ II \ \ ~ ~/ ~ \/~\< I~ P.I" ~ trl >-< ~ Qll ~ '"O '"O 0 s. °' (]q CTl ~ (D c.u ~ [ I.. \ \ \ \\ i\ \ "', , s,\ ~ y"', , ~ - --­ . __,,., / I ...___ ~ . '-..._°'-­ '-..... /'-. '-­ " ----...___ '-..... " '-... ".. -....____ '-.... '-..... '-..... I ~ E1 \\ \·,,', I '--,'--'-- '-..... '-... '-.._ "/-...... '-..... i! \\\\""' '-.....""'-~ " '-..... .. . " " '" I '-­ '­ I """ \ '-..... '-... \ '-.. " "'­ "' " CD \ " " '-.. " " \ '\ \'' '"' ', ' "-\ \ ­ , ' .\"'""' \ \ ',\"' ·\ \:\"" \\ - \ ra. !. "':i::j i g­ :::1 C"+ ii tI:I r.~· s i" ... .. .... .. 9wAL ... ~ .... -- ,.----- ~ 9 MA;~~ (ID B' UNK ~ _ / ' ()AK 0 .. 6" UNK "''Tif'uNv AK .... .. . fi'LooJJp!J '/JV . .. .. . 10' MAP .. Q"O NK "" -· ...~-·· .. .. ,,-...-..._ .. "­ ti- MA~ \, ,1 l 1 1 _,,,,,,, f f / I ~ \'\,,,,,. ,I 1""1 . ~ ~ i~AP .... .... f h R" WAIL ., . :r \nil UAP .. ti- MA~ v \A I / ' I \;<­ \ . 1ro ~ 9 ~,\p > -­ • I I ...., . "" . .. .. QAP .. I .) ,.,........,,,.. civ,..-1r MAP 1 ,, .. -' · '"' ~~ I ~ 1::::::::; ,.. 0 .. .. .. .. l,?' S4~7: .. "" .. E,:Js; '4J?f' .. ".iJ!J J, f4f{'1y Sf'IV[i .. Ji fi /' °"' 6 ) ..p I ~ "­ G .?5 .. !? " . .?' ~ QWAL f~ (D R!> 12" WAL" " " rg ~ JJ I 1 ( ,0 Tree Survey 3 ~ '-~ - ~~~~)-L--4--...~~~Uo..,J.J~~~~~~~,~~~~~~~~ '---.. ~11-'::;,;;_ 't~ I / / / / / / / / /~ / ( .. .. "" .... .... "' OwAL .. 9wAL "' "' KEYMAP 0 50 100 SCALE: l" = 50' Flint Hill Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc. April 17th, 2019 Charlottenille, Vh'glnla Charlottenille. Vil'lin1a SOURCE OF BOUNDARY SURVEY: PLAT OF RECORD SOURCE EXISTING OF TOPOGRAPHY­ TOPOGRAPHY PROVID ED BY THE CITY PF CHARLOTTESVILLE GlS DATA. ~A~i~~~diN~~c~gDI~~g~~~EA~~H~~~Eo:R F:l~~~2~~~GENCY DATED 02-04-2055 PROPOSED USE: G UNrrs) UP TO 50 RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOMES (5 AFFORDABLE Dll'ELLIN m'.No:r:c~pf:~~s~w OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY A HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION AND/ OR DONATED TO THE CITY. BUILDING SETBACKS: FRONT: 0' SIDE: O' REAR: 10' •lO' MIN BETWEEN ROWS OF TOWNHOUSES LAND USE SUMMARY TOTAL SITE AREA: 9.81 Ac. (1003) 306 CAMILlA DR ±0.97 Ac. (9.9%) LOT AREA: ±2.90 Ac. (29.6%) RIGHT-OF-WAY AREA · ±0.78 Ac. (7.93) OPEN SPACE AREA: ±5.16 Ac. (52.6%) 306 CAMILlA DRIVE TO REMAIN R-lS SSMH lo!O-MH-51 ~~/l"'jril...~1111111\1~0~111111111111111111111111111111111111~5;0;. w r-..-------­ ~l~OO~lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll50 ............ I SCALE:1"=50' Flint Hill Roudabush, Gale &c Associates, Inc. April 17th, 2019 CbarlottenWe, ViqlDla [8]8 EB EBB Curoe Table Preliminary Plat I Curve Length Radius Delta Chord Tangent Chord Bearing Cl C2 51.43' 45.15' 152.00' 152.00' 19"23'07" 17\l1'11" 51.18' 44.99' 25.96' 22.74' N 31"31'57" W N 49"44'07" W / / ~---i.._ __ _J__ __ _J_ __ j_ __ _L __ j_ __ ~ C3 C4 41.35' 21.73' 205.74' 12.50' 11"30'50" 99•35'43• 41.28' 19.10' 20.74' 14.79' S 52"28'47" E N 83"28'16" E / MOSELEY DRIVE C5 20.35' 12.50' 93i7'48" 18.18' 13.24' s 18'58'15" w \ cs I \ 20.04' 205.74' 5·34'51• 20.03' 10.03' S 24'53'13" E I C7 20.67' 8.00' 148\l2'47" 15.38' 27.94' S 40'21'27" E I (j) I CB 159.07' 43.00' 211'57'13" 82.68' 150.19' N 40'21'27" W I \ C9 C10 70.27' 286.69' 622.88' 77.50' 6'27'48" 211"57'12" 70.23' 149.01' 35.17' 270.69' N 18i0'25" W N 40'21'28" W I 0 I I § I I 0 0 \ 0\ \ ) \ BUCKINGHAM -- · . -··--·· PARK AVENUE FIFEVILLE I I I 1I I \ / / Q Fo1ntaine Research Park ----­ (~ i @ g i ~ ~-- JOHNSON NOBIHILL " VILLAGE PJ~RKSI DE/ IEAGLES FRY ' S SPRING L.ANDI NG/ CONDOS WILLOUGHBY Piedmont REDFIELDS Virginia D ij; \ Community SHERWOOD M .ANOR College q ~ \ \ ~/ MILL CREEK ~ OAK HILL LAKESIDE INDUSTRIAL PARK ~ I MOSBY @ill VICINITY KAP 9CAll: 1" - 21#1 l I CITY PARK LAND DONATION 8.865 AC ORIGINAL MEJ.: 111' :Z0-1116 4.832 AC LD1S 2, 3 & 13-22 4.208 AC RIGHT OF WAY 0.789 AC 808 CJJIELIJA llR1VI 11.810 AC RESIDUE: 0.961 AC . -­ -- NEW RESIDENTIAL LD1S 2.837 AC ·.·.·.·.·-­ \ alY PARK LANO DONAlKll 3.865 AC \ ..fiO 0 50 100 150 OPEN !FACE 1.5114 AC I \ Y / SCALE: 1•.50• RIGHT OF WAY DI CAllEWA DR. RESIDIE O.mAC 0.967 AC 11.810 AC I PARCEL 200259210 PARCEL 21A13BOOO PARCEL 200271300 0 SHOWALTER, JONAlHAN M & CARLEIGH W ZONE: R-1S NEIGHBORHOOD INl/ESIMENlS, LLC ZONE: R-2 @ ARMSTRONG, JOSHUA & ANNALEE ZONE: PUC lHE DMSD OF lHE LAND DESCRIBED IS Wl1H 11£ FREE CONSENT OF NfJ II ACCXJRDANCE Wl1H 11£ 0 PARCEL 200259220 WILSON, JEFFREY M & RlJIHANN L ZONE: R-1S ® PARCEL 200277000 GOODSON, STANLEY A &: BRENDA M lR ZONE: R-2 @ PARCEL 200271200 MCCONNELL, JUSTIN R & HEAlHER M ZONE: PUC DESIRES CF 11£ UNDERSIGNm O'MIER, 1RUS1EES, OR PR(I/ ---· ~--.~~~,~~~---.---., .1 '1 ' I ,..-----, \\, / ' rJCP l0-198 PA11£lL •r .t CJTT PARK LAND DONA7'10N £O'tS zt .t 8BB .... 12' 5,llNTN!Y EER 1,' WEIEIT .... .... II! 317 PG 25 ...... ....................... .... '' ' \ I EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B \ lllS'l'JMG PLAT PROPOSED PLAT Applicant is requesting city council vacate Keene Court, a portion of Flint Drive, and sewer easements, shown as hatched areas on Exhibit A. . -­ New road and sanitary easements will be dedicated ·.·.·.·.·-- -­ on proposed plat as shown on Exhibit B. 100' O' 100' lllO' SllO' llC'1.2: 1" - 100' Flint Hill Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc. February ?th, 2019 Cbarlott.enille, YiqiDia Cbarlotteimlle, Virliida Alfele, Matthew From: Lynn Wahl Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 3:50 PM To: Alfele, Matthew Cc: Martin Wahl; Brian Wahl Subject: Flint Hill PUD Rezoning Public Comment Follow Up Flag: FollowUp Flag Status: Flagged Dear Mr. Alfele ‐ My husband and I are the property owners of 111 Shasta Court adjacent to the area of proposed development. While we do not oppose some developmental this area, we strongly believe the number and type of proposed units is excessive and should be considerably scaled back. Furthermore, we believe the development should include a mix of single family homes, duplexes and townhomes. Fifty townhomes would drastically change the character of our existing single family home neighborhood. We are also concerned about construction noise and the potential for construction runoff and environmental damage to the creek in the ravine behind our property. Please forward our concerns to Planning Commission members. Thank you, Lynn and Martin Wahl Sent from my iPhone 1 Alfele, Matthew From: Sandra Erksa Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 4:12 PM To: Alfele, Matthew Subject: Flint Hill Rezoning Follow Up Flag: FollowUp Flag Status: Flagged 112 Shasta Court Charlottesville, VA. 22903 December 10, 2018 Dear Mr. Alfele, This letter was written to ask that the Flint Hill Rezoning application be denied. We have lived in our home on Shasta Court for over 45 years and care a great deal about our neighborhood. There will always be change and growth, but it is our responsibility to prevent what we feel is negative growth. One of the biggest changes that we have seen in our area is the increased volume of traffic. If you allow up to 50 townhouses on these properties, then there is the potential of adding at least 100 or more cars on the roads. Our roads are too narrow and unable to handle the cars that are currently using them, let alone adding the extra cars that would be generated by such a large development. There has also been a lot of increased growth south of the city and our area is a cut through for many of these cars. We ask that the Rezoning application for Flint Hill properties, the 10 acres directly accessible by stub outs on Longwood Drive and Moseley Drive be denied. Please keep these properties zoned as Low Density Residential. Sincerely, Dennis and Sandy Erksa 1 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT REQUEST FOR A WAIVER: CRITICAL SLOPES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: May 14, 2019 (P19-00013) Project Planner: Matt Alfele, AICP Date of Staff Report: May 3, 2019 Applicant: Belmont Station, LLC !pplicant’s Representative(s): Dustin Greene (Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc. Current Property Owner: Belmont Station, LLC Application Information Property Street Address: 100 – 109 Keene Ct., 304 -306 Flint Dr., and 306 Camellia Dr. Tax Map/Parcel #: Tax Map and Parcel (TMP) 20-259.31, TMP 20-259.32, TMP 20-259.33, TMP 20-259.34, TMP 20-259.35, TMP 20-259.38, TMP 20-259.37, TMP 20-259.26, TMP 20-259.27, TMP 20-259.28, TMP 20-259.29, TMP 20-259.30, and TMP 20-196 Total Project Area (Limits of Disturbance): 9.81 acres Total Area of Critical Slopes on Parcels: 2.65 acres | 27% Area of Proposed Critical Slope Disturbance: 0.51 | 5.2% of total site area | 19.2% of total critical slopes area Comprehensive Plan (General Land Use Plan): Low Density Residential Current Zoning Classification: R-1S (Developer is requesting a rezoning to PUD under ZM18- 00003) Background Belmont Station, LLC has submitted a rezoning application (ZM18-00003) with a development plan dated April 17, 2019. The rezoning proposal is for approximately ten acres to be rezoned to PUD to accommodate a townhouse development. The proposed improvements associated with the rezoning will impact critical slopes on-site as defined by Section 34-1120(b)(2). Per Section 34-1120(b) and 34-516(c) the request for a critical slope waiver must be heard simultaneously with the rezoning request by the Planning Commission. The PUD referred to as ͞FΜΊΣχ HΊΜΜ ΄ΕD͟ would allow up to fifty townhouses at an approximate density of five dwelling units per acre (DUA), with open space in the amount of 5.16 acres, and the following unique characteristics/ amenities: townhouse style units, rear loading lots off Flint Drive, new dedicated City Park land with improved trails, and a central teardrop road. Page 1 of 8 Application Details Belmont Station, LLC is requesting a waiver from Section 34-1120(b) of the City Code (Critical Slope Ordinance) to allow for construction of a development that would include up to fifty townhouses in eight rows and supporting infrastructure. Improvements specific to areas where critical slopes would be impacted should the waiver be approved are shown on the Critical Slope Exhibit (Attachment B) and include portions of lots 9 through 22, lots 24 and 25, lot 31, open space, future park land, and parking on Flint Drive. Existing critical slopes areas located on this Property include 2.65 acres or 27 percent of the site. The ̯ζζΜΊ̯̼̽Μ͋ ͇͕͋ΊΣΊχΊΪΣ Ϊ͕ ̽͞ιΊχΊ̯̽Μ νΜΪζ͋͟ Ίν ̯ν ͕ΪΜΜΪϮν΄ Any slope whose grade is 25% or greater, and (a) a portion of the slope has a horizontal run of greater than 20 feet, and its total area is 6,000 SF or greater, and (b) a portion of the slope is within 200 feet of a waterway. See City Code Sec. 34-1120(b)(2). Based on the information presented within the application materials, staff verifies that the area for which this waiver is sought meets all of the above-referenced components Ϊ͕ χ·͋ ͇͕͋ΊΣΊχΊΪΣ Ϊ͕ ̽͞ιΊχΊ̯̽Μ νΜΪζ͋͟΅ Vicinity Map Page 2 of 8 Critical Slopes Map Standard of Review A copy of Sec. 34-1120(b) (Critical Slopes Regulations) is included as Attachment C for your reference. The provisions of Sec. 34-1120(b) must guide your analysis and recommendations. Iχ Ίν χ·͋ ΄Μ̯ΣΣΊΣͽ CΪ΢΢ΊννΊΪΣ͛ν responsibility, when a waiver application has been filed, to review the application and make a recommendation to City Council as to whether or not the waiver should be granted based off the following: i. The public benefits of allowing disturbance of a critical slope outweigh the public benefits of the undisturbed slope (public benefits include, but are not limited to, stormwater and erosion control that maintains the stability of the property and/or the quality of adjacent or environmentally sensitive areas; groundwater recharge; Page 3 of 8 reduced stormwater velocity; minimization of impervious surfaces; and stabilization of otherwise unstable slopes); or ii. Due to unusual size, topography, shape, location, or other unusual physical conditions, or existing development of a property, one (1) or more of these critical slopes provisions would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use, reuse or redevelopment of such property or would result in significant degradation of the site or adjacent properties. If the recommendation is for City Council to grant the requested waiver, the Planning Commission may also make recommendations as to the following: i. Whether any specific features or areas within the proposed area of disturbance should remain undisturbed (for example: large stands of trees; rock outcroppings; slopes greater than 60%, etc.)? ii. Whether there are any conditions that could be imposed by City Council that would mitigate any possible adverse impacts of the proposed disturbance? Project Review and Analysis Each applicant for a critical slopes waiver is required to articulate a justification for the waiver, and to address how the land disturbance, as proposed, will satisfy the purpose and intent of the Critical Slopes Regulations, as found within City Code Sec. 34-1120(b)(1). In order to grant a waiver, City Council is required to make one of two specific findings: either: (1) public [environmental] benefits of allowing disturbance of the critical slope outweigh the benefits afforded by the existing undisturbed slope per City Code 34-1120(b)(6)(d.i), or (2) due to unusual physical conditions or existing development of a site, the critical slopes restrictions would unreasonably limit the use or development of the property, see City Code 34-1120(b)(6)(d.ii.). The applicant has provided information in the attached critical slopes waiver narrative for Finding #1. !ζζΜΊ̯̽Σχ͛ν ͧustification for Finding #1 i. The public benefits of allowing disturbance of a critical slope outweigh the public benefits of the undisturbed slope (public benefits include, but are not limited to, stormwater and erosion control that maintains the stability of the property and/or the quality of adjacent or environmentally sensitive areas; groundwater recharge; reduced stormwater velocity; minimization of impervious surfaces; and stabilization of otherwise unstable slopes); ΋͋͋ χ·͋ ̯ζζΜΊ̯̽Σχ͛s own analysis (Attachment A and B) for a full justification as to Finding i. ii. Due to unusual size, topography, shape, location, or other unusual physical conditions, or existing development of a property, one (1) or more of these critical slopes provisions would Page 4 of 8 effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use, reuse or redevelopment of such property or would result in significant degradation of the site or adjacent properties. The applicant indicates in the application (Attachment A and B) that finding 2 is not applicable. Staff Analysis: Α·͋ ̽ιΊχΊ̯̽Μ νΜΪζ͋ Ϯ̯Ίϭ͋ι ̯ζζΜΊ̯̽χΊΪΣ Ϯ̯ν ι͋ϭΊ͋Ϯ͇͋ ̼ϴ χ·͋ CΊχϴ͛ν EΣϭΊιΪΣ΢͋Σχ̯Μ Sustainability Department and Engineering Department. Below is their analysis on the application and findings. Environmental Sustainability Department: Staff finds the proposed limits of disturbance shown in the application inadequate and difficult to decipher. Without clearly defined limits of disturbance additional impacts to critical slopes could occur. Reconfiguring the footprints of buildings on lots 15-19, 21-22, 24-25, 26-29, and 31 could avoid unneeded impacts to critical slopes in these areas. Given that the site discharges to a sensitive wetland area and an impaired stream (Moores Creek), all water quality and quantity requirements associated with site development should be completed on-site. To protect existing wetland areas, stormwater outfall and associated energy dissipater and settling basins should be outside critical slopes. The Preliminary BMP/Stormwater Management Plan shows 2.22 acres as protected forest/open space in the post-development condition. In order to qualify for this status, the area must be permanently protected. Engineering Department: Erosion and sediment control measures are not shown; as a result, the impact on the critical slopes for erosion and sediment control structures cannot be determined. The application provides no anticipated impact from erosion and sediment or mitigating factors. The outlet protection for the stormwater management piping and any other forms of stormwater energy dissipation are shown outside of the critical slope area; however, insufficient detail is provided to determine if these structures can be constructed without affecting the wetland. A wetland is shown downgrade of the critical slope area. The application does not include a certified wetland delineation showing the boundary of the wetland area. Without this information staff cannot determine if protective measures of the critical slopes will be outside the wetland area. From Critical Slope Provision 2 Justification: “There have been talks with the neighbors about erosion occurring in the upper reaches of Stream 2 and the developer has expressed their willingness to reinforce these eroded areas.” Stream 2 is located at the bottom of steep slopes ̯Σ͇ ϮΊχ·ΊΣ χ·͋ ͕Ϊι͋νχ͇͋ ̯ι̯͋΅ !Σϴ ͕͕͋Ϊιχν χΪ ΢̯͋ΣΊΣͽ͕ϢΜΜϴ ͞ι͋ΊΣ͕Ϊι̽͋ χ·͋ν͋ ͋ιΪ͇͇͋ ̯ι̯͋ν͟ ϮΪϢΜ͇ further impact critical slopes and disturb existing forest. Generally the stormwater management plan is lacking sufficient details to justify the claims made. The details and computations that are provided do not support claims made about providing all water quantity onsite without disturbing a far greater area than is suggested. Also, not even a conceptual grading plan was provided. Based on the limits of disturbance as shown, and the topography of the site, it is extremely unlikely that: 1) Α·͋ ͇ι̯ΊΣ̯ͽ͋ ̯ι̯͋ ̽Μ̯Ί΢͇͋ χΪ ̼͋ χι̯͋χ͇͋ ΊΣ χ·͋ ·̼ΊΪ͕ΊΜχ͋ι͛ ϮΪϢΜ͇ ̼͋ ̯̼Μ͋ χΪ be conveyed effectively and 2) Runoff in the rear yards (in some areas flowing towards the critical slopes) would constitute sheet flow. Page 5 of 8 Planning Department: The General Land Use Plan of the Comprehensive Plan calls for the subject properties to be Low Density Residential land use with a DUA under 15. The proposed development will have a DUA of approximately 5 and preserve over 5 acres as Open Space. To achieve this level of open space and stay below 15 DUA called for in the Comprehensive Plan, the development needs to be clustered and will impact Critical Slopes. As part of the PUD request, the applicant is also pursuing the closure of Flint Drive and Keene Court. If granted, the applicant would re-plat the roads in almost the same location with modifications made to meet the development need. The majority of proposed townhomes (and parking) are outside the critical slopes areas. The majority of impacts to the critical slopes comes from stormwater management and public trails. Alternative site layouts may reduce impacts to critical slope areas, but may also impact other development factors such as overall building arrangement, offsite parking, density, or housing affordability. The site layout of the currently proposed development is dependent on approval of the previously noted rezoning application and road closure by City Council. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider the following when making a recommendation to City Council: Purpose and Intent of the Critical Slope Provisions The purpose and intent of the critical slope provisions in Section 34-1120(b)(1) are to protect topographic features whose disturbance may cause negative impacts including: Loss of tree canopy and wildlife habitat that contribute to the natural beauty and visual quality of the community. If the corresponding rezoning application is approved by City Council, a majority of the trees on site would be preserved in new open space or through the dedication of land to the City for a future park. A by-right development on the site could have less impact on Critical Slopes, but would have the possibility of a higher number of trees removed. Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Per Section 34-1120(b)(6)(d)(ii), the shape and location of the critical slopes may unreasonably restrict the use and development of the subject properties in a manner in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. Alternative site layouts may reduce impacts to critical slope areas, but may also impact other development factors such as overall building arrangement, offsite parking, density, or housing affordability. The site layout of the currently proposed development is dependent on approval of the previously noted rezoning application and road closure by City Council. Conditions Per Section 34-1120(b)(6)(e), City Council may impose conditions upon a critical slope waiver to ensure the development will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the critical slope Page 6 of 8 provisions. Should the Planning Commission find recommendation of the waiver to be appropriate, staff recommends Planning Commission consider the following conditions to mitigate potential impacts: Staff recommends City Council require all water quality requirements associated with the site development be completed on-site and not through the purchasing of off-site stormwater nutrient credits in order to protect the sensitive on-site wetland features from increases in stormwater flow volumes and velocities. Staff recommends City Council require all stormwater outfalls and associated energy dissipaters be constructed outside critical slope areas and wetlands. Staff recommends City Council require erosion and sediment control measures that exceed minimum requirements in order to mitigate potential impacts to the undisturbed critical slope, wetlands, and adjacent properties during land disturbance activities, per Section 34-1120(b)(1)(a-c). Staff recommends City Council condition the use of super silt fence with wire reinforcing and six (6) feet stake spacing to ensure adequate protection of the aforementioned items, to be detailed on the site plan and approved by the Engineering Department prior to final site plan approval. Staff recommends City Council require protection of existing tree canopy and additional habitat redevelopment in order to mitigate potential impacts to existing tree canopy and wildlife habitat per Section 34-1120(b)(1)(f). Staff recommends City Council condition the installation of a fixed, immoveable barrier to protect root zones of existing trees identified to be preserved on the final site plan at the drip line to remain throughout full completion of the construction, and additional species of native woody and herbaceous and plantings in the critical slope areas and wetlands. Suggested Motions 1. ͞I move to recommend approval of the critical slope waiver for Tax Map and Parcel 20- 259.31, TMP 20-259.32, TMP 20-259.33, TMP 20-259.34, TMP 20-259.35, TMP 20-259.38, TMP 20-259.37, TMP 20-259.26, TMP 20-259.27, TMP 20-259.28, TMP 20-259.29, TMP 20-259.30, and TMP 20-196, as requested, with no reservations or conditions, based on a finding that [reference at least one]:  The public benefits of allowing the disturbance outweigh the benefits afforded by the existing undisturbed critical slope, per Section 34-1120(b)(6)(d)(i)  Due to unusual physical conditions, or the existing development of the property, ̽Ϊ΢ζΜΊ̯Σ̽͋ ϮΊχ· χ·͋ CΊχϴ͛ν ̽ιΊχΊ̯̽Μ νΜΪζ͋ν ι͋ͽϢΜ̯χΊΪΣν ϮΪϢΜ͇ ζιΪ·Ί̼Ίt or unreasonably restrict the use or development of the property, per Section 34- 1120(b)(6)(d)(ii) Page 7 of 8 2. ͞I move to recommend approval of the critical slope waiver for Tax Map and Parcel 20- 259.31, TMP 20-259.32, TMP 20-259.33, TMP 20-259.34, TMP 20-259.35, TMP 20-259.38, TMP 20-259.37, TMP 20-259.26, TMP 20-259.27, TMP 20-259.28, TMP 20-259.29, TMP 20-259.30, and TMP 20-196, based on a finding that [reference at least one]:  The public benefits of allowing the disturbance outweigh the benefits afforded by the existing undisturbed critical slope, per Section 34-1120(b)(6)(d)(i)  Due to unusual physical conditions, or the existing development of the property, ̽Ϊ΢ζΜΊ̯Σ̽͋ ϮΊχ· χ·͋ CΊχϴ͛ν ̽ιΊχΊ̯̽Μ νΜΪζ͋ν ι͋ͽϢΜ̯χΊΪΣν ϮΪϢΜ͇ ζιΪ·Ί̼Ίχ Ϊι unreasonably restrict the use or development of the property, per Section 34- 1120(b)(6)(d)(ii) And this motion for approval is subject to the following conditions: _____the following features or areas should remain undisturbed [specify] _____the following conditions are recommended as being necessary to mitigate the potential adverse impacts of approving the waiver in the location requested: [specify] 3. ͜͞ ΢Ϊϭ͋ χΪ ι͋̽Ϊ΢΢͋Σ͇ ͇͋ΣΊ̯Μ Ϊ͕ χ·͋ νχ͋͋ζ νΜΪζ͋ Ϯ̯Ίϭ͋ι ͕Ϊι Tax Map and Parcel 20-259.31, TMP 20-259.32, TMP 20-259.33, TMP 20-259.34, TMP 20-259.35, TMP 20-259.38, TMP 20-259.37, TMP 20-259.26, TMP 20-259.27, TMP 20-259.28, TMP 20-259.29, TMP 20- 259.30, and TMP 20-196. Attachments A. Application and Narrative B. Critical Slope Exhibit C. Critical Slopes Ordinance D. Link to Flint Hill PUD Rezoning Staff Report http://www.charlottesville.org/departments- and-services/departments-h-z/neighborhood-development-services/development- ordinances/city-planning-commission/agendas/2019-agendas Page 8 of 8 WAIVER REQUEST FORM Please Return To: City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services PO Box 911, City Hall Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone (434) 970-3182 Fax (434) 970-3359 For a Critical Slopes Waiver Request, please include one of the following application fees: $75 for single-family or two­ family projects; $500 for all other project types. "additional application form required For all other Waiver Requests, please include one of the following application fees: $50 for single-family or two-family projects; $250 for all other project types. i.........P_,U~D'----------- Parcel Number_ _-=20-=2=-=- Project Name/Descri ption__.._F....,li""n.....t.....H...11 =-=,_ 59-'.37 -'""' - - - ­ Address/Location 101 K een e Court Owner Name Belmont Station, LLC Applicant Name Srn 1them Development Applicant Address: 170 Srn 1th Pantops Drive Phone (H) 434-245-0894 (W) (F) _ __ _ _ __ _ Email: CharlesA@ southern-develop ment.com Waiver Requested (review Zoning Ordinance for items required with waiver submissions): Parcels Cont'd Sidewalk _ Drainage/Storm Water Management *contact Staff for Supplemental 259.38, 259.26, · Requirements _Off-street Parking 259.27, 259.28, 259.29, 259.30 Site Plan Review _Lighting 259.31, 259.32, 259.33, 259.34, _Landscape _Signs 259.35, 196 Setbacks L Critical Slopes *additional application form required Communication Facilities Other _ Stream Buffer Mitigation Plan Description of Waiver Requested: We are seeking a critical slope waiver re q uest for a Planned Unit Development 1 Date -z,fa/1~ Property Owner Signature (if not applicant) Date For Office Use Only: Date Received: _ _ _ __ Review Required: Administrative_ __ Planning Commission _ __ City Council _ _ _ _ __ Approved: _ _ _ Denied: _ __ Director of NDS Comments: ----------------------------------~ 10/31i2012 WAIVER REQUEST FORM Please Return To: City of Charlottesville APK 1 / 2019 Department of Neighborhood Development Services PO Box 911, City Hall Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 NBGHBORHOOD DEVElDPMENT Telephone (434) 970-3182 Fax (434) 970-3359 For a Critical Slopes Waiver Request, please include one of the following application fees: $75 for single-family or two­ family projects; $500 for all other project types. *additional application form required For all other Waiver Requests, please include one of the following application fees: $50 for single-family or two-family projects; $250 for all other project types. Project Name/Description~F~li~n..... .... l .._P_..U~Dm<.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Parcel Number_ _= t ......Hil...... 2=-2=5 0~ =...:9""""3""'" .=7 _ __ Address/Location 101 K een e Court Owner Name Mosley Gardens, LLC Applicant Name Sa11thern Development Applicant Address: 170 Sor 1th Pantops Drive Phone (H) 434-245-0894 (W) (F) - - - - - - - ­ Email: C harlesA@southern-develop ment.com Waiver Requested (review Zoning Ordinance for items required with waiver submissions): Parcels Cont'd Sidewalk _Drainage/Storm Water Management 259.38, 259.26, *contact Staff for Supplemental Requirements _Off-street Parking 259.27, 259.28, 259.29, 259.30 Site Plan Review _Lighting 259.31, 259.32, 259.33, 259.34, _Landscape _Signs 259.35, 196 Setbacks _K_ Critical Slopes *additional application form required Communication Facilities Other _ Stream Buffer Mitigation Plan Description of Waiver Requested: We are seeking a critical slope waiver request fo.r a Planned U nit Development Reason for Waiver Request: There will be a small portion of critical slopes disturbed for infrastructure and a few townhouses. Date t/J/t~ Date For Office Use Only: Date Received: ----­ Review Required: Administrative- - ­ Planning Commission _ __ City Council _ _ _ _ __ Approved: Denied: _ __ Director of NOS Comments: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ­ ROUDABUSH, GALE & ASSOCIATES, INC. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION I.AND SURVEYING Serving Virgini11Since1956 ENGINE.ERING LAND PLANNING ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SURVEY DEPARTMENT 172 SOUTH PANTOPS DRIVE. STE. A 9I4 MONTICELLO ROAD JIM L. TAGGART. P.E. CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA2291 I Cl IARLOTTESVILLE. VA 22902 WILLIAM J. LEDBETTER. L.S. PHONE (434) 979-8I2I PHONE (434) 977-0205 BRIAND. JAMISON. L.S. DON FRANCO. P.E. DAVID M. ROBINSON. P.E. FAX (434) 979-I68 I FAX (434) 296-5220 KRISTOPHER C. WINTERS. L.S. AMMY M. GEORGE. PLA INFO... ';\ 0 Critical Slope Areas •.J '\ _J -~ I hit(~~ O' , . .,,,). "'" ,; I D Steep Slope Areas _J ./ ,...; ,\.J~ J . I $' .) _J •• .J I _....I . ; '. < .,,,,,. .,.;> ./ I I .,r •_j .J J J :. , .~ . .,; ....• I ,j -,, -I .I .J _l -~ ,,• ._ .,.. ~ J . .J _J _.1 ~ · .....- \ ... I _,,.; _;, ! ~'IOI; elt:)' 0 I I ) J } .. '· ~-~ I I • .J "• J I I J & I .'citsonJ ---1 .#~ E.ie.nent~ 't" I J ~ J Shit;1" Ct I ;_. J ..\ .I J "::?. } \ ~J I , __, .' _J ) ,. , o ...... I GarcJ~m ) ... -, J j j. " I ._;. .."J... ...f .) \ ~ J J. .,,,i ...l I . """!" ·~ Longwood / j j j ,.l ~· ,. Park J j'.. .,; J .l j c, l.J ···-.. ~1 ;"~/ ,}. I ;. :· .] .J .I / ':t \ N ~~111\)" W *E ":):;. i-"" "­ ~! -:.I ; s ,. Feet Title: Date: 1/30/2019 0 100 200 300 400 DISCLii/MER:T/1is tlrawi111: i.I' 11ei1/rcr t1 fc~ally rccnrclrrl 11111p 11nr cl .1·111·1-'C_\' and is not intended tn he 11.1·c1/ ti.~ .viwlr. Tlr<' illfnrmatic. ~[1~ ... ' -ll'ifll'J,l •' ..,> # \ Critical Slope Map: Zoning Critical Slope Map: Subdivision 100 150 r---------- i;o 0 50 (29-3) (34-11ZQ(b)(2)) SCALE:l "=50' SCALE:l"=50' CRITICAi. SlOPE REFERS 11J lHE PORTION Of A LOT 1HAT HAS A GRADE IN cmNJQ Of CRITICAL !UfE. A CRll1CAl SI.OPE IS ANY SI.OPE llllOS£ GRArE: EXCESS Of 111EN1Y-fl\£ (25) PERCENT. IS 251 OR GREAJIR AND: ~ A PIR!lctl Of lHE 5lOPE HAS A HORlzetlTAI. RUN Of GREAU lHAN 0.51 AC Of CRITICAi. SLOPE DISlURBANCE 0.29 AC DISlURBANCE FOR PUBl.JC INFRASTRUClURE 111EN1Y (20) FEET AND ITS lOTAL AREA IS SIX lHClJSAND (6,000) SWARE FEET OR GREATER: AND m HUNIHD (200) FEET Of ANY B. A PORTION Of 11£ SI.OPE IS \lrnilN WAUWAY AS llEN11F1£D ON THE MOST CIJRR£NT arr lO'QGRAPHtCAI. llAPS MAINTAINED BY THE DEPARTMENT Of NEIGltBORHOOO llE\e.a'MEJllT SER'lllCES. 0.36 AC OF CRITICAi. SLOPE OISl\IRBANCE 0.26 AC DISllJRBANCE RlR PUil.iC INfRASlR\JCl\JRE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE DISTURBED CRITICAL SLOPES - ~~~ - - UNETYPE LEGEND - Flint Hill Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc. April 17th, 2019 Charlottesville, Virginia Charlottesville, Virginia 2114/2019 Charlottesville, VA Code of Ordinances ec. 34-1120. - Lot regulations, general. (a) Frontage requirement. Every lot shall have its principal frontage on a street or place (i) that has been accepted by the city for maintenance, or (ii) that a subdivider or developer has been contractually obligated to install as a condition of subdivision or site plan approval and for which an adequate financial guaranty has been furnished to the city. Except for flag lots, stem lots, and cul-de-sac lots, or other circumstances described within the city's subdivision ordinance, no lot shall be used, in whole or in part, for any residential purpose unless such lot abuts a street right-of-way for at least the minimum distance required by such subdivision ordinance for a residential lot. (b) Critical slopes. (1) Purpose and intent. The provisions of this subsection (hereinafter, "critical slopes provisions") are intended to protect topographical features that have a slope in excess of the grade established and other characteristics in the following ordinance for the following reasons and whose disturbance could cause one (1) or more of the following negative impacts: a. Erosion affecting the structural integrity of those 'features. b. Stormwater and erosion-related impacts on adjacent properties. c. Stormwater and erosion-related impacts to environmentally sensitive areas such as streams and wetlands. d. Increased stormwater velocity due to loss of vegetation. e. Decreased groundwater recharge due to changes in site hydrology. f. Loss of natural or topographic features that contribute substantially to the natural beauty and visual quality of the community such as loss of tree canopy, forested areas and wildlife habitat. These provisions are intended to direct building locations to terrain more suitable to development and to discourage development on critical slopes for the reasons listed above, and to supplement other regulations and policies regarding encroachment of development into stream buffers and floodplains and protection of public water supplies. (2) Definition of critical slope. A critical slope is any slope whose grade is 25% or greater and: a. A portion of the slope has a horizontal run of greater than twenty (20) feet and its total area is six thousand (6,000) square feet or greater; and b. A portion of the slope is within two hundred (200) feet of any waterway as identified on the most current city topographical maps maintained by the department of neighborhood development services. Parcels containing critical slopes are shown on the map entitled "Properties Impacted by Critical Slopes" maintained by the department of neighborhood development services. These critical slopes provisions shall apply to all critical slopes as defined herein, notwithstanding any subdivision, lot line adjustment, or other action affecting parcel boundaries made subsequent to the date of enactment of this section. (3) Building site required. Every newly created lot shall contain at least one (1) building site. For purposes of this section, the term building site refers to a contiguous area of land in slopes of less than 25%, as determined by reference to the most current city topographical maps maintained by the department of neighborhood development services or a source determined by the city engineer to be of superior accuracy, exclusive of such areas as may be located in the flood hazard overlay district or under water. (4) Building site area and dimensions. Each building site in a residential development shall have adequate area for all dwelling unit(s) outside of all required yard areas for the applicable zoning district and all parking areas. Within all other developments subject to the requirement of a site plan, each building site shall have adequate area for all buildings and structures, parking and loading areas, storage yards and other improvements, and all earth disturbing activity related to the improvements. " 1/4 2/14/2019 Charlottesville. VA Code of Ordinances {5} Location ofstructures and improvements. The following shall apply to the location of any building or structure fo is required under the Uniform Statewide Building Code and to any improvement shown on a site plan pursuant t this chapter: a. No building, structure or improvement shall be located on any lot or parcel within any area other than a building site. b. No building, structure or improvement, nor any earth disturbing activity to establish such building, structure or improvement shall be located on a critical slope, except as may be permitted by a modification or waiver. {6} Modification or waiver. a. Any person who is the owner, owner's agent, or contract purchaser {with the owner's written consent} of property may request a modification or waiver of the requirements of these critical slopes provisions. Any such request shall be presented in writing and shall address how the proposed modification or waiver will satisfy the purpose and intent of these provisions. b. The director of neighborhood development services shall post on the city website notice of the date, time and place that a request for a modification or waiver of the requirements of these critical slopes provisions will be reviewed and cause written notice to be sent to the applicant or his agent and the owner or agent for the owner of each property located within five hundred {500) feet of the property subject to the waiver. Notice sent by first class mail to the last known address of such owner or agent as shown on the current real estate tax assessment books, postmarked not less than five (5) days before the meeting, shall be deemed adequate. A representative of the department of neighborhood development services shall make affidavit that such mailing has been made and file the affidavit with the papers related to the site plan application. c. All modification or waiver requests shall be submitted to the department of neighborhood development services, to be reviewed by the planning commission. In considering a requested modification or waiver the planning commission shall consider the recommendation of the director of neighborhood development services or their designee. The director, in formulating his recommendation, shall consult with the city engineer, the city's environmental manager, and other appropriate officials. The director shall provide the planning commission with an evaluation of the proposed modification or waiver that considers the potential for soil erosion, sedimentation and water pollution in accordance with current provisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook and the Virginia State Water Control Board best management practices, and, where applicable, t.he provisions of ChaP-J;fil 1.Q of the City Code. The director may also consider other negative impacts of disturbance as defined in these critical slope provisions. d. The planning commission shall make a recommendation to city council in accordance with the criteria set forth in this section, and city council may thereafter grant a modification or waiver upon making a finding that: (i} The public benefits of allowing disturbance of a critical slope outweigh the public benefits of the undisturbed slope {public benefits include, but are not limited to, stormwater and erosion control that maintains the stability of the property and/or the quality of adjacent or environmentally sensitive areas; groundwater recharge; reduced stormwater velocity; minimization of impervious surfaces; and stabilization of otherwise unstable slopes}; or {ii} Due to unusual size, topography, shape, location, or other unusual physical conditions, or existing development of a property, one {1} or more of these critical slopes provisions would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use, reuse or redevelopment of such prop~rty or would result in significant degradation of the site or adjacent properties. 214 2/14/2019 Charlottesville, VA Code of Ordinances No modification or waiver granted shall be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, detrimental to the orderly development of the area or adjacent properties, or contrary to sound engineering practices. e. In granting a modification or waiver, city council may allow the disturbance of a portion of the slope, but may determine that there are some features or areas that cannot be disturbed. These include, but are not limited to: {i) Large stands of trees; {ii) Rock outcroppings; {iii) Slopes greater than 60%. City council shall consider the potential negative impacts of the disturbance and regrading of critical slopes, and of resulting new slopes and/or retaining walls. City council may impose conditions as it deems necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare and to insure that development will be consistent with the purpose and intent of these critical slopes provisions. Conditions shall clearly specify the negative impacts that they will mitigate. Conditions may include, but are not limited to: (i) Compliance with the "Low Impact Development Standards" found in the City Standards and Design Manual. (ii) A limitation on retaining wall height, length, or use; (iii) Replacement of trees removed at up to three-to-one ratio; (iv) Habitat redevelopment; (v) An increase in storm water detention of up to 10% greater than that required by city development standards; (vi) Detailed site engineering plans to achieve increased slope stability, ground water recharge, and/or decrease in stormwater surface flow velocity; {vii) Limitation of the period of construction disturbance to a specific number of consecutive days; (viii) Requirement that reseeding occur in less days than otherwise required by City Code. (7) Exemptions. A lot, structure or improvement may be exempt from the requirements of these critical slopes provisions, as follows: a. Any structure which was lawfully in existence prior to the effective date of these critical slopes provisions, and which is nonconforming solely on the basis of the requirements of these provisions, may be expanded, enlarged, extended, modified and/or reconstructed as though such structure were a conforming structure. For the purposes of this section, the term "lawfully In existence" shall also apply to any structure for which a site plan was approved or a building permit was issued prior to the effective date of these provisions, provided such plan or permit has not expired. b. Any lot or parcel of record which was lawfully a lot of record on the effective date of this chapter shall be exempt from the requirements of these critical slopes provisions for the establishment of the first single­ family dwelling unit on such lot or parcel; however, subparagraph (S)(b) above, shall apply to such lot or parcel if it contains adequate land area in slopes of less than 25% for the location of such structure. c. Driveways, public utility lines and appurtenances, stormwater management facilities and any other public facilities necessary to allow the use of the parcel shall not be required to be located within a building site and shall not be subject to the building site area and dimension requirements set forth above within these critical slopes provisions, provided that the applicant demonstrates that no reasonable alternative 3/4 2/14/2019 Charlottesville, VA Code of Ordinances location or alignment exists. The city engineer shall require that protective and restorative measures be installed and maintained as deemed necessary to insure that the development will be consistent with the purpose and intent of these critical slopes provisions. (9-15-03(3); 11-21-05; 1-17-06(7); 1-17-12; 7-16-12) 4/4 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPT. OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT JOINT CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF HEARING: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 PROJECT NAME: 1617 Emmet St. Drive Through APPLICATION NUMBER: SP19-00001 REASON FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT: To authorize a specific land use (Drive through window for restaurant) Project Planner: Joey Winter (winter@charlottesville.org) Date of Staff Report: May 6, 2019 Applicant: Riverbend Development, Inc. Applicants Representative: Ms. Ashley Davies Owner of Record: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. successor to Fidelity, American Bank Charlottesville Application Information Property Street Address: 1617 Emmet St (“Subject Property”) Tax Map | Parcel Number: TM 40C-2 | 40C002000 Site Area (per GIS): 0.500 acres (21,780 ft2) Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Plan): Mixed Use Current Zoning Classification: Highway Corridor Mixed Used District (HW) Overlay Districts: Entrance Corridor Overlay Tax Status: PAID - parcel is up to date on taxes. Completeness: • Application contains all info required by Zoning Ordinance Secs. 34-41(d), 34-158(a), & 34-158(b) • Existing dwelling units on site: 0 • Dwelling units proposed by this development: 0 • Pre-application meeting required by Sec. 34-41(b)(1) was conducted on: December 26, 2018 • Community meeting required by Sec. 34-41(c)(2) was conducted on: March 21, 2019 Meeting location – Former Wells Fargo Bank (1617 Emmet St. North, Charlottesville, VA 22901) • An additional community meeting was conducted on: March 28, 2019 Meeting location – Former Wells Fargo Bank (1617 Emmet St. North, Charlottesville, VA 22901) Page 1 of 12 SP19-00001 1617 Emmet St. Drive Through Application Components Per Sec. 34-158(a), the procedure for filing and consideration of an application for a special use permit is the same as that required by section 34-41 for an owner-initiated petition for a zoning map amendment, except that a complete application for a special use permit shall also include: (1) A site plan when required by section 34-802 ATTACHMENT 3 – Site Plan Exhibit of the City Code; (2) A written disclosure of the information required by section 34-8 of the City Code and, if the applicant is not the owner of the property, written evidence of his status as (i) the ATTACHMENT 1, Page 4 authorized agent of the property owner, or (ii) a contract purchaser of the property whose application is with the permission of the property owner; (3) For developments including any non- residential uses, and developments proposing the construction of three (3) or more single- or ATTACHMENT 1, Page 8 two-family dwellings, the applicant shall provide a completed low-impact development ("LID") methods worksheet; (4) For applications proposing the alteration of the footprint or height of an existing building, or N/A – No alteration of the footprint or height of the construction of one (1) or more new an existing building has been proposed buildings: (i) a building massing diagram and (ii) elevations; (5) Information and data identifying how many, if any, existing dwelling units on the development site meet the city's definition of N/A – No existing dwelling units on the an "affordable dwelling unit" and whether any development site such existing units, or equivalent affordable units, will remain following the development; (6) Other supporting data sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the purposes and standards of this Zoning Ordinance, including, See list of attachments on page 12 of this staff without limitation, graphic materials that report illustrate the context of the project as well as information and data addressing the factors set forth within section 34-157 above. Page 2 of 12 SP19-00001 1617 Emmet St. Drive Through Applicant’s Request Landowner Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. successor to Fidelity, American Bank Charlottesville, represented by Riverbend Development, Inc. is requesting a Special Use Permit (SUP) pursuant to City Code Sec. 34- 420, to authorize a specific land use (drive through window for restaurant) to serve the following property: Tax Map and Parcel (TMP) No. 40C-2 (“Subject Property”). The Subject Property is zoned is zoned HW (Highway Corridor Mixed Use District) with Entrance Corridor Overlay and has frontage on Emmet Street North (Route 29) and Angus Road. The Subject Property includes approximately 0.500 acres (21,780 ft2) and the landowner proposes to convert the existing structure (a former bank) into a restaurant with a drive through window. The Comprehensive Land Use Map for this area calls for Mixed Use development. Vicinity Map Page 3 of 12 SP19-00001 1617 Emmet St. Drive Through Background The owner is seeking to redevelop the property as a coffee shop with a drive through window. The proposed use (“restaurant”) is allowed by-right within the HW zoning district classification. However, per the use matrix in Sec. 34-796 of the City Code, a Special Use Permit is required for the drive through window. On August 20, 2018, City Council approved ordinance ZT-18-04-01 to authorize restaurants with drive through windows in the HW zoning district with a special use permit. Prior to this ordinance, drive through windows were not authorized in the HW zoning district under any circumstance. A copy of the ordinance as approved by city council on is included with this staff report as ATTACHMENT 4. A preliminary site plan exhibit was submitted as a supplement to this SUP application and is included with this staff report as ATTACHMENT 3. At the request of the applicant, this site plan is being treated only as a supplement to the SUP application and has not gone through a full staff review. Two aspects of the site plan exhibit that should be considered for this Special Use Permit request are the removal of an existing entrance to the site and the proposed circulation pattern for drive through traffic. Though not proposed in the site plan exhibit, a third aspect that needs to be considered is the potential for future alterations to the structure and drive through canopy. Further information on the proposed removal of the existing site entrance; proposed on-site vehicle circulation pattern; and potential changes to the structure/canopy can be found on the next three pages of this report. Page 4 of 12 SP19-00001 1617 Emmet St. Drive Through REMOVAL OF EXISTING SITE ENTRANCE The site plan exhibit proposes to eliminate an existing site entrance on Emmet Street North circled in red below. This change is being proposed by the applicant at the recommendation of the City’s Traffic Engineer. If this site entrance is removed, the site will still have two points of ingress/egress: one to Angus Road and another to the adjacent shopping center on TMP 40C-1. It is staff’s opinion that removal of this entrance will improve traffic circulation in the area. Location of site entrance to be removed. - SOURCE: Google Maps Page 5 of 12 SP19-00001 1617 Emmet St. Drive Through ON-SITE VEHICLE CIRCULATION PATTERN The circulation pattern for on-site vehicle traffic proposed in the site plan exhibit can be seen below. It is important to consider that a drive through ATM from the former bank continues to operate in the drive through lane farthest from the building. The applicant has indicated that this drive through ATM will remain in use alongside the proposed restaurant drive through window. Based on trip generation data provided by the applicant, the restaurant (coffee shop) drive through window will generate significantly more traffic than the previous bank drive through window. It is staff’s opinion that additional signing and pavement markings, including both lane lines and text, are needed to designate the travel ways for drive through and non-drive through traffic and specify that all traffic is one way. Proposed on-site vehicle circulation pattern – SOURCE: Applicant’s Site Plan Exhibit Page 6 of 12 SP19-00001 1617 Emmet St. Drive Through STURCTURE/CANOPY CHANGES It is important to note that the site plan exhibit does not propose any changes to the existing building’s structure or canopy at this time. However, the applicant has indicated to staff it is possible they may seek to remove some of the existing drive through canopy in the future. Because this site lies in an Entrance Corridor, any alterations of the structure or drive through canopy will require approval from the Entrance Corridor Review Board (ERB). Existing structure and drive through canopy – SOURCE: Google Street View Page 7 of 12 SP19-00001 1617 Emmet St. Drive Through 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. Staff’s analysis of those factors, based on the information provided by the Applicant is below. Sec. 34-157. - General standards for issuance. (a) In considering an application for a special use permit, the city council shall consider the following factors: 1. Whether the proposed use or development will be harmonious with existing patterns of use and development within the neighborhood; Staff Analysis: The Subject Property is located at the intersection of Emmet Street and Angus Road. The properties immediately surrounding the subject property are described as follows: Direction TMP Use Zoning North 40C-5.1 Fast Food Restaurant HW, EC West 40C-1 Retail Stores (Shopping Center) HW, EC South East 40A-15 Hotel HW, EC East 40A-15.1 Hotel HW, EC To the North of the Subject Property across Angus Road is a fast food restaurant with a drive through window. To the East of the parcel across Emmet Street North are two hotels. To the South and West of the parcel is a retail shopping center. On Emmet Street North (Route 29) from the Albemarle County line to Barracks Road, a distance of approximately one mile, there are currently eight businesses operating drive through windows (seven restaurants and one bank). There are four drive through windows north of the Route 250 Bypass (Burger King, Raising Cane’s, Popeye’s, and KFC) and four drive through windows south of the Bypass (Cookout, Zaxby’s, Arby’s, and SunTrust Bank). Page 8 of 12 SP19-00001 1617 Emmet St. Drive Through 2. Whether the proposed use or development and associated public facilities will substantially conform to the city's comprehensive plan; Staff Analysis: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Subject Property is designated Mixed Use on the City’s General Land Use Plan. The goal of the Mixed Use land use is to “[e]stablish a mix of uses within walking distance of residential neighborhoods that will enhance opportunities for small group interaction throughout Charlottesville.” HYDRAULIC SMALL AREA PLAN: The Subject Property lies in the Land Use Focus Area for the Hydraulic Small Area Plan (HSAP). The Conceptual Land Use Plan on pg. 71 of the HSAP shows commercial use at this site. The commercial use category applies to community and regional shopping centers and highway-oriented retail districts. 3. Whether proposed use or development of any buildings or structures will comply with all applicable building code regulations; Staff Analysis: Building plans are not yet available for review, but renovation of the existing structure, demolition of the existing structure, and/or construction of a new structure cannot proceed without separate applications/ review conducted by the City’s Building Code Official. 4. Whether the proposed use or development will have any potentially adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, or the community in general; and if so, whether there are any reasonable conditions of approval that would satisfactorily mitigate such impacts. Potential adverse impacts to be considered include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: a. Traffic or parking congestion; Staff Analysis: Additional signing and pavement markings, including both lane lines and text, are needed to designate the travel ways for drive through and non-drive through traffic and specify that all traffic is one way. b. Noise, lights, dust, odor, fumes, vibration, and other factors which adversely affect the natural environment; Staff Analysis: The primary source of any adverse impact on the natural environment from this development would be the resulting increase in automobile traffic. Based on trip generation data provided by the applicant, the restaurant (coffee shop) drive through window will generate significantly more traffic than the previous bank drive through window (SEE ATTACHMENT 2). Because the proposed drive through would re- purpose the existing window and vehicle lanes, this development would not result in an increase of impervious area at the site. c. Displacement of existing residents or businesses; Staff Analysis: The proposed development will not lead to displacement of existing residents or businesses. Page 9 of 12 SP19-00001 1617 Emmet St. Drive Through d. Discouragement of economic development activities that may provide desirable employment or enlarge the tax base; Staff Analysis: The proposed development will not lead to discouragement of economic development activities that may provide desirable employment or enlarge the tax base. e. Undue density of population or intensity of use in relation to the community facilities existing or available; Staff Analysis: The proposed development will not lead to undue density of population or intensity of use in relation to the community facilities existing or available. f. Reduction in the availability of affordable housing in the neighborhood; Staff Analysis: The proposed development will not lead to a reduction in the availability of affordable housing in the neighborhood. g. Impact on school population and facilities; Staff Analysis: The proposed development will not have an impact on school population and facilities. h. Destruction of or encroachment upon conservation or historic districts; Staff Analysis: The proposed development will not cause destruction of or encroachment upon conservation or historic districts. i. Conformity with federal, state and local laws, as demonstrated and certified by the applicant; Staff Analysis: The applicant has certified that the proposed development will conform to federal, state and local laws. j. Massing and scale of project. Staff Analysis: The proposed development does not include the construction or destruction of buildings on the Subject Property. 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; Staff Analysis: Per Sec. 34-541(9): “The intent of the Highway Corridor district is to facilitate development of a commercial nature that is more auto oriented than the mixed use and neighborhood commercial corridors...” Based on this statement, the inclusion of a drive through window on the Subject Property is in harmony with the purposes of the specific zoning district in which it will be placed. 6. Whether the proposed use or development will meet applicable general and specific standards set forth within the zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, or other city ordinances or regulations; Staff Analysis: The existing structure on the Subject Property does not conform to specific Streetwall regulations for the Highway Corridor district: Page 10 of 12 SP19-00001 1617 Emmet St. Drive Through • Per Sec. 34-738(1), the maximum setback where the Subject Property fronts Emmet Street North (road classification= primary street) is thirty (30) feet. The current structure is setback approximately forty-five (45) feet from the property line. • Per Sec. 34-738(2), the maximum setback where the Subject Property fronts Angus Road (road classification= linking street) is twenty (20) feet. The current structure is setback approximately forty (40) feet from the property line. 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: Design staff recommends a finding that approval of the requested SUP will not adversely impact Sub-Area A of the 29 North Entrance Corridor. (b) Any resolution adopted by city council to grant a special use permit shall set forth any reasonable conditions which apply to the approval. Staff Analysis: Conditions recommended by staff are found on page 12 of this report. PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED As required by Sec. 34-41(c)(2), the applicant held a community meeting for this SUP application on March 21, 2019 at the Subject Property (1617 Emmet St. North, Charlottesville, VA 22901). At the request of the neighborhood association, a second community meeting was held on March 28, 2019 at the same location. A City Planner attended the March 28 meeting as a representative of NDS. In attendance at the March 28 meeting was Jim Chang, President of the Meadows Residents Association. Mr. Chang stated that neighborhood residents are generally in favor of a coffee shop coming to the area as there is a desire for more meeting places in the community. He expressed concerns about site access, in particular congestion around the Angus Road entrance. No written public comment was received during this process. Page 11 of 12 SP19-00001 1617 Emmet St. Drive Through STAFF’S RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends Planning Commission focus on the following items during review: • Elimination of the existing site entrance on Emmet Street North. • On-site traffic circulation as it relates to the proposed restaurant drive through window and existing drive through ATM. • Potential future changes to the structure and canopy as they relate to Entrance Corridor guidelines. Staff recommends that the application be approved with the following conditions: 1. A Certificate of Appropriateness shall be obtained from the Entrance Corridor Review Board prior to any alteration of the existing structure or canopy. 2. The final site plan shall include additional signing and pavement markings, including both lane lines and text, to designate the travel ways for drive through and non-drive through traffic and specify that all traffic is one way. POSSIBLE MOTION(S) 1. I move to recommend approval of this application for a Special Use Permit to authorize a drive through window for a restaurant at 1617 Emmet Street North, subject to: • The two (2) conditions presented in the staff report • [alternative conditions, or additional condition(s)….list here] OR, 2. I move to recommend denial of this application for a Special Use Permit to authorize a drive through window for a restaurant at 1617 Emmet Street North. ATTACHMENTS 1) Special Use Permit Application 2) Applicant’s Project Narrative 3) Site Plan Exhibit 4) Ordinance ZT-18-04-01 – Ordinance to authorize restaurants with drive through windows in the HW zoning district with a special use permit. 5) Community Meeting Documents Page 12 of 12 City of Charlottesville Application for Special Use Permit Project Name: b \ ~ ~rb l.\Lb - (; m~ 2J"\ Pre-Application Meeting Date: _ __ . . . ._\ sl____________ \ 2J --+A Applicant's Representative: -~~~~~~...;:,__ 1JOJI)~ __________ Planner: T \3 tl Other City Officials in Attendance: Li>crie ~:) P1 :s:.j ~. The following items will be required supplemental information for this application and must be submitted with the completed application package: 1. CoarLJ,,, 1.Dtfi ff en ±r.B;c ~ pf,,.,, ~,.,gj._ -;J;Jt~ ""'­ 2. Q'ntlv~~~ vi'"'•2:?· - ~b.cW 1' p\d~ 1k. ui4vt 3. tH;l:rj .or.1)",;h 4. --------~--------------~--- 2 ~oTTEsr; City of Charlottesville ~ llUII;; 0 ""'~ Application Checklist ~\"l'GINIA ~ 11·­-· ;., • \""'C'c Project Name: 1617 Emmet Street Drive Through I certify that the following documentation is ATTACHED to this application: Q 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 TFOs) lntJ 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)) bl;) 34-lSS(a)(S) 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 existing affordable units, or equivalent affordable units, remain following the development? (iii) What is the GFA of the project? GFA of residential uses? GFA of non-residential uses? GJ 34-157(a)(l) Graphic materials that illustrate the context of the project, and a narrative statement as to compatibility with existing patterns of use and development GJ 34-157(a)(2) Narrative statement: applicant's analysis of conformity with the Comprehensive Plan [!] 34-157(a)(3} Narrative statement: compliance with applicable USBC provisions GJ 34-157(a)(4) Narrative statement identifying and discussing any potential adverse impacts, as well as any measures included within the development plan, to mitigate those impacts l!:J 34-158(a)(6): other pertinent information (narrative, illustrative, etc.) [!:] All items noted on the Pre-Application Meeting Verification. Applicant Signature~ ~ faV\. '--1 p..v.> ~Date "2/\-z../ \''l By Its: ,,,.... '- '\]\.c(. ~ ~~ ............. l - . • ~ (For entities, specify: Officer, Member, Manager, Trustee, etc.) 3 City of Charlottes ·11e Community Meeting Project Name: 1617 Emmet Street Drive Through Section 34-41(c)(2) of the Code of the City of Charlottesville (adopted 2015) requires applicants seeking rezonings and special use permits to hold a community meeting. The purpose of a community meeting is to provide citizens an opportunity to receive information about a proposed development, about applicable zoning procedures, about applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan, and to give citizens an opportunity to ask questions. No application for a rezoning shall be placed on any agenda for a public hearing, until the required community meeting has been held and the director of neighborhood development services determines that the application is ready for final review through the formal public hearing process. By signing this document, the applicant acknowledges that It Is responsible for the following, in connection to the community meeting required for this project: 1. Following consultation with the city, the applicant will establish a date, time and location for the community meeting. The applicant Is responsible for reserving the location, and for all related costs. 2. The applicant will mall, by U.S. mall, first-class, postage pre-paid, a notice of the community meeting to a list of addresses provided by the City. The notice will be malled at least 14 calendar days prior to the date of the community meeting. The applicant Is responsible for the cost of the mailing. At least 7 calendar days prior to the meeting, the applicant will provide the city with an affidavit confirming that the mailing was timely completed. 3. The applicant wlll attend the community meeting and present the details of the proposed application. If the applicant is a business or other legal entity (as opposed to an Individual} then the meeting shall be attended by a corporate officer, an LLC member or manager, or another Individual who can speak for the entity that Is the applicant. Additionally, the meeting shall be attended by any design professional or consultant who has prepared plans or drawings submitted with the application. The applicant shall be prepared to explain all of the details of the proposed development, and to answer questions from citizens. 4. Depending on the nature and complexity of the application, the City may designate a planner to attend the community meeting. Regardless of whether a planner attends, the City will provide the applicant with guidelines, procedures, materials and recommended topics for the applicant's use In conducting the community meeting. 5. On the date of the meeting, the applicant shall make records of attendance and shall also document that the meeting occurred through photographs, video, or other evidence satisfactory to the City. Records of attendance may Include using the mailing list referred to in #1 as a sign-In sheet (requesting attendees to check off their name(s)) and may include a supplemental attendance sheet. The City will provide a format acceptable for use as the supplemental attendance sheet. Applicant:.... z:{Q'\lv~ ~ \ <--<"... By: ~ature~ ~ 'I Print fe'b~ ~\.~ Date ~\."'2..64 Its:'/(~~~ •(Officer, Mem~er, Trustee, etc.) 4 ~oTTEsp. City of Charlottesville 1i1~t Owner's .Authorizations ~ a~ (Not Required) ~ ~~~ ' -------------------! ~GJN1A- ~ Right of Entry- Property Owner Permission I, the undersigned, hereby grant the City of Charlottesville, its employees and officials, the right to enter the property that is the subject of this application, for the purpose of gathering information for the review of this Special Use Permit application. Owner: W ells Fargo Bank, N.A. Date 2/11/19 By (sign name):_dMVVYY1 ~ Print Name: Natalie Rogers Owner's: LLC Memb~ LLC ianager Corporate Officer (specify): Vice President Other (specific): _ _ _ _ __ Owner's Agent I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I have authorized the following named individual or entity to serve as my lawful agent, fo r the purpose of making application for this special use permit, and for all related purposes, including, without limitation: to make decisions and representations that will be binding upon my property and upon me, my successors and assigns. Name of Individual Agent: --=- A=s=hl=e;..;..y-=D:;...:a::...;.vi=·e=s_ _ _ _ __ Name of Corporate or other legal entity authorized to serve as agent: - - - - - - - - - - - ­ owner: Wells Fargo Bank N.A. Date: 211 1119 By (sign name): VJ ~ Print Name: Natalie Rogers Circle one: \, Owner's: LLC Member LLC Manager Corporate Officer (specify): Vice President Other (specific): _ _ _ _ __ 5 ~oTTEsp City of Charlottesville - 1• a ~\ / I By: '-­ Signatu~ w== Print /b.h~ ~~~ate s/-,/14 Its: \} Cc.L ~\.~ (Officer, Member, Trustee, etc.) 6 City of Charlottesville Fee Schedule Project Name: 1617 Emmet Street Drive Through Application Type Quantity Fee Subtotal Special Use Permit (Residential) $1,500 Special Use Permit (Mixed Use/Non-Residential) \ ~ \.1~00 • \ ~Q-0 • e-0 Mailing Costs per letter $1 per letter Newspaper Notice Payment Due Upon Invoice TOTAL * \/O 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 City of Charlott LID Checklist Project Name: \le\,\ ~ 'b'\" ~ ~~ LID Measure LID Checld1st Points Points Compensatory Plantings (see City buffer mitigation manual). 90% of restor­ 5 points or 1 point for each able stream buffers restored. 18% of the total acreage Pervlous pavers for parking and driveways with stone reservoir for storage 7 points or 1 point for each of 0.5 Inches of rainfall per Impervious drainage area. Surface area must be 7% of parking and driveway >1,000 ft. or~ 50% of the total parking and driveway surface area. 2 surface area. Shared parking (must have legally binding agreement) that eliminates >30% 5 points or 1 point for each of on-site parking required. 6% of parking surface elimi­ nated. Impervious Disconnection. Follow design manual specifications to ensure 8 points adequate capture of roof runoff (e.g. cisterns, dry wells, rain gardens) Bioretention. Percent of site treated must exceed 80%. Blofilter surface ar­ 8 points or 1 point for each ea must be~ 5% of impervious drainage area. 10% of site treated. Rain gardens. All lots, rain garden surface area for each lot~ 200 ft. 2 • 8 points or 1 point for each 10% of lots treated. Designed/constructed swales. Percent of site treated must exceed 80%, 8 points or 1 point for each achieve non-erosive velocities, and able to convey peak discharge from 10 10% of site treated. year storm. Manufactured sand filters, filter vaults (must provide filtering rather than 8 points or 1 point for each just hydrodynamic). Percent of site treated must exceed 80%. Sizing and 10% of site treated. volume for water quality treatment based on manufacturer's criteria. Green rooftop to treat ;?; 50% of roof area 8 points Other LID practices as approved by 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 Applicant's Signature Sign~~ ~ Print &~ ~;.... Date ___:~-....!:'---1---'- 8 1617 Emmet Street Special Use Permit for a Restaurant with a Drive Through Window Proposal: Utilization of existing building, formerly a Wells Fargo Bank, for a proposed coffee shop. The proposed restaurant use would utilize the existing drive-through window. Source: Google Maps Screenshot Special Use Permits Sec. 34-157. - General standards for issuance. (a) In considering an application for a special use permit, the city council shall consider the following factors: (1) Whether the proposed use or development will be harmonious with existing patterns of use and development within the neighborhood; The proposed coffee shop is located within a mixed-use commercial corridor in the City of Charlottesville. The use is consistent with other restaurant uses within the Highway Corridor Mixed Use Zoning District and long the Emmet Street/US 29 Corridor. (2) Whether the proposed use or development and associated public facilities will substantially conform to the city's comprehensive plan; The property is designated for Mixed-Use within the Comprehensive Plan, however residential uses are currently discouraged in the Highway Corridor zoning district. Therefore, a commercial use is highly appropriate and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 1 Source: City of Charlottesville Land Use Map (3) Whether proposed use or development of any buildings or structures will comply with all applicable building code regulations; · The development/building will comply with all applicable building code regulations. (4) Whether the proposed use or development will have any potentially adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, or the community in general; and if so, whether there are any reasonable conditions of approval that would satisfactorily mitigate such impacts. Potential adverse impacts to be considered include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: a. Traffic or parking congestion; Before and after /TE counts have been included for staff review. The placement of the proposed use is similar to others along the corridor. One access point along Emmet Street will be eliminated to create better and safer access management for this section of the corridor. US Route 29 is designed for high traffic volumes and the proposed use is consistent with other uses along this corridor. The Highway Corridor Mixed Use Zoning District promotes the most intensive of commercial uses. Proposed parking exceeds the requirements for this use type. b. Noise, lights, dust, odor, fumes, vibration, and other factors which adversely affect the natural environment; No impact is anticipated. c. Displacement of existing residents or businesses; No impact. 2 d. Discouragement of economic development activities that may provide desirable employment or enlarge the tax base; No impact. Utilization of existing but vacant commercial buildings along a primary Entrance Corridor is a benefit to the City. Reuse is more sustainable and filling vacant properties is a sign of a strong local economy. e. Undue density of population or intensity of use in relation to the community facilities existing or available; Not applicable. f. Reduction in the availability of affordable housing in the neighborhood; Not applicable-no impact. g. Impact on school population and facilities; No impact. h. Destruction of or encroachment upon conservation or historic districts; No impact. i. Conformity with federal, state and local laws, as demonstrated and certified by the applicant; and, We confirm this project will comply with federal, state and local laws. j. Massing and scale of project. The proposed use will utilize the existing building, which is consistent with other buildings within the area. (4) Whether the proposed use or development will be in harmony with the purposes of the specific zoning district in which it will be placed; The proposed reuse of the existing bank building is harmonious with the intent of the Highway Corridor Mixed Use Zoning District. The Zoning Ordinance states, "The intent of the Highway Corridor district is to facilitate development of a commercial nature that is more auto oriented than the mixed use and neighborhood commercial corridors. Development in these areas has been traditionally auto driven and the regulations established by this ordinance continue that trend. This district provides for intense commercial development.with very limited residential use. It is intended for the areas where the most intense commercial development in Charlottesville occurs." (6) Whether the proposed use or development will meet applicable general arid specific standards set forth within the zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, or other city ordinances or regulations; and The proposed restaurant/coffee shop use will locate within the existing building. The existing building, like almost all of the existing structures along this corridor, is nonconforming to current setback and parking regulations. Because we are utilizing all of 3 the existing resources, this project would comply with the Zoning Ordinance under the nonconforming structure regulations. (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. This project is within an Entrance Corridor. Any proposed signage and changes to the exterior of the building with be reviewed by the Entrance Corridor Review Board for compliance with the Design Guidelines. (b) Any resolution adopted by city council to grant a special use permit shall set forth any reasonable conditions which apply to the approval. Noted. 4 Coffee Shop- Emmet Street Charlottesville, VA ITE Trip Generation – Typical Weekday – 10th Edition Average Daily Traffic AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use (vph) (vph) Size (vpd) (ITE Land Use Code) Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Proposed Uses Coffee / Donut Shop with 1 Drive-Thru Window 2,371 s.f. 972 972 108 103 51 52 (937) Drive-In Bank 2 1 lane 63 63 5 4 13 14 (912) 3 Driveway Volumes 1,035 1,035 113 107 64 66 ITE Pass-By Trips: 4 Coffee / Donut Shop – 89%1 -865 -865 -93 -93 -45 -45 Drive-In Bank – 29% AM Peak / 35% PM Peak -20 -20 -1 -1 -4 -4 5 Proposed Primary Trips 150 150 19 13 15 17 Existing Use Drive-In Bank 6 3 lanes 187 187 16 10 39 42 (912) ITE Pass-By Trips: 7 -59 -59 -3 -3 -14 -14 29% AM Peak / 35% PM Peak 8 Existing Primary Trips 128 128 13 7 25 28 Net New Driveway Trips 9 +848 +848 +97 +97 +25 +24 (Line 3 minus Line 6) Net New Primary Trips 10 +22 +22 +6 +6 -10 -11 (Line 5 minus Line 8) 1 – ITE does not publish pass-by rates for Land Use Code 937, so the pass-by rate for Land Use Code 938 (Coffee / Donut Shop with Drive-Thru Window and No Indoor Seating) was applied February 12, 2019 GENERAL NOTES: TllP 40C-f N/F ANCUS INVESTORS, LLC DB 1006 PC 306 -­ ------·---- DISIM-•-.Y- 14--«A•--­ ---~ ~-,,., .... ____ _.....,.,_,~---:o­ ------lDDlln""""_...., --~,·--1r -ICO!r---·----· J.»••1-• ~l0Mll'lt:IOP'I0•(1)­ _____ ....,_11C_..,,_,,,.,."'°"'°'-­ "-.. ... :-.=...ra::::·.:...--~·----­ _ _ TIC_WIS _ _ ft_IU•S-"ll,-•IL . . . . . . . . . . tllMll .. -...9111."-­ AlM / BYPASS LANE --------1--.111_______.,. . . . .,. -t--fl!C-orMem ......... _)O_,,_ ~~.-11 .... ..-00 _ _ _ ,."'°"""",.. --=~ _ot___ - " < m l ... l,,_llllUllll.1ma!J. ---..•Pw.-1 .. ...... ---mlPf­ ~CllllmllllllllllrlCl,-~-·""IJl>ll -f!CtMfl#-10M..--~-'411D-M-IU:llll~ >!C ............ .,.,._... ... N _ _. -..U•-...-ID:DS H ..... - ­ ... --~--~ .----~­ - - - - - - . . - ­ ...1111•m--. - ­ UCE ""1---~-tll­ !l't!IO-I · -­ .,...._,,,_ _ _ Jme_ft<[_tu!\61.. _ _ ldl --~ ·-­ •-l'Dt12illfllr-,._Nv.~•"""""""""Ol"-"*"MO. 1~•V•J.-v~-.aa•1111rt--.....,.1No:f) _,,:::.:.:..:m~~fl)• t''"fl'••llll«/-0')•0....._ rnsTING OH - ­ .. pcrs ATM MACHIN[ N/F st~ . ~p 408-t BUY STORES, LP JNS11UMENT NUMBER 2014:8737 I A~~~/~~~W·­ TSB -UGT ~ 0 . {"' ·- - ­ -OH "­ . • OH = = ._ ._.·: ~ ;., .~/ CURB & GUTTER ~ LEGEND: US ROUTE 29 D PROPOSED PLANTING AREAS EMMET STREET D EJOSTING ClTY PUBLIC UTILITIES VARIABLE WIDTH R/W D EXISTING/PROPOSED STRUCTURES D EXISTING PAVE~ENT GENERAL NOTES: 1716 EMMET STREET VICINITY MAP , --· --· SPECIAL USE PERMIT & PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN liCALEI 1• • 1.soo"-r,._, .\,,""lt.4 ··­ ZOO......m$11Vf.SU!IEK CITY OF CHARLOTIESVILLE, VIRGINIA -·­ -~----,_,­ ~--11111,1---·!ll!f.wMll'UA: --~--1Mlll-------~"'­ -....V11 --· .. Nll _ _OUll_,,,._....,,_ -~-- Tll[-lf"~OllTHE_..,.Slm-1.000!U)--.,.., _ . . . . . _ _ .. Ol(llU_ . . . . . . . Plnfil'. llAlmlDll.-IUl"-""""'-­ TMP 40C-1 •J .itCA .. ID.:!IClllaP"Ol!ll!llS~Ol'll[IPll(NI. l.N3C~,_,S' _ _ _ _ _ N/F ANGUS INVESTORS, UC -SlllW"--J'M-Mg~-­ DB I006 PG 306 ..ll[ .......... NOll"ID~1'1 .................T"f) ---~""=~-;;- 172.._!9' Z~" ~/- g' ~IOEllP[lOfUIM(1)­ -llllCllOPl.OCOll.iOOL.""'5--s.&a:r-•!'...--SHOl..l.K,_OICUSIO&DallDlllOll"'M!aSSEM:Dot:.. _ 'IOll.-""'l.Oll'-Ml#C!I0-1011<1:1)1:>11'~ I EXISTING rnmi'\Ncr ...,._.,_"'•""""""""-~ H'.S>UD5lllll.aot11""""~..,.,.. l!IANGUS ROAD - l'IOl[glD""°"°"8-111Enr!lllll"""'1WllUIU>Qllfl;EOl.-~1HEui;1fl­ STREET ENTRANCE l""" _ _ .....,......, _ _ .................. -DCa!>(t/J) .....,~ TO RELIAIN -~ , , . , _ _ _ .._ustllCCOXll!IP<-• 'Kl'"'°""""' ,-mt ~ •:it•lll"OWU:~-·' !ll'ICl:"'Dl_,...,.. __ . . . . . ,_,..(.,,..._, . . . . . !•011--..;:11'..:Q llll'MCil ~ ~~ z MC,_llllO~IDt ~-· SlllnNJ0-51' "'1'1!111'{ll.12~-Z!""'"""'_,,,/L.INliCNW51VO fl.VT _J 5 t~ ~ ., w "- Vl ~­ ;1 5~ ti:; w •• !f c<: I- Vl ti:; ii l· ::;: 1: ::;: ~i w f;i ..... il "..... - l 1.M(S) 11£R(WASNOCfl!'llMDE'fUHCEAllHETU:Of'llf:flrulMJD: ._ UrMTBAS[MllWAmlll[mt AS9ICM!lll'l11ELCSIJR\'EY AS~IPt AN~ ~(SJ AS '!HO*; \ FIELD DESCRIPTION n!(llD£PaNfCJ'0EQ!INN; ,D.ll)llMS:EDll'IPl.ATATA1114SETllCCH:RC!tSODIAlJCIN11£ r.ITIRSCtOON or ANWSROAD llNDCWETSlllEETNOll1H {U.s.. RtUtE 29) ~~!JIGSAODlllC'ISIR[[TllM111S39'S!'OO"Wf'CllADISTAllCECFl4511STOAllAll.SETlll TIOCEC!WTH.NlllDNGtllllrlSTRlH5~T511'00"WfQIA DISJANCE CJ'IZ.14 FUI TOAN~Ofllfl,1UJCI), MNC£. N_OfC A CCWON 9Wil!IJl'I' '11111 TllP 40CIJ01DIXI, M/r MWS llrM:lim!S. W: N ~:z·ot«f WA DISTANCE OF l:Z!J.26 FUT TO AN l~Cl'tftVID. TIOCE.llONGAct1llUIB~IJn'·TllSAOlMP.OCW1000 N3Tsa°«f'ErCllADrSTIJtCCr:F112.89 z l'[[l m AN 1!1111 Sf.:TAU>IC M SOOlllERNMNIQN CJ'Nlrus R!Wl. MNC£, ll0NCSl.l)lflllJSR!Wl S45'40'DO"EmlADISTANCECfl.!5.0011ITTl>l0111EP.O.B. :5 Cl.. All. 11/AT PROl'CIUY llHQ9I AS T.U llN' 40C, PARCU 2. CtlH- G.:500 M:JiES.{Zl,m SI'~ llORE CR L!SS. w SMlPROPEllTYBDNG1HESAllE.lSl(SCRllO'llTllN'lll[ Til.£CXllllnEITl'RD'AREDD'l'CHCA00111l.E NSIJRNta:ca.IPMY,COllll1llOTNtllll!t:RSHTC18•7J&.toUllD'TDAlEllAYl.20IS. t:; Vl INTii£CllYCI' Et: <( "''"" ~DATE~ z •• OllOJIT COURTOI' D£ CITYIJFCIWll.OllESWJ.[lllDWJllCllJl:J!ltl,P.UX5Ql,AllODC1Nlil.J.AE5J'EC1SIH[$.liM[!'R(f'(RTl' ~CJIWASC!H'.OE!ll.tlTOM:anZENSCa!PORATICNllYSMIDrrD. i: ::5z I~..J• '.::I OWlttlFI FURTIO OWl'ra 00 CONE~ UNTO CRANTEI 'lllH !ffCW. WN!ll»IT'I RIClllSIN..+.NllgJO.(CITOl!SUA!lllllESlllll~TOD£&1-l'OOT£HTRN«J'..+.NDrlRl\'EllliY ar TITll. W. QINrnJl'S w ~ ~ii 0 " lllElllAlELYltlll£SOUIHOl'lt£PRIJPERTYlfJIDNQ;Mtl'UJAS!iHlltrll'IJll$11111Ul.(SElOCWUOOC .l.16,P.liC[111,.IUJDW!LECOONTYCWIK'stmC£). Cl.. ol:S § ;~ l\£COllV[YANCEtl'll!llCTllS~TOlllEB~Cll5ANT.u!l'SlllER,Tlf£10.INtllWAJElllM,ll£ 0 ii mDl!OlltllfllnrtlACUNUIJlll\£11JlilltCUlt£!Hl'Mtl»ISl.llPIJil. t:; ::;: .! BO«l 11£ SMI£ AUL ESTA![ CO!\'E'IID 10 FmllY AllJllCllN BMK. D!NILDlll'.SWL A W!mlA w :~ :E op ~ CJ:WOOATICW Bl t£ED FR(ll 111[ OllZDIS C(IRP(llAll[lj, A ~RGllllA IXll'!IRAllDN OAICD APR1. 7. 1gl!, R£COHlEO .'Jlllll 1" ms Ill lllE !lllllfS CfFla: a Tif[ CIRCUIT COURT OF atNll.omsvu.E cm. \llllCl>'IA. w 0 ·1 ~ 1~ R[C!llllED ti llEDl 8000: .591, PAtr 43. Cl.. w NQIE:Cl'lllAT1,1!!llD,Fll(IJT'l'All(llCAllll.Ull,Cll.-oTTtS'MJ.EOWliLIJIBM.w[IOCDlllL\l.fl[)[LITl' 9.IHK, CJl.IALOTTESW.lL Cf! HOllEIGJI 19, 1981, ttll11!"L FtQJIY Bllle, 04Alll.Dfl[S\lll.E l.:RGm NTO ClNJRM.roam9-. M.A. (II WfMll9CR 14, 1"43. CE111'tllfllEU1TIWIK. U. llERml ..IOCOnll.ll Vl :::> "'~I~- ~~::. :..m:™SERnil~:-a~:-:~T'ls:.::::.':'11~. .~~~~e:c -' E 0 ~~ •z ~ niruTYNAllCflAl.llAHKIOCElltlTOw.CllOW.!WIC. NA111JM."550DA1Ul. IJN .wlWIYl,ZXllWIJ;Hl;MABiHK.N.-llltfl.llASSOCIATICWllOCEDNIOIE.1.SrARGOBANK.N.A. z •• 0 •• w I. GENERAL NOTES; 11fSl'tATHASBEEll PREPAAED •11111£9Ehl:AIOF A Ill[ REl'Oi!T Cl.. Vl ~It z a~ ~ ... -; PREPfJICOllJCHCAG0111l.El$.RAHct~P/JfJ•fflAHcc.n.ii111t111 DA1EOFllAY!l,Zl18,C[)UTIIENTltO.SlllC18-1M. I­ ~· :Z.lllSPLATl!-'SBCCNPRtf'NIEl)FRIJllAH.ICIUAlflD.D~ ClllMATl!,201BU9NCllCWlllElfTSm..tlD IODSl'A111€ COll'l£I[[) w 4. lllEOFIHSWR'o'El. IHEMIEASllDlllHEl!Etf!ISLOCAICDllZQ;["J."ARUD£1ERllNEOTO w !!l ~'Iii BE o.mmE THE a.n.waJ1t1.atANC(ftot0 PlMI llS9IOl!fl at mu. ~ I­ f' Vl ~1 1. .. IH[flll!USSOfel.lVJCU.Q ltfE flEW'IQll(. Sl.lll.EC1' ?ROPERT'I AIJIJTE ;n~ ~AS llAYIHS.™DEHCEfT ORRE!'MRS'IOIEOBSER\IED DJREt:l .lCCESS IO EJlllt:I Slll£ET Na11t9'.tllCN.54-7K. " t;.-i • l.O It 9 lllCENSIOIW.lllWllEME~TS C.1111 i1E FWNU N SECTIOll .,.._136. :::,~':ia~~F'ERH:Unjf'jMliRlatCS,IDU ~M ,f US ROUTE .:i9 .._ .,. H H EMMET STREET VARIABLE WIDTH R/W 2 OF3 H I~ " • ~ ~ /I" ,J• ., "! • I~ I ~i l!f ii111!:jl ~ !! jliil1: 1' • i 1; ' i . 11 • ~ g ''lff g 11s~ '~ Ii ~ l.- st 11,1 IIJi ~l ~ ~ ''"! ~ ~ :; !II t a~~_...- . !s ~ ~ • ~ ~I ~J jTf I li,: l· r ~ 111 \ li i':1I ~ !.J., ~ t l! ~ ~I !i !! I' ii ~1 ~ j!ll''! " ., ~I •£! I -'! j!. ~ _, ll• I ~ ! . mll i~ _J_ Ell COLLINS ENGINEE~ING 200 GARRETT STREET, SUITE K - CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 - 434.293.3719 REVISIONS ~ ~! ~; "lG17 EMMET STREET - SPECIAL USE PERMIT & PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN "'' "' t:l' '""" NOTES ANO DETAILS !- - - + - - - - -- -- -- - - -- -1 Th-p-11'1 ""Y porp- ..,.,r-, o-r... .... •ut1..... ~ 111.--..w not Urnntd to "'w1.UUC\11111, Ceio'';lJ 3/LP/Jq ~~5 { ~~ ! Erlirct_(\ue C)l\ A(\&v 5 ­ l.~ es-+eaf ( - Ipl e,,ce -to M e-e + ~ VV"l.(\.T- fOc 't415 t" C1'r·1f"k/11 Ify AttU\cl-eie ; 0'\-t J eislr\ley Dttv1'os 1 ~\\M c~oa- City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services Staff Report to the Entrance Corridor Review Board (ERB) Entrance Corridor (EC) Certificate of Appropriateness DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: May 14, 2019 Project Name: 1801 Hydraulic Road, Hillsdale Place Planner: Jeff Werner, AICP Applicant: Peyton Associates Partnership Applicant’s Representative: Ashley Davies (Riverbend Development) Applicant’s Relation to Owner: Developer Application Information Property Street Address: 1801 Hydraulic Road Property Owner: Meadowbrook Creek LLC (leaseholder) Tax Map/Parcel #: Tax Map 41B, Parcel 2 (GIS: 41B002000) Total Square Footage/Acreage Site: 9.064 acres Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Plan) Designation: Mixed Use Current Zoning Classification: HW Highway Corridor with Entrance Corridor (EC) Overlay Entrance Corridor Overlay Districts: §34-307(a)(1) Route 29 North from corporate limits to Ivy Road, and §34-307(a)(2) Hydraulic Road from corporate limits to the 250 Bypass Current Usage: One-story vacant building that was most recently occupied by K Mart and Gold’s Gym (building to be partially demolished) Background November 14, 2017 - ERB unanimously (6-0) approved CoA with conditions. 1. Approval per drawing dated 11/3/17. 2. Additional articulation on the Hillsdale Road façade, preferably using more brick. 3. Signage requires separate permits. All signage shall appear to be lit white at night. 4. The L-7 fixture shall not be used to outline the building, unless the light source is fully concealed, and not mounted above 20 feet height. 5. All glass must be specified as clear, with minimum 70% visible light transmittance (VLT). 6. A pedestrian walkway shall be added along the main entry drive from the Hydraulic Road City sidewalk to the building plaza area, and a City sidewalk shall be added to the south side of India Road from Route 29 to the walkway on the west side of the building. 7. Dumpsters and utilities shall be screened from Hillsdale Drive. 8. Indicate the bus shelter or stop at this location to be reviewed administratively. 9. Addition of an entrance or pedestrian experience on Hillsdale Drive. The engagement shall come back for review administratively. November 14, 2017 Planning Commission/ERB Staff report (see page 284): www.charlottesville.org/home/showdocument?id=59455 Meeting minutes for (see page 4): www.charlottesville.org/home/showdocument?id=59829 Applicant’s Request o Submittal: Bignell Watkins Hasser Architects, PC drawings Hillsdale Place, dated 20 March 2019, pages 1 through 20. Hillsdale Place – ERB Review of revised design - May 6, 2019 (Final) 1 Note: This request represents modifications to the design approved in 2017. Except for the alterations to the western end of the project, the design changes are insignificant such that they would otherwise be approved administratively. However, approval of this CoA would be precedent over the prior and while the focus is on the significant changes, a new CoA will apply to the entire project as presented in the current application and submittal. As such, aside from minor revisions, the majority of the 2017 summary and recommendations remain generally intact with notations to indicate updated comments. Project: Partially demolish, renovate, and reconstruct an existing one-story commercial building with surface parking. Intent is to maintain the current building footprint, reusing portions of the existing structure and walls. A new plaza area will be created as a focal point for the shops and restaurants. The parking lot will be renovated with new striping and landscaping. The 2019 Site/Landscape Plan (page 3) shows five “Future” out lots, but these are not included on the actual site plan and are not part of this approval. [The 2017 plan showed four “Future” out lots and one Existing.] The site is currently accessed by three two-way entrances: off Hydraulic Road; off Hillsdale Drive; and off India Road. The Hillsdale Drive entrance no longer allows left turns northbound, but northbound traffic can enter the site at the rear of the building. The Hydraulic Road entrance allows left turns eastbound, but there is no traffic signal. Building materials consist of brick, split face concrete masonry units, metal panels, ribbed metal siding, wood cladding and siding, cast stone, and aluminum composite panels. Proposed landscaping: (see below) 2019 proposed design changes Alterations to the western end façades include: • South façade, facing Hydraulic Road. o Glazed storefront/entrance has been extended and shifted east, with a surround and flat pediment of red, metal panels. [2017 design featured a smaller storefront and entrance, centered and within an articulated wall section.] o Wall features two, flat horizontal bands: split-faced CMU (below) and wood siding (above). [The 2017 design featured an articulated section and walls composed of brick, cast stone and metal panels.] • West façade, facing Emmet Street. o Wall features two, horizontal bands: split-faced CMU (below); wood siding (above, for half the facade) and darker split-faced CMU (above, for half the facade). The lower band includes two sections of vegetated wall trellis. At the southwest corner is a full- height segment of red, metal panels. [2017 design featured two articulated sections clad with gray metal panels above contrasting brick bands. Walls composed of two bands of split-faced CMU, sections of vegetated wall trellis, and a stone pilaster at the northwest corner.] • North façade, rear of the building. o Wall features two, horizontal bands of split-faced CMU. [2017 design featured a cast stone pilaster at the northwest corner and an articulated wall section clad with metal panels above contrasting brick bands. Remainder of wall composed of two bands of split-faced CMU.] Hillsdale Place – ERB Review of revised design - May 6, 2019 (Final) 2 Notes related to the 2017 CoA Conditions After the November 14 2017 approval, the applicant corresponded with staff, providing comments and drawings (dated 22 November 2017) in response to the conditions of the CoA. These issues are addressed in the 2019 drawings as follows: • Additional articulation on the Hillsdale Road façade, preferably using more brick. o (See page 18 of submitted drawings.) Brick piers, base, and additional glazing have been added. o Staff Comment: The revisions are appropriate • Signage requires separate permits. All signage shall appear to be lit white at night. o Applicant has applied for a Comprehensive Signage Plan. • The L-7 fixture shall not be used to outline the building, unless the light source is fully concealed, and not mounted above 20 feet height. o The L-7 fixture has been removed. • All glass must be specified as clear, with minimum 70% visible light transmittance (VLT). o (See page 19 of submitted drawings.) Storefront & glazing on the materials sheet, specifying minimum VLT of 70%. • A pedestrian walkway shall be added along the main entry drive from the Hydraulic Road City sidewalk to the building plaza area, and a City sidewalk shall be added to the south side of India Road from Route 29 to the walkway on the west side of the building. o (See page 3 of submitted drawings.) Crosswalks have been added to the walkway from Hydraulic Rd. to the building plaza. Sidewalk has been added to India Road. o Staff Comment: The revisions are appropriate. • Dumpsters and utilities shall be screened from Hillsdale Drive. Potential dumpster enclosure locations have been identified on plan. o (See page 3 of submitted drawings.) Applicant’s 2017 follow up stated: The enclosures will be constructed of similar materials as the building. Potential utility locations at the rear of the buildings have been identified on the plan and additional landscaping for screening from adjacent property has been included. Any future visible utility locations will be reasonably screened with landscaping and/or construction of materials similar to the building. o Staff Comment: The revisions are appropriate. However, notes added to the 2017 drawings are not shown on the current submittal. • Indicate the bus shelter or stop at this location to be reviewed administratively. o (See page 3 of submitted drawings.) Applicant’s 2017 follow up indicated the [then current] bus stop location. o Staff Comment: The revisions are appropriate. However, notes added to the 2017 drawings are not shown on the current submittal. • Addition of an entrance or pedestrian experience on Hillsdale Drive. The engagement shall come back for review administratively. o (See page 18 of submitted drawings, Right Side Elevation.) Brick piers, base, and additional glazing have been added to this elevation and a portion of the additional glazing has been extended down to grade to accommodate a potential entrance. Additional landscaping and planters at pedestrian scale are shown as well. o Staff Comment: The revisions are appropriate. Standard of Review The Planning Commission serves as the entrance corridor review board (ERB) responsible for administering the design review process in entrance corridor overlay districts. This development project requires a site plan, and therefore also requires a certificate of appropriateness from the ERB, pursuant to Hillsdale Place – ERB Review of revised design - May 6, 2019 (Final) 3 the provisions of §34-309(a)(3) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The ERB shall act on an application within 60 days of the submittal date, and shall either approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. Appeal would be to City Council. Standards for considering certificates of appropriateness: In conducting review of an application, the ERB must consider certain features and factors in determining the appropriateness of proposed construction, alteration, etc. of buildings or structures located within an entrance corridor overlay district. Following is a list of the standards set forth within §34-310 of the City Code: §34-310(1): Overall architectural design, form, and style of the subject building or structure, including, but not limited to: the height, mass and scale; The single-story, 20-ft tall, rectangular building is approximately 200’ x 609’ in overall dimensions. The proposed design includes articulated segments and varying parapet heights (from 23-ft to just over 32-ft) and a 39-ft tall tower in the plaza area. In the center of the south façade, the retail spaces step back approximately 40 feet to create an outdoor plaza area. Staff Analysis: A well-articulated building of this height, mass and scale is appropriate in this location, because it is considered to be a Phase I use. In the future, a multi-story building built to the street frontages would add prominence to this important corner. Re: proposed 2019 design changes: Eliminating the articulated wall segments and the reduced materiality at the west and north façades—and particularly from brick and cast stone to split CMU—results in a stark, monotonous appearance. While offset somewhat by retaining the vegetated trellises, the starkness of the west façade is emphasized—not mitigated--by the bright red element at the southwest corner. These changes conflict with two of the guidelines addressing building mass, scale & height —see below. Options to address this might include: • At the parking area immediately adjacent to the west façade, add two bump outs—mirror those across the drive lane—and plant trees of an appropriate size. • Consider [re-introducing] articulated elements that breakup the walls scale and massing. From the EC Guidelines for Buildings: C. Building Mass, Scale & Height (See pages 6 – 8: www.charlottesville.org/home/showdocument?id=20409) • Guideline #2. Use variation in materials, textures, patterns, colors and details to break down the mass and scale of the building. • Guideline #5. Use massing reduction techniques of articulated base, water tables, 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. […] 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. §34-310(2): Exterior architectural details and features of the subject building or structure; • The facades are articulated with variation in materials, colors, parapet heights, and glass. • Hydraulic Road façade: well-articulated with a generous amount of storefront glass, and a plaza area that adds interest. • West façade: (See comments above under §34-310.) Hillsdale Place – ERB Review of revised design - May 6, 2019 (Final) 4 • North facade: Only slightly visible from Route 29, and has mostly split face block and painted masonry. (See additional comments above under §34-310.) • Hillsdale Road façade: Revisions have resulted in a well-articulated wall, with brick piers and base and additional glazing. Painted accents add character and interest to the wall. • Eight light fixture types are proposed. (See page 20 of submitted drawings.) • Mechanical equipment will be screened on the roof with the raised parapets. • Applicant has applied for a Comprehensive Signage Plan. Staff Analysis: The proposed contemporary design looks intentional for this corner location. New lighting, including building and pole lighting, may not exceed twenty feet mounting height. The fixtures all appear to be dark sky-friendly, staff requests that cut sheets be submitted. §34-310(3): Texture, materials and color of materials proposed for use on the subject building or structure; Building materials (See page 19 of submitted drawings.) • Brick o B-1 Yankee Hill - Dark Ironspot o B-2 Taylor Brick- #317 Red o B-3 Taylor Brick- #320 Gray o B-4 Carolina Ceramics - Pebble Beach Velour o B-5 Carolina Ceramics - Topaz Velour • Split-Face CMU o C-1 CMU - Echelon Autumn Tan o C-2 CMU - Echelon Dark Chocolate o C-3 CMU - Echelon Brick Red • Cast Stone o PC-1 Architectural Cast Stone Masonry Rockcast – Buckskin • Wood o S-1 Wood Effect Manufactured Stone - Eldorado Vintage Ranch o W-1 Wood Cladding Alaskan Yellow Cedar o W-2 Wood Cladding Ipe or similar [Added 2019] • Metal o M-1 Ribbed Metal Siding AEP Span HR-36 Panel - Vintage Finish o M-2 Aluminum Composite Panel Alpolic - Mist White o M-2A Aluminum Composite Panel Alpolic - Aluminum AGT Gray o M-3 Panel - Dark Bronze o M-4 Panel- Silver/Clear Anodized o M-5 Ribbed Metal Siding AEP Span HR-36 Panel - Custom Red [Added 2019] o M-6 Aluminum Composite Panel - Custom Red [Added 2019] • Paint o P-1 Match CMU C-1 (Echelon Autumn Tan) o P-2 Match CMU C-2 (Echelon Dark Chocolate) o P-3 Match CMU C-3 (Echelon Brick Red) o P-4 Match M-1 (Vintage Finish) o P-5 Match M-3 (Dark Bronze) • Vegetated wire trellis • Canopies: Metal • Storefront and entrance doors: Kawneer Trifab VG. Solarban 60 glazing. Minimum 70% VLT. Hillsdale Place – ERB Review of revised design - May 6, 2019 (Final) 5 • Lighting: (All Fixtures delivering 3000 or more lumens to be specified as full cutoff.) o Existing parking lot pole lights will be relocated and re-used. o L-1 Wall Mount Light Fixture Barnlight Electric “Original” - Dark Bronze Finish o L-2 Wall Mount Light Fixture Luminis Argon - Silver Finish o L-3 Sign Light B-K Lighting - Black Finish o L-4 Wall Mount Light Fixture Luminis Eclipse o L-5 Wall Mount Light Fixture B-K Lighting Alpine Series - Black Finish o L-6 Wall Mount Light Fixture Luminis Quanta - Silver Finish o L-7 [Omitted 2019] o L-8 Wall Mount Light Fixture Invue Entri - Black o Pedestrian Light Luminis Maya Landscaping (See page 3 and 4 of submitted drawings.) • Trees (All trees are consistent with the City’s Master Tree List.) o Red Maple (17) o Japanese Katsura (6) o Kentucky Coffeetree (19) o London Planetree (19) o White Oak (3) o Northern Red Oak (5) o Willow Oak (12) o Littleleaf Linden (31) o Japanese Zelcova (10) • Shrubs o Red Osier Dogwood (13) o Dwarf Fothergilla (54) o China Girl Holly (52) o Andorra Juniper (71) Staff Analysis: The building materials, color palette, and landscaping are generally appropriate. Re: proposed 2019 design changes: (The reduced materiality at the west and north façades is addressed above under 34-310.) The introduction of the red elements conflicts with four of the six guidelines addressing color—see below. Options to address this might include: • Reduce the area of the proposed red metal panels. • Invert the colors—red to white, white-to red—on the proposed metal panels. From the EC Guidelines for Buildings: F. Color (See page 12: www.charlottesville.org/home/showdocument?id=20409) Color is an integral element of the overall design. • Guideline #1: A coordinated palette of colors should be created for each development. This palette should be compatible with adjacent developments. • Guideline #3: Limit the number of color choices. Generally there is a wall color, trim color, accent color, and roof color. • Guideline #4: Bright accent colors may be appropriate for smaller areas such as awnings and signs on commercial buildings. • Guideline #6: Do not use strong color that has the effect of turning the entire building into a sign. Hillsdale Place – ERB Review of revised design - May 6, 2019 (Final) 6 §34-310(4): Design and arrangement of buildings and structures on the subject site; The location of the building is existing and non-conforming, and the site plan is currently under review. Landscaping, lighting and parking will be compliant with current City site plan regulations. There are existing City sidewalks located along Hydraulic Road, Route 29, and Hillsdale Drive. There is a pedestrian connection to the building from Hillsdale Drive, Hydraulic Road, and India Road. Staff Analysis: The design and arrangement are appropriate for the Phase I development. §34-310(5): The extent to which the features and characteristics described within paragraphs (1)-(4), above, are architecturally compatible (or incompatible) with similar features and characteristics of other buildings and structures having frontage on the same EC street(s) as the subject property. Staff Analysis: The goals are to make the site function well for the users of this site and the entrance corridor, and to have an attractive development that is compatible with its surrounding context. Except for the concerns specifically related to the western end facades, staff finds the project to be compatible with the EC Guidelines and to other sites/structures within this EC. §34-310(6): Provisions of the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines. Relevant sections of the guidelines include: Section 1 (Introduction) The Entrance Corridor design principles are: • Design For a Corridor Vision o Staff Analysis: Proposal complies generally with this guideline. • Preserve History o Staff Analysis: This guideline is not applicable. • Facilitate Pedestrian Access o Staff Analysis: Proposal complies generally with this guideline. • Maintain Human Scale in Buildings and Spaces o Staff Analysis: Proposal complies generally with this guideline. • Preserve and Enhance Natural Character o Staff Analysis: Relative to landscaping (trees and plantings), proposal complies generally with this guideline. • Create a Sense of Place o Staff Analysis: Proposal complies generally with this guideline. • Create an Inviting Public Realm o Staff Analysis: Proposal complies generally with this guideline. • Create Restrained Communications o Staff Analysis: New signage must comply with the provisions of the [pending] Comprehensive Signage Plan. Concerns about the red components are addressed above under items 34-310(1), 34-310(3), and 34-310(5).) • Screen Incompatible Uses and Appurtenances o Staff Analysis: Proposal complies generally with this guideline, provided that recommendation condition is met. • Respect and Enhance Charlottesville’s Character: Charlottesville seeks new construction that reflects the unique character, history, and cultural diversity of this place. Architectural transplants from other locales, or shallow imitations of historic architectural styles, for example, are neither appropriate nor desirable. Incompatible aspects of franchise design or Hillsdale Place – ERB Review of revised design - May 6, 2019 (Final) 7 corporate signature buildings must be modified to fit the character of this community. [emphasis added] o Staff Analysis: Proposal complies generally with this guideline, however staff is concerned about the introduction of elements that are immediately identified as franchise-specific and of a scale and nature not seen elsewhere in this EC. Section 2 (Streetscape) Staff Analysis: The street trees, sidewalks, and landscaping will create a pleasant, comfortable place for pedestrians. Section 3 (Site) Staff Analysis: The site features are appropriate. Section 4 (Buildings) Staff Analysis: The building design is generally appropriate. Section 5 (Individual Corridors): Route 29 North (North Corporate limits to 250 Overpass) Vision: As Route 29 traffic enters the City this area should serve to calm traffic and create a transition from auto- oriented, suburban development to more pedestrian friendly, urban scale development. Planting and maintaining street trees along the existing Route 29 sidewalks, and locating buildings close to the road will assist in this effort. Although wide roads and large traffic volumes discourage pedestrian crossings, a pedestrian environment can be encouraged within developments. Providing walking and driving linkages between developments and providing for transit will also create alternatives to having to drive on Route 29. Individual building designs should complement the City’s character and respect the qualities that distinguish the City’s built environment. This corridor is a potential location for public way-finding signage. Hydraulic Road (from the Corporate limits to 250 Bypass) Vision There is potential for redevelopment of the older sites along the corridor including K-Mart Plaza and Dominion Power. Large new buildings should be designed to reduce mass. Opportunities include: building closer to Hydraulic Road, adding landscaping along the streets and in parking lots, and creating pedestrian and auto connectivity within and between developments. A new road could provide access to sites to the north. Preserving a stream buffer and extending a greenway along Meadow Creek are additional needs. West of Rt. 29 pedestrian connections would be important if older commercial and residential properties along Hydraulic Road are redeveloped Hydraulic Small Area Plan Staff Analysis: The proposed development and adaptation/continued use of the existing building and site are consistent with recommendations of Hydraulic Small Area Plan. From the Hydraulic Small Area Plan. Figure 14: Conceptual Core Area Plan Hillsdale Place – ERB Review of revised design - May 6, 2019 (Final) 8 Public Comments Received No comments received to date. Staff Recommendations The design is generally appropriate except for the comments and recommendations noted above. From: §34-310(1): Overall architectural design, form… Eliminating the articulated wall segments and the reduced materiality at the west and north façades—and particularly from brick and cast stone to split CMU—results in a stark, monotonous appearance. While offset somewhat by retaining the vegetated trellises, the starkness of the west façade is emphasized—not mitigated--by the bright red element at the southwest corner. These changes conflict with two of the guidelines addressing building mass, scale & height. Options to address this might include: • At the parking area immediately adjacent to the west façade, add two bump outs—mirror those across the drive lane—and plant trees of an appropriate size. • Consider [re-introducing] articulated elements that breakup the walls scale and massing. From: §34-310(3): Texture, materials and color of materials The introduction of the red elements conflicts with four of the six guidelines addressing color— see below. Options to address this might include: • Reduce the area of the proposed red metal panels. • Invert the colors—red to white, white-to red—on the proposed metal panels. Additionally, most of the conditions applied in 2017 have been addressed, however staff recommends consideration of following as part of any motion to approve the CoA: • Approval per drawing dated 20 March 2019. • Signage requires separate permits. All signage shall appear to be lit white at night. • All exterior lighting shall be full off. • Dumpsters and utilities shall be screened from Hillsdale Drive. Enclosures will be constructed of similar materials as the building. Potential utility locations at the rear of the buildings have been identified on the plan and additional landscaping for screening from adjacent property has been included. Any future visible utility locations will be reasonably screened with landscaping and/or construction of materials similar to the building. • Indicate on plans the bus shelter or stop location, to be reviewed administratively. Suggested Motion Having considered the standards set forth within the City’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed design for the Hillsdale Place at 1801 Hydraulic Road consistent with the Hillsdale Place – ERB Review of revised design - May 6, 2019 (Final) 9 Guidelines and compatible with the goals of this Entrance Corridor, and that the ERB approves the Certificate of Appropriateness application as submitted[.] […with the following conditions of approval: ….] Alternate Motions Deferral: I move to defer (or deny) the Entrance Corridor Certificate of Appropriateness application for Hillsdale Place at 1801 Hydraulic Road. Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed design for the Hillsdale Place at 1801 Hydraulic Road is not consistent with the Guidelines and is not compatible with the goals of this Entrance Corridor, and that for the following reason the ERB denies the Certificate of Appropriateness application as submitted... Attachments o EC Application Form and Hillsdale Place Submittal Package (21 pages) Hillsdale Place – ERB Review of revised design - May 6, 2019 (Final) 10 Entrance Corridor Review Application (EC) Certificate of Appropriateness RECEIVED Please Return To : City of Charlottesville APR 16 2019 Department of Neighborhood Development Services P.O. Box 911, City Hall Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 NEIGHBORHOOD DEVB.DPMENT SEIMC S Teleohone (434) 970-3130 Please submit one (1) hard copy and one (1) digital copy of applica~~m and all attachments. Please include application fee as follows: New construction projec~Additions and other projects requiring ERB approval $125; Administrative approval $100. Make checks payable to the City of Charlottesville. The Entrance Corridor Review Board (ERB) meets the second Tuesday of the month . Deadline for submittals is Tuesday 3 weeks prior to next ERB meeting by 3:30 p.m. Owner Name PEYTON ASSOCIATES PARTNERSHIP Applicant Name Ashley Davies, Riverbend Development Project Name/Description Hillsdale Place (Kmart Property) Parcel Number_4,_,1-=B=0-=.0=20""0""'0"-----­ Project Street Address 1801 HYDRAULIC RD Signature of Applicant Applicant Information I hereby attest that the information I have provided is, to the best of my knowledge, correct. Address: 455 2nd Street SE, Suite 201 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Email: ashley@riverbenddev.com -s~ ~~ 4/12/19 Date Phone: (W) 434-245-4971 (C) 434-409-9127 4/12/19 Ashley Davies Print Name Date Property Owner (if not applicant) Property Owner Permission (if not applicant) Meadowbrook Creek LLC (lease holder) I have read this application and hereby give my consent to Address: 455 2nd Street SE Suite 201 its submission. Charlottesville. VA 22902 Email: ashley@riverbenddev.com ~-- Signature ~c;/1°1. ___.__ Date Phone: (W) 434-245-4971 (C) 434-409-9127 ~~ ~\~<;. 4-/\0 ~ F7rlntNam0CJ Date Description of Proposed Work (attach separate narrative if necessary): Updates to previously approved ERB package for Hillsdale Place . Primary edits are for the anchor tenant on the left side of the shopping center. Attachments (see reverse side for submittal requirements): See attached project elevations and renderings , including information regarding project materials. Material board to be submitted separately, in advance of Entrance Corridor Review Board meeting . For Office Use~ /2,,, . -~,.,.""'A ,. , ) Received by: ~~Y v:J (..)(_,/ Approved/Disapproved by: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Fee paid:~.~:t15-== Cash/Ck.# VISA Date:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Date Received: 4 [ \ le aQ \ q t Conditions of approval: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Revised2016 p (q ~ 005~ Hillsdale Place Entrance Corridor 16121.00 Charlottesville, Virginia Review Board Submission 3.20.2019 www.bigwaha.com PROJECT NARRATIVE The ‘Hillsdale Place’ project is the proposed transformation of an existing vacant building into a vibrant neighborhood shopping center. The project is within Charlottesville’s Entrance Corridor district, at the intersection of Seminole Trail and Hydraulic Road. The project aims to maintain the boundaries of the existing building’s footprint, while providing substantial improvements to the character and attractiveness of the property. Portions of the existing structure and walls will be reused as part of the larger tenant spaces, and the central structural bays will be reduced to accommodate an approximately 8,000 SF plaza lined with shops and restaurants. The plaza is intended to be a new focal point and gathering space for the property and will include ample seating, enhanced lighting, and other pedestrian amenities. The design concept of the center is intended to be ‘transitional-contemporary’, with details, materials, proportions, and colors that are compatible with the Charlottesville vernacular. The primary facade will consist of durable, high quality materials including brick, architectural concrete masonry, wood and wood-effect cladding, and metal. The new building front will primarily be brick and metal cladding, with an emphasis on architectural interest at the pedestrian scale. The design includes textural brick patterns, vertically proportioned storefronts with upgraded fenestration, and horizontal metal canopies to provide cover and shade. As part of the building improvements, the parapet wall heights will be raised to screen rooftop equipment that is currently visible from surrounding roadways. Less visible sides of the building will be articulated with material fields of color and areas of new landscaping. This treatment will be a substantial improvement over the monotone existing walls. The unsightly portion of the structure that currently contains loading bays and chain link fencing fronting Seminole Trail will also be removed as part of the project. Hillsdale Place Note: For conceptual illustration only. Design, dimensions, colors, materials, 16121.00 and the location of signs and doors are 3.20.19 Charlottesville, Virginia subject to change. Page 2 Hillsdale Place Note: For conceptual illustration only. Design, dimensions, colors, materials, Site/Landscape Plan 16121.00 and the location of signs and doors are Scale = 1”=100’ 3.20.19 Charlottesville, Virginia subject to change. Page 3 Hillsdale Place Charlottesville, Virginia TM SITE CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING PROGRAM MANAGEMENT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SUSTAINABLE DESIGN PERMITTING SERVICES TRANSPORTATION SERVICES UPSTATE NEW YORK SOUTHERN NEW JERSEY BALTIMORE, MD CHARLOTTE, NC NEW ENGLAND PHILADELPHIA, PA SOUTHERN MARYLAND ATLANTA, GA BOSTON, MA PITTSBURGH, PA NORTHERN VIRGINIA TAMPA, FL NEW YORK, NY LEHIGH VALLEY, PA CENTRAL VIRGINIA SOUTH FLORIDA NEW YORK METRO SOUTHEASTERN, PA RALEIGH, NC DALLAS, TX NORTHERN NEW JERSEY REHOBOTH BEACH, DE WASHINGTON, DC 2017 BOHLER ENGINEERING subject to change. Design, dimensions, colors, materials, Note: For conceptual illustration only. and the location of signs and doors are Schedules Landscape Compliance and Page 4 3.20.19 16121.00 Site Context / Surrounding Retail Development Existing WholE Foods Existing WholE Foods sEminolE squarE Barracks road shopping cEntEr shops at stonEFiEld Barracks road shopping cEntEr shops at stonEFiEld shops at stonEFiEld Hillsdale Place Note: For conceptual illustration only. Design, dimensions, colors, materials, 16121.00 and the location of signs and doors are 3.20.19 Charlottesville, Virginia subject to change. Page 5 Existing Views from Street View From Seminole Trail View From India Road View From Hydraulic Road View From Hydraulic Road and Hillsdale Drive Hillsdale Place Note: For conceptual illustration only. Design, dimensions, colors, materials, 16121.00 and the location of signs and doors are 3.20.19 Charlottesville, Virginia subject to change. Page 6 Existing Building Conditions Hillsdale Place Note: For conceptual illustration only. Design, dimensions, colors, materials, Existing Conditions 16121.00 and the location of signs and doors are 3.20.19 Charlottesville, Virginia subject to change. Page 7 Existing Conditions Proposed Existing Conditions Proposed Hillsdale Place Note: For conceptual illustration only. Design, dimensions, colors, materials, Existing Vs. Proposed 16121.00 and the location of signs and doors are 3.20.19 Charlottesville, Virginia subject to change. Page 8 Existing Conditions Proposed Existing Conditions Proposed Hillsdale Place Note: For conceptual illustration only. Design, dimensions, colors, materials, Existing Vs. Proposed 16121.00 and the location of signs and doors are 3.20.19 Charlottesville, Virginia subject to change. Page 9 Hillsdale Place Note: For conceptual illustration only. Design, dimensions, colors, materials, Illustrative Rendering 16121.00 and the location of signs and doors are 3.20.19 Charlottesville, Virginia subject to change. Page 10 Hillsdale Place Note: For conceptual illustration only. Design, dimensions, colors, materials, Illustrative Rendering 16121.00 and the location of signs and doors are 3.20.19 Charlottesville, Virginia subject to change. Page 11 Hillsdale Place Note: For conceptual illustration only. Design, dimensions, colors, materials, Illustrative Rendering 16121.00 and the location of signs and doors are 3.20.19 Charlottesville, Virginia subject to change. Page 12 Hillsdale Place Note: For conceptual illustration only. Design, dimensions, colors, materials, Illustrative Rendering 16121.00 and the location of signs and doors are 3.20.19 Charlottesville, Virginia subject to change. Page 13 Hillsdale Place Note: For conceptual illustration only. Design, dimensions, colors, materials, Illustrative Rendering 16121.00 and the location of signs and doors are 3.20.19 Charlottesville, Virginia subject to change. Page 14 Hillsdale Place Note: For conceptual illustration only. Design, dimensions, colors, materials, Illustrative Rendering 16121.00 and the location of signs and doors are 3.20.19 Charlottesville, Virginia subject to change. Page 15 Hillsdale Place Note: For conceptual illustration only. Design, dimensions, colors, materials, Illustrative Rendering 16121.00 and the location of signs and doors are 3.20.19 Charlottesville, Virginia subject to change. Page 16 m4 m6 m4 match linE W2 m5 B5 B5 B2 W2 m1 l6 c1 B1 ±30’-0” ±29’-4” s1 ±26’-0” ±23’-4” 0’-0” Partial Front ElEvation match linE m3 m3 m1 m1 B5 l3 ±39’-0” c1 l1 W-1 m3 B2 pc1 B4 s1 p2 ±30’-6” B1 B3 W-1 l1 ±23’-0” m4 ±27’-8” ±22’-0” ±26’-0” l4 0’-0” Partial Front ElEvation m6 c2 m5 W2 V1 V1 ±24’-0” ±23’-4” c1 c2 Note: ANy utilities locAted other thAN As showN oN the site plAN shAll be screeNed with lANdscApiNg ANd/or coNstructioN to mAtch the buildiNg desigN 0’-0” lEFt SidE ElEvation Hillsdale Place Note: For conceptual illustration only. Design, dimensions, colors, materials, Building Elevations 16121.00 and the location of signs and doors are 3.20.19 Charlottesville, Virginia Scale: 3/32”=1’-0” subject to change. Page 17 match linE l8 p1 c1 c2 p1 p2 c3 ±26’-0” p2 c1 ±24’-0” ±22’-0” ±22’-0” 0’-0” Partial rEar ElEvation match linE p1 p3 c2 c1 m4 ±22’-0” ±23’-4” 0’-0” Partial rEar ElEvation m4 m4 m1 c1 c1 B3 p2 ±26’-0” B3 Note: ANy utilities locAted other thAN As showN oN the site plAN shAll be screeNed with lANdscApiNg ANd/or coNstructioN to mAtch the buildiNg desigN 0’-0” right SidE ElEvation Hillsdale Place Note: For conceptual illustration only. Design, dimensions, colors, materials, Building Elevations 16121.00 and the location of signs and doors are 3.20.19 Charlottesville, Virginia Scale: 3/32”=1’-0” subject to change. Page 18 Proposed Materials M-1 MEtal / riBBEd MEtal Siding S-1 Wood EFFEct ManUFactUrEd StonE c-1 SPlit FacE cMU aEP SPan hr-36 PanEl “vintagE” FiniSh Eldorado vintagE ranch EchElon aUtUMn tan B-1 Brick YankEE hill dark ironSPot M-2 alUMinUM coMPoSitE PanEl Pc-1 architEctUral caSt StonE MaSonrY alPolic - MiSt WhitE rockcaSt - BUckSkin c-2 SPlit FacE cMU EchElon dark chocolatE StorEFront - kaWnEEr B-2 Brick M-2a alUMinUM coMPoSitE PanEl triFaB vg. SolarBan 60 taYlor Brick #317 rEd alPolic - alUMinUM agt graY glazing. MiniMUM 70% P-1 Paint - Match c-1 viSiBlE light tranSMiS- Sion. M-3 MEtal - dark BronzE c-3 SPlit FacE cMU B-3 Brick P-2 Paint - Match c-2 EchElon Brick rEd taYlor 320 graY M-4 MEtal - SilvEr/clEar anodizEd P-3 Paint - Match c-3 W-1 Wood cladding B-4 Brick alaSkan YElloW cEdar carolina cEraMicS PEBBlE BEach vEloUr v-1 vEgEtatEd WirE trElliS M-5 MEtal / riBBEd MEtal Siding aEP SPan hr-36 PanEl - cUStoM rEd P-4 Paint - Match M-1 W-2 Wood cladding B-5 Brick M-6 alUMinUM coMPoSitE PanEl - cUStoM rEd P-5 Paint - Match M-3 iPE or SiMilar carolina cEraMicS toPaz vEloUr Hillsdale Place Note: For conceptual illustration only. Design, dimensions, colors, materials, Proposed Materials 16121.00 and the location of signs and doors are 3.20.19 Charlottesville, Virginia subject to change. Page 19 Proposed Fixtures Note: All Fixtures delivering 3000 or more lumens to be specified as full cutoff. l-1 Wall MoUnt light FixtUrE Barnlight ElEctric “original” dark BronzE FiniSh l-4 Wall MoUnt light FixtUrE lUMiniS EcliPSE l-2 Wall MoUnt light FixtUrE l-5 Wall MoUnt light FixtUrE l-8 Wall MoUnt light FixtUrE lUMiniS argon - SilvEr FiniSh B-k lighting alPinE SEriES - Black FiniSh invUE Entri - Black l-6 Wall MoUnt light FixtUrE lUMiniS QUanta - SilvEr FiniSh l-3 Sign light PEdEStrian light B-k lighting - Black FiniSh lUMiniS MaYa Hillsdale Place Note: For conceptual illustration only. Design, dimensions, colors, materials, Proposed Fixtures 16121.00 and the location of signs and doors are 3.20.19 Charlottesville, Virginia subject to change. Page 20