Agenda PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DOCKET TUESDAY, June 11, 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 – May 14, 2019 – Pre- meeting and Regular meeting 2. Minutes – May 28, 2019 - Work Session III. JOINT MEETING OF COMMISSION/ COUNCIL Beginning: 6:00 p.m. Continuing: until all public hearings are completed Format: (i) Staff Report, (ii) Applicant, (iii) Hearing 1. ZM-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 15 dwelling units shall be permitted on the Subject Property; (ii) affordable housing: a minimum of four residential units within multifamily dwelling building(s) on the Subject Property 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) uses: all non-residential uses other than educational facilities (non­ residential) and day care facilities, which are not accessory to a house of worship or to residential uses located on the Subject Property, shall not be permitted on the Subject Property; (v) 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; (vi) height: The maximum height on the property will be 38 feet; (vii) streetwall: Primary street frontage setback shall be six (6) feet minimum, ten (10) feet maximum. 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. ZM19-00002 - 209 Maury Avenue – Landowner Southern Property, LLC has submitted an application seeking a rezoning of approximately (1.6) acres of land identified within City tax records as Tax Map and Parcel (TMP) 17-18, TMP 17-18.1, TMP 17-18.2, TMP 17-184, TMP 17-185, and TMP 17-186 (collectively, “Subject Property”). The Subject Properties have frontage on Maury Avenue and Stadium Road. The application is proposing changing the current zoning of the Subject Properties from R-2U (Two-family University) to R-3 (Multifamily) with no Proffered conditions or development plan. The Comprehensive Land Use Map for this area calls for Low Density Residential (15 Dwelling Units per Acres). 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). IV. COMMISSION’S ACTION ITEMS Continuing: until all action items are concluded 1. ZM18-00003 - Flint Hill PUD V. FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE/ADJOURN Tuesday, June 25, 2019 – 5:00PM Work Zoning Text Discussion – Access Session Requirements Tuesday, July 9, 2019 – 4:30 PM Pre- Meeting Tuesday, July 9, 2019 – 5:30 PM Regular Preliminary Site Plan - Gallery Court Meeting Hotel Subdivision – David Terrace ZTA Study Initiation – R-1 to R-2 in portions of Fry’s Spring 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, 602-616 West Main (University Tire site) SUP and Critical Slopes – Seminole Square Mixed Use site (Old Giant building) Work Session - July 23, 2019 - Fontaine Avenue Presentation 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 5/1/2019 TO 5/31/2019 1. Preliminary Site Plans 2. Final Site Plans a. Preston Avenue Turn Lane – May 20, 2019 3. Site Plan Amendments a. 700 Harris Street – May 16, 2019 b. Sunrise Park PUD – NE Parcel – May 21, 2019 c. 1218 Avon Street – May 21, 2019 d. Monticello Animal Hospital (building expansion) – May 28, 2019 4. Subdivision a. BLA – 411 B Valley Road Extended – May 14, 2019 b. BLA -1185 Seminole Trail (TMP 41C-1 & 41C-3) – May 15, 2019 1 Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DOCKET May 14, 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, Rory Stolzenberg, Hosea Mitchell, and Mr. Bill Palmer Staff Present: Missy Creasy, Jeff Werner, Kari Spitler, Carrie Rainey, Matt Alfele, Joey Winter, Brennen Duncan, Hugh Blake, and John Blair Chairman Green called the meeting to order at 4:55pm. It was noted that 915 6th Street Critical Slopes would be removed from the consent agenda and placed at the end of the agenda. Chair Green provided background on the 1617 Emmet site including the BZA case leading the applicant to apply for the SUP. She confirmed that the Flint Hill applicant was aware they were the first hearing as the Hinton Avenue hearing was deferred by the applicant and noted that she would be organizing the questions and discussion during the meeting in a different way than the past. She would be calling on each commissioner one at a time to assure that everyone can provide input and there will be opportunity to speak again. An overview of the traffic concerns was provided on the Flint Hill application by the Traffic Engineer. Mr. Alfele provided an overview of the concerns which could occur if a PUD is approved and the site plan later had differences. It was confirmed that staff recommended denial for the reasons outlined in the staff report. There was brief discussion concerning environmental elements on the site (wetlands, flood plans etc.). It was reiterated that staff was not clear that the applicant would be able to accomplish the proffers provided given the information available at this time. The Commission asked about the status of the ATM currently on site at 1617 Emmet and it was noted that it is slated to remain. Mr. Werner provided background on the Hillsdale Place ERB application progression. Mr. Ikefuna provided notification for a workshop scheduled for June 6, 2019. 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, Rory Stolzenberg, Hosea Mitchell, and Mr. Bill Palmer A. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Commissioner Lahendro: Attended the BAR meeting on April 16. Attended the PACC meeting on April 18, where there was a presentation by the Thomas Jefferson Planning Commission on regional transit planning. The Tree Commission met on May 5 for a short time, but there is nothing of Planning Commission importance to report. 2 Commissioner Solla-Yates: The full HAC met on April 17 and there was a presentation on the Charlottesville Supplemental Rental Assistance Program. It is fairly new and has been successful, as 89 families have been served and 77 are currently receiving. 250 people are being housed, which includes 105 adults, 2 elderly people, and 24 disabled. There were discussions on procedural issues of getting the money from the budget to the people and the HAC came to a productive result. There were also discussions about expanding it. Commissioner Dowell: No report. Commissioner Heaton: Attended the ADU Sip and Learn where individuals from Portland came to speak about affordable dwelling unit ideas. The Unity Days Committee is still meeting every other week and we participated in a few walkabouts in the Belmont and Hinton areas and spoke to neighbors. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Attended a PLACE Committee meeting last Thursday on participatory budgeting and the experiment that was done at Walker Elementary, which was incredibly impressive. There is $150,000 in a City fund allocated for a participatory budgeting experiment and once that is ready to get started they will hopefully transfer the lessons over citywide. Commissioner Mitchell: Parks and Recreation took the month off so there was no meeting. The Fontaine Streetscape didn’t meet last month either. Mr. Palmer is leading the UVA Masterplan Committee meeting tomorrow so there will be a report on that soon. B. UNIVERSITY REPORT Bill Palmer: UVA Graduation is this weekend and on May 25 the final structure of U-Hall is going to be imploded, so there may be an opportunity to see the rare occurrence of a building imploded in town. Commissioner Lahendro: There will actually be two drones doing live broadcasts of it and you can go online to watch it from a safe distance. C. CHAIR’S REPORT Lisa Green: Shares that there was a TJPDC meeting the first Thursday in May but she was unable to attend. The next TJPDC meeting will be on June 6 and they are still working on some information based off of the Regional Housing Plan conference that happened on April 19. D. DEPARTMENT OF NDS Missy Creasy: The Planning Commission has been asked to appoint someone to the Barracks/Emmet Committee, which is another Smart Scale project. Commissioner Solla-Yates noted his interest in this project via email. Chairman Green: Commissioner Solla-Yates, would you like to be a part of this project? Commissioner Solla-Yates: Yes, wonderful. E. MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE FORMAL AGENDA 3 Trey Steigman, Management Services Corporation: We wanted to bring forward a request for the Planning Commission to initiate a zoning text amendment in regards to a certain section of code in the City of Charlottesville that we believe has some unintended consequences. We have a very simple solution for the Commission to consider and to engage with staff to study and come before the Commission very soon to correct this matter. There are a few examples of this code and when applied and actually enforced, it severely limits the amount of density and dwelling units in the City and otherwise areas of multi-family residential districts that would be allowed. We are losing dwelling units in the City by the application of this code at a significant amount. In the extreme examples you are limited to building only 57%, 37%, or 28% of the actual capacity, which is a significant amount of restriction. There is an application of a site that we had under concept plan for development that we have been developing and redeveloping in the City, which limits us to only 42 units out of a possible 91 units and limits us to developing only 54% of the capacity. The proposed zoning text amendment for the Commission’s consideration is very simple and includes a couple of minor textual additions and a minor correction of the number of units that should be applied in the code. The number of units that we are suggesting are, in fact, the current by-right number of dwelling units per acre or the density of an otherwise subject property. 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 Chairman Green: Requests to remove the 915 6th Street SE critical slope application from the consent agenda and move it to the end of the meeting tonight. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Notes that he would like to offer a friendly change to update his language of “zoning text amendment” to “zoning map amendment.” Commissioner Solla-Yates moves to approve the consent agenda, with Commissioner Stolzenberg’s amended language and with the removal of the Critical Slope application for 915 6th Street SE and discuss it at the end of the meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Lahendro. Motion is approved 7-0. Commissioner Mitchell: When would we address the zoning text amendment request? Chairman Green: It would be something that we would want to bring up at a work session. The May work session is full, but it could be added to the June work session. There is some engineering that would need to be looked at and we have a new Design Standards Manual that is coming out, so it may be more than a simple update. III. JOINT MEETING OF COMMISSION/COUNCIL Beginning: 6:00 pm Continuing: until all public hearings are completed Format: (i) Staff Report, (ii) Applicant, (iii) Hearing 1. ZM-19-00001 – (750 Hinton Avenue) (Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church) – 4 This agenda item was deferred until June 2019. 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). Staff Report, Matt Alfele: Tonight you will be holding a public hearing and making a recommendation to City Council on a proposed development that is requesting a rezoning from R-1S to Planned Unit Development and a waiver of the City’s zoning critical slope provisions. Charlie Armstrong representing the owner, Belmont Station, LLC, has submitted an application seeking a zoning map amendment to change the zoning district classifications of the 13 vacant parcels along Keene Court, which is platted but unimproved, and the unimproved portion of Flint Drive. The majority of Flint Dr. is unimproved but connects Longwood Drive with Moseley Drive. In a separate application, the developer is petitioning City Council to close the unimproved sections of Keene Court and Flint Drive and re-plat public roads in the general location that would conform to the road layout in the PUD application before you tonight. The proposed rezoning includes the following proffered conditions and development elements: density shall not exceed 50 residential units, approximately 3 acres will be given to the City for Park land, 5 affordable units will be built on site, the development will contain 8 rows of townhouses, in a mix of two and three story with traditional and modern facades, townhouses of differing sizes with varying width and square footages, including some with rear-alley-loaded garages will be provided, an HOA and an Architectural Review Board will be established, 5.1 acres of open space and preservation of approximately 60% of existing trees, the new park land will account for approximately 3 acres of the 5.1 acres of open space, sheltered 5’ sidewalks located along Keene Court and Flint Drive will be provided, natural trails dedicated for public use within the development site will be provided with access to Longwood Park, on-street parking, rear loaded parking behind townhouses on Flint Drive, a teardrop layout of Keene Court, a preliminary landscape plan promising preservation of the wetlands and buffers along 2 tributary streams and Moore’s Creek, 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. The PUD is being proposed as a single phase development. The 2013 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map indicates the subject property remain Low Density Residential, which is described as land occupied by single or two-family types of housing. The density in these areas by-right should not be greater than 15 dwelling units per acre. Although the overall density for the site would be below the max 15 DUA, this site would have 5 approximately a DUA of 5. Townhouses are not permitted in the R-1S district or Low Density Residential areas. Due to the townhouses configuration on 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, which are townhouses, apartment, condominiums, and the density being greater than 15 units per acre. One of staff’s major concerns relates to the layout of Keene Court where it intersects Flint Drive. The design as presented would not conform to the City’s Standards & Design Manual or good traffic engineering principals. The bottleneck design of the intersection creates a turning radius that could be problematic 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. At 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 Standards & Design Manual or allow them to be private or public streets. In addition 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, such as R-3. 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 parking is located behind the buildings and the properties enjoy a shared open space to the north. On December 13, 2018 the applicant held a community engagement meeting where residents brought up the following at the meeting or through separate correspondence: the density is too high, traffic will be a problem, the land being given to Parks also needs to be programed and money provided so it does not end up being just “land,” it needs more pedestrian connectivity, the development could lower the quality of life for people in the area, parking will be a problem, the number of units and type of development in this area is appropriate and that the development should include a mix of single family homes and duplexes. Although the PUD could contribute to some goals of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, staff recommends denial. 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 consistent with innovative urban design promoted by PUD Objectives 2 and 9. 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. 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. The proposed improvements associated with this 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. Improvements specific to areas where critical slopes would be impacted should the waiver be approved 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. 0.51 acres (or 19.2%) of the total critical slope areas within the development are shown to be disturbed. The definition of “critical slope” in the Zoning Ordinance is “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.” In reviewing the application the City’s Environmental Sustainability and Engineering Departments point out a few key elements: limits of disturbance are not well defined, due to the sensitive wetlands and Moore’s Creek, all water quality and quantity should be completed on-site, and staff cannot determine if protective measures of the critical slopes will be outside the wetland area. The majority of proposed townhomes and parking are outside the critical slopes areas. The majority of impacts to the critical slopes comes from storm water management and public trails. Alternative site layouts may reduce impacts to critical slope areas, but may also impact other 6 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. Should Planning Commission recommend approval to City Council on the critical slope, staff has provided recommendations on conditions that can be found on page 7 of the Critical Slope staff report. Chairman Green: Notes that the Commission will vote on the PUD first and if it is approved, there will be a vote on the critical slope. However, if it is not approved the critical slope will not need a vote. COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS Commissioner Solla-Yates: If this were to be approved, can the issues with the housing proffer be resolved with the applicant? Mr. Alfele: There is a proffer development plan and a set of proffers before the Commission. The proffers are not negotiated, they are brought by the applicant. The applicant can hear the feedback and if they decide to amend their proffer statement, they can do that between Planning Commission and City Council meetings. However, it would trigger another public hearing that City Council could hold, or they could kick it back to the Commission to hold, or they could make their decision based off of the proffers that the Commission reviewed. Chairman Green: Could they do it by deferral? Mr. Alfele: They could defer to work on the application and it would start the process over with the Commission. Commissioner Lahendro: How often has staff met with the applicant? Has there been a rigorous review with staff? Mr. Alfele: Yes, it has been going on since the summer. There was a round where staff provided comment on information that was submitted and then the applicant amended the application. Having said that, the information before the Commission is put together in a very good way in comparison to some PUDs that have come forward in the past. The applicant should be commended on that, although there are some concerns with the material itself. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Regarding the possibility to deed the affordable units to a nonprofit, it seemed to imply that it would just be the lots that were given away. Is there anything as part of that proffer that there would be any funding for the nonprofit to build them? Mr. Alfele: No. That is a concern that is laid out in the report, as they would meet their proffer requirement by giving it to a nonprofit. That would be the trigger for meeting that statement. The proffer statement is a little weak on how the actions would be taken. Mr. Ikefuna: The way the proffer is structured makes it difficult to accomplish. If the Planning Commission and Council approved this application, it would be difficult to enforce because it doesn’t have a timeline for completion of the affordable units. Having some sort of timeline is critical. There is also a need to integrate the affordable units with the market rate units because sometimes developers tend to cluster them in one section and the Commissioners should take that into consideration. 7 Mr. John Blair, City Attorney: You cannot deed property to a nonprofit without their consent. It would be an enforcement issue of the proffer itself. After the 10th unit was completed, staff would make sure the affordable unit was completed. If it wasn’t, it would become an enforcement issue at that point. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Because in the proffer the completion of a unit is only if they build it themselves and otherwise deeding it to a nonprofit counts, could they just deed it to a 501c3 and deed it to that and then never do anything? Mr. Blair: That is conceivable. The applicant may want to address that, but if it came to an enforcement question, we could look at what the purpose of the 501c3. A 501c3 would require IRS approval, which is an expensive process. It would be an enforcement issue but you could still question the motives behind the establishment of the 501c3 to make sure that there was an actual purpose there to build the unit. Chairman Green: Based off of this proffer, could you build the 10th unit and then stop so that there are no affordable units? Mr. Blair: That is conceivable, however you could ask the applicant about that. If they stopped after the 10th unit, they still have 40 possible units to build and the proffers become part of the City Ordinance. If they tried to sell the property at that point, the proffer would still be enforceable. Chairman Green: Does this rezoning go with the land, not the applicant before us? Mr. Blair: The proffers go with the land, not the applicant before us. If they were to sell and someone wanted to do a different arrangement they would have to come before the Commission and ask for a proffer amendment. Applicant – Charlie Armstrong, Belmont Station, LLC: Right now there are 13 existing lots that are already platted. They are large lots and some are as big as ¾ of an acre. By-right development of this would use more land and produce less housing than a rezoning. By-right development would provide houses costing $500,000 and up, while rezoning would provide market rate houses that are much lower in cost, as well as some affordable dwelling units with deed restrictions. The platted lots from the 1960s and the existing zoning are out of sync with the needs of the City now. The rezoning will also enable preservation of more than half of the site as open space and we propose to give a lot of the open space, at least 3 acres, to the City to expand Longwood Park, which is directly adjacent to the site. With this rezoning, large environmentally sensitive areas along Moore’s Creek will be permanently protected, though we do need to disturb a small area of critical slope at the top of those slopes. It wouldn’t be at the wetland area except for maybe trails. No project can ever accomplish 100% of the City’s Comprehensive Plan goals or the needs of the City, but this proposal is noteworthy for how many different density, affordability, pedestrian and vehicle connectivity, creative design, and environmental protection goals it accomplishes. The reason there are so many comments is because this is the third round of submittals to the City. The comments that are still outstanding concerns to staff are mostly new, even though the submittal itself had very little new information, and we didn’t have time to go back to staff again. Instead, we wanted to get feedback from the Commission and make some forward progress. One of staff’s concerns is if the developer is planning to sell the park land to the City or if the developer would be giving it to the City. The land would be given to the City at no cost. Proffer #2 currently says “donate” and we would gladly add the words “at no cost to the City” to the proffer to the City Council public hearing. Regarding on-site ADUs and deed restrictions, although it is not specified in the proffer, that is the intent that way if the lot was sold or transferred in any way there would be a deed restriction that carries with it. This can also be added before going before City Council. On the issue of if they are deeded to a nonprofit to build, we have worked with Habitat for Humanity on previous projects and we would 8 like to have a similar partnership with them if we deed it. Right now we haven’t decided if we want to build these ourselves or have a nonprofit build them, so the concept of inventing a 501c3 is not something any serious businessperson would entertain. We have a long history of projects in the City and we hope to continue that. The timing issue is the problem because if we were to deed it to a nonprofit and if they ran out of money that particular year and needed to put it off a year, we would be hamstrung for trying to do good by deeding them a lot. This is why we can’t promise on the timing of a lot we give to a nonprofit, but we can promise that it would be a local nonprofit. Staff’s concern regarding the layout of Keene Court at the intersection of Flint Drive not being safely designed is accurate. The bottleneck is not drawn wide enough. It isn’t dimensioned and this isn’t a site plan that has been engineered, it is a concept for the purposes of a rezoning. Staff’s concern is if City Council were to pass it with that layout shown, the owner could say that Council approved it and that is what they intended. That is not what we intend and we are happy to say on the record that the street, especially at that intersection, would have to meet City standards. This is just not something that is typically fully designed at this stage with rezoning concepts. The last concern from staff says that although townhouses might be appropriate in this location, the same building type could be achieved by rezoning to an existing district like R-3. The ability to provide a more innovative design is the driver behind the PUD. We didn’t think R-3 zoning was the most appropriate because it allows 21 density units per acre, which we did not think was an appropriate density. It requires 25’ setbacks in the front and rear and 17’ setbacks for a typical height townhouse. The ability to reduce those setbacks in a PUD allows us to pull the buildings closer to the street, creating a better street presence and keeping buildings out of as many of the critical slopes as possible. Additionally, PUD zoning requires a plan to be proffered, giving the Commission and the community certainty of the plan of development because there are so many sensitive environmental areas down along the creek. As for the critical slope waiver, there are 2 2/3 acres of critical slopes on the property. The application proposes disturbing only 1/2 acre of slopes. Of that, more than 60% of the slopes are for public infrastructure or trails. The rest would need to be disturbed for homes constructed on the top upland area. Trails and public infrastructure like a public sanitary sewer would be revegetated after it is built and would still have a tree canopy above them. Subtracting disturbance for public infrastructure, we’re only proposing to disturb 0.2 acres of slopes for house construction. We feel strongly that the public benefits outweigh the benefit of leaving the small amount of slopes undisturbed. Allowing permanent disturbance of 0.2 acres and temporary disturbance of 0.3 acres allows permanent preservation of more than 2 acres of critical slopes in other areas on the site, provision of much needed housing at the lower end of what the market can provide (plus deeded affordable units), elimination of the by-right scenario, which is to build 13 half-million dollar homes on the lots as currently platted, and provide provision of a 3+ acre City Park and trail system that is highly desired by Parks and Recreation. That donated land will have a permanent forest protection easement except for areas where trails and infrastructure are. It creates permanent preservation of a total of about 5 ½ acres of open space, which is 55% of the site. By-right development would provide none of that. It would all remain private property. City GIS maps show that several adjacent neighbors currently mow the stream buffer right to Moore’s Creek adjacent to the site. This is an opportunity to keep that from ever happening here. Staff had some concerns that building footprints could be adjusted to preserve a little more slope and that E&S measures could be adjusted. We agree that it’s possible. We haven’t gotten to final engineering yet and this would set a maximum disturbance. We are confident we can address these to satisfaction with staff and engineering at the final site plan. Staff’s proposed condition suggests requiring 100% of nutrient reductions be completed on-site. Virginia has a nutrient trading program so that density can be provided where density is desired in urban areas and areas can be preserved in more rural areas for those credits. Studies indicate that the benefits of the nutrient trading often outweigh the benefits providing nutrient treatment on-site. EPA has also noted that localities cannot override state law on how water quality is achieved, so we don’t feel that this condition would necessarily be proper and we don’t know if we can meet it because we haven’t done the final site plan engineering. We agree with the condition that all storm water outfalls to be built outside critical slopes and the use of wire reinforced super silt fence adjacent to critical slopes. It’s a great practice that we’ve used before even when it’s not required. There is a condition to require a fixed immovable barrier to protect root zones of existing trees that are to be preserved. If 9 that means super silt fence, then we agree that this is a good condition. Otherwise, we don’t know what it means and would need specificity on the Planning Commission for that. Staff made a passing mention of habitat redevelopment, which we also don’t know what that means. We are preserving more than half of the site, which is the maximum we can do in this regard. In sum, the PUD offers a real opportunity to benefit density, affordability, connectivity, environmental preservation, and expansion of City park land. We don’t just pay lip- service to these goals; it makes significant contributions to each of them. We have tried to put our best foot forward and offer the City the best development we can and avoid the fallback plan. We own the property and bought 5 acres adjacent to the main property off of Flint Drive just to donate the park to the City. We don’t think the fallback is a good plan for what the City needs right now. Though staff has some valid concerns, we believe that with the modified approval conditions mentioned we can overcome that and proceed with a great project. COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS Commissioner Mitchell: Nutrient credits do not protect Moore’s Creek. Can you speak to the specific plan to protect the wetlands and Moore’s Creek? Mr. Armstrong: All of the proposed development of this site is upland. As you look at the site, the new PUD would pull lots out of those existing critical slopes that exist now, keeping them upland. We do have to disturb a little critical slope around the fringe, but we would have to disturb much more by building houses. We are trying to pull things out of critical slopes as much as we can. Getting sanitary sewer down the hill is a given in either scenario because the connection is at the bottom of the hill. The same is true for storm water. There is no development proposed in the bottom area. Commissioner Mitchell: At what point will you actually transfer the 3 acres to Parks and Recreation? Mr. Armstrong: The best time to do it is when we record the plat because it would be an easy time to deed it to them or dedicate it to public use. Commissioner Mitchell: How does Parks and Recreation access this property to maintain it? Mr. Armstrong: We are proposing a trail and access easement along what is mostly an existing sanitary sewer easement, which is a natural draw that would be easily accessible by foot or vehicle. This would be a gentle trail with no steps. Commissioner Mitchell: How do you define affordable dwelling units? Mr. Armstrong: We are proposing to use the City’s definition, which is 80% AMI. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Are you going to adhere to the City’s standard operating procedures for ADUs? Mr. Armstrong: If we were to deed the lots to someone like Habitat, who can meet much lower affordability thresholds, then we are likely to get lower than the City’s requirement. The code section we reference in the proffer is 34-12. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Can you explain your thinking in your term of the deed restriction for 10 years? Mr. Armstrong: That’s long enough to ensure at least one or two families go through that unit. If we were to deed the lots to someone like Habitat, they put their own restrictions on top of what we have in the zoning. We are also right at the margins for what is feasible for this project because we are trying to do a lot of things rather than 10 focus on one area. Though it isn’t the best we could do on each one of these individually, it’s the best we can offer to address all of them. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Are they intended to be affordable home ownership units? Mr. Armstrong: It would depend on what nonprofit it went to. If we built them ourselves it would depend on the market at that point. We are still a couple years off before lots are available based on site planning process and construction of roads and infrastructure. If we can build it affordably and sell it at a threshold that meets the City’s then current definition that would be great. We just don’t have that certainty now. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Why did you choose to use 50 units as the maximum and to go with just townhouses rather than apartments in some areas? Mr. Armstrong: We saw it as somewhat of a transition between the existing Longwood development, which is a mix of two-family and townhouse on one side and single-family on the side towards Mosely Drive. Apartments didn’t seem to fit with either of those uses on the other side, so townhouses seemed like the best fit to achieve the density that we need to make a rezoning work. 13 by-right lots works as it is and could be developed, but going to townhouses lets us hit a much lower price point without being overly dense. Commissioner Heaton: You mentioned the nutrient offset. Is that something that you have already calculated as the way you would propose to go forward? If the City requires that, would it be a deal breaker? Mr. Armstrong: It would potentially be tough because we haven’t done any final site engineering. We know approximately what the impervious surface would be, but we haven’t done full soil analyses, which all goes into the calculation. The worry is that without full engineering, which we cannot do at a rezoning stage, is that we would promise something that can’t be delivered. We want to do it onsite and we’ve laid out for a site in the middle of the teardrop for a biofilter because it’s efficient and we’ve done it in almost every project we’ve done in the area. In this case it’s not necessarily a density tradeoff to do the water quality because we have the middle area that was intentionally designed that way, but we might need to buy a fraction of the credits that we need to meet the state requirements. We will attempt to do as much as we can onsite. Commissioner Heaton: You mentioned something about a forestry easement. If the property was given to City Parks, wouldn’t they be the ones to decide what the riparian buffer might be, as opposed to you designating them a forest easement? Mr. Armstrong: Yes and we can work with the City on that. Our motivation and goal is to protect it. Whether it’s the City who owns it or a private property owner, it’s important for us to state our intentions in a legally recorded document so that is what happens. Commissioner Dowell: You referenced Habitat for Humanity several times. Have you thought of or talked to any other nonprofits in partnering with them in this project? Mr. Armstrong: No, we haven’t gotten that far. He shares that he only mentioned it to Habitat because he spoke to one of their members in friendly conversation at a soccer event. We do have a long history of working with Habitat and we have enjoyed that relationship so they are a likely partner. Commissioner Solla-Yates: One of the issues in the staff report is the concern that there is no purpose or need. In other parts of the document you talk about the benefit of park space and housing. What is the disconnect? Mr. Armstrong: We need housing in the City. We should be putting density in areas that are served by public transit, that have adequate infrastructure with water and sewer onsite, with roads stubbed to the property 11 already and already platted roads and rights-of-way. A development has been expected here since at least the 1960s. It’s a place to put residential housing that we really need. There is debate about the R1S zoning, but this is a property that is on the edge of the R1S zoned swath that goes through Fifeville and adjacent to Longwood, which is a PUD with much higher density. It’s only two blocks from a school and it is the right place for housing that we really need, especially at the lower end of what the market can provide price-wise. Parks and Recreation has been trying to acquire at least an easement through this property since long before we ever knew about the property. Chris Gensic has approached the previous owners about a trail with little response and it’s important for them to connect through Moore’s Creek over to Azalea Park, which is very close. They would need to get easements for 4 or 5 more parcels if they don’t already have them to have a trail there. There is also other open space that we are proposing to keep in the HOA in the upland area. Part of it is for buffer to the neighbors and to have nice tree area, but it’s also a midblock area that doesn’t seem right to develop. Commissioner Lahendro: The PUD narrative states that the project “will promote inclusion of houses of various sizes, architectural styles, and price points with varying width and square footages.” Graphically, it looks like it is a townhouse repeated on every lot. Where is the diversity? Mr. Armstrong: That was one of the goals of the PUD that we struggled to meet because it seems to imply apartments, townhouses, and single-family houses all mixed in one. It felt like townhomes were right for the whole property here and the variety is in the sizes. We are proposing some 16’ wide and some 20’ wide, which is a 25-30% difference in square footage. It can also provide varying bedroom counts within those. As far as styles, we are proposing a mix of modern and colonial styles, as well as some frontloading and some the alley load pushed up to the street with an urban feel with parking in the rear. Commissioner Lahendro: It is an extraordinary site from wetlands to wooded slopes and mature trees. What has the design that has been presented done to connect the site together to make it a cohesive whole? Mr. Armstrong: The trail connections is the only way. It is very topographically separate naturally. The area being developed for houses is upland and it is 30-40’ down to the wetlands along the creek. Access and integration for pedestrians is there, but we didn’t want any other connection to the wetlands because connection means use. Commissioner Lahendro: If someone wanted to get to the wetlands, would they have to go out Flint Road and use the trail being proposed with the Park system? Mr. Armstrong: Yes. We didn’t want a steep stairway down critical slopes because it isn’t necessary. Chairman Green: What is your definition of market rate? Mr. Armstrong: That is difficult to answer. The best way to answer that is to tell you what we did at Longwood, which was in the $200,000 range. There were some that were upwards of $300,000 if they wanted the fancy countertops, etc., but $200,000 is where the sales are and where the market wants us to be and we are going to try to get there as best as we can, given the cost of labor and materials. Chairman Green: This is at 50 dwelling units per acre, but have you given any thought to having an accessory dwelling unit in the bottom of the townhomes? Does it come with a height restriction? Mr. Armstrong: We have thought about and we have done it before in other communities that we’ve built. If you count the number of units on the layout here, we will never hit 50 with the physical constraints of the property in the teardrop, so extra units are provided in the maximum of 50 so that accessory units could be put in by anyone who wants to up to a certain point. If we have 40 townhouses and 10 put in accessory units, those are the only ones that can do it because of the density limit. 12 Chairman Green: Based off of what you have applied for, is there anything other than density limiting you from having that option? Mr. Armstrong: No. The staff report even pointed out the concern that if every townhome wanted to put in accessory dwelling units that we would be over the density limit, which is a good problem to have. Chairman Green: At one point we were promised affordable housing mixed in with market rate housing on Cherry Avenue and we got a hotel. What is going to make us get this and not something that we don’t want? Mr. Armstrong: The Cherry Avenue proposal came back to the Planning Commission as a rezoning again with new owners who bought it, which was approved by City Council for a change. There is nothing in here that would allow that to happen. Any changes to this PUD, like a change in the affordable housing proffer, would have to come back through this same process. Additionally, since then our track record with other communities in the City where we have done affordable housing is stronger than any other developer within City limits. Chairman Green: What is your plan for it to be integrated instead of having it clustered in one area? Mr. Armstrong: If we build them, we might have one or two affordable units in each building. If Habitat or someone similar built them, they would want them all in one building because they build the building, which is why there isn’t a promise to have them distributed in any certain way. If you look at the layout, it is one little community that will be a tightknit place no matter where the affordability is. It also wouldn’t be physically possible to put the units in one corner on this site. In Burnet phase 3, we actually put the affordable units in the center and the level of quality is the same so you don’t know the difference. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Do the trails connect to anything? Mr. Armstrong: They do not connect right now. Parks has aspirations, but right now the Longwood Park trail doesn’t go out that side. On the other side going towards Azalea, there are 3 or 4 parcels that would still need easements unless they have some of them already. This is only the 2nd or 3rd step in a new trail system. Commissioner Mitchell: What would you lose if you opened the teardrop entrance up a little bit? Mr. Armstrong: Nothing. As you head down into the teardrop, the first townhouse building on the right has plenty of front yard space. It’s only drawn the way it is because it is a concept sketch and widening it another 10’ wouldn’t hurt anything. If this comment had come earlier in the process that’s what we would be looking at now. Councilor Walker: In terms of affordability, what happens if you partnered with Habitat and the 10 years expires? Mr. Armstrong: If it is Habitat then their deed restrictions are much longer, if not perpetual, and they would record additional deed restrictions beyond what we require. Councilor Walker: Would you be open to extending that timeframe? Mr. Armstrong: In the instance of deeding them to Habitat, yes. We would want to talk to them first, but if we were to keep them it gets harder financially. There would have to be some give and take to make it all still work. Councilor Walker: In communities where you haven’t partnered with Habitat, is 10 years the standard? Mr. Armstrong: We’ve always partnered with Habitat to date. Councilor Walker: So are you flexible on it? 13 Mr. Armstrong: We don’t know. If we wanted to look at another scenario where there are other expenses that we take on from other proffers and pull some of them back to make sure it still works financially, then could tweak that. In the package that is presented, it’s important to hold that for it to still work and be bankable and buildable. Councilor Walker: With these projects is the AMI less than 80%? Mr. Armstrong: Yes. Most recently they are hitting down around 25%. We can’t do that but we are thrilled that they can. PUBLIC HEARING Sandy Erksa: We have lived in our homes 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 townhomes 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. Another concern is that the properties will be purchased as an investment and be converted into rental units instead of being owner occupied dwellings. For these reasons, we request that the rezoning application for Flint Hill be denied. Please keep these properties as Low Density Residential. Jess Wenger: Notes that she is reading a statement on behalf of the Fry’s Spring Neighborhood Association. The FSNA and the neighbors we represent welcome appropriately designed infill and the new residents it will bring to our neighborhood. The FSNA respects the rights of property owners to pursue all legal activity on their private property. The FSNA also recognizes that some activities pursued on private property can result in negative impacts in the community. Based on our current understanding of the Flint Hill PUD, the FSNA appreciates the developer’s effort to limit the critical slope disturbance and minimize the potential negative impacts on Moore’s Creek. The FSNA is also grateful for the developer’s proposal to provide some units at an affordable rate. The FSNA is concerned with maintaining a safe bike and pedestrian-friendly environment in the neighborhood. The primary concern is the potential impact of the number of units (50) will have on the Longwood/Harris, Mosley/Harris, and Camellia/Harris/JPA intersections. These three intersections are utilized by many of the children and their families walking to Jackson Via Elementary School in addition to the pedestrian, bicycle, and auto commuters heading to work. The FSNA’s present position on the Flint Hill PUD is neutral, neither supporting nor opposing the PUD. However, we urge the Planning Commission and City staff to be cognizant of our concerns and consider how to mitigate the traffic impacts on these three intersections when considering the zoning amendment. Jeff Riedel-Bicknell: The developers have taken things into consideration with many of the developments in our community, so thank you to them. However, I do not agree with the comment that the infrastructure exists in Fry’s Spring already to support 13 new homes, much less 50. We currently do not have enough bus routes, bike routes, safe walkable routes, and safe crossings. Currently the traffic situation in our neighborhood is bad. You could jog or ride your bike the 1 or 2 miles in our community faster than you can drive it, but it’s not safe because the drivers are so distracted and speed excessively throughout the communities. Regularly people run into the car that stopped for me in the crosswalk, the car behind them slamming into them, and people have stopped and gotten out of their cars to yell at me after drivers have waved me across the crosswalk. The infrastructure doesn’t exist and bus route 4 has been cut back for those of us who need to get to the hospital. For those of us who work in hospitals, during bad weather we have to walk the 2 miles in the snow after the plows have blocked the 14 sidewalks and streets and we risk getting hit by all of those vehicles. We need to improve the infrastructure first. I do commend the environmental thoughts, but who is going to fund and maintain these proposed park lands and trails? If Southern Development is so environmentally conscious and wants to invest in our community, maybe they could propose to give a percentage of their profits from this development to fund the development of the park land and continue its ongoing maintenance. Without true environmental analysis of these infrastructures we don’t even know if the current floodplain and riparian zones are natural and beneficial, much less what the future development may be. Mark Kavit: The price of the units seems a little low and the units down the block are being sold at $1.2 million. When City Council asked the same question about what the price would be for those units, they were told $250,000 and we found out that it ended up being $1.2 million on the low end. It turned out that the price that was quoted was the price for land, not the completed complex. It’s very important to keep in mind what the people who live there are saying about how it will impact them. With that being said, it’s also important to point out that the plots that were done in the 1950s or 60s were probably done with the idea that the houses being built were going to be ranch style houses, which is not practical to be built at this stage. It is an act of whether we build townhouses that might be more affordable or if the land is used for other types of houses, which are probably much larger houses with much higher price tags. Travis Pietila Southern Environmental Law Center: Starting with the PUD application, this proposal has some positive features and potential. We appreciate that the applicant has proposed onsite affordable units, as well as adding some of the wetlands and steeply sloping areas of the site to Longwood Park. That being said, staff has identified several key aspects of this proposal that are still in flux where further clarification is needed and we believe that more work needs to be done to flesh out this application before you can make an informed recommendation to Council. Staff has identified the need to clarify the applicant’s affordable housing commitments and its terms of its offer of park land to the City. They have raised safety concerns with the proposed street designs that may prevent some of them from being accepted as public streets or functioning as private streets. It’s also important to better nail down the measures that would mitigate impacts to Moore’s Creek, one of our City’s most impaired waterways. This includes a commitment to preserve wetlands and stream buffers on the site, as well as preserve existing tree canopy. To ensure these commitments are enforceable, they should be clearly identified in proffers and the development plan and we don’t see that in the current application. Turning to the critical slopes waiver request, it also suffers from too many unanswered questions. For example, the Environmental Sustainability Department has noted confusion about where the limits of disturbance are being proposed and where erosion control measures will be located, making it hard to discern the actual extent of impacts to critical slopes. The Engineering department also raised major questions about the applicant’s storm water management plans and whether they can actually achieve adequate protection on this site as proposed. Any decision on a waiver should only be made after revised plans are brought forward that not only satisfy staff’s concern with the existing layout, but also demonstrate that staff’s recommended conditions on the waiver can be successfully met. Overall, there are too many remaining questions about these two applications to provide a fair assessment of their relative impacts and benefits. The Commission should make an adequately informed decision on any potential recommendations. Charif Soubra: Notes that he is an adjacent property owner in Longwood. From what is being presented, there are a lot of positive impacts. The PUD by design has a lot of pieces that are addressing positive cohesion for that corner and it is positive transitional growth for that area. The PUD is designed to curb some of those concerns that by-right development would have. My property adjoins the wetland area and seeing the PUD have a design with consideration for the adjoining property is a benefit versus a single home on a 3/4 acre lot that could do whatever they want with their backyard. The PUD is a good idea and as this area grows and transitions it is incumbent upon the City to take upon all the other considerations like traffic and infrastructure. Growth could be the positive impetus for dealing with that transition and those concerns. More homeowners would be at a price point that is 15 more consistent with the affordability index that the City has set forth. This corridor of the town doesn’t have that and this proposal does offer a price point that is not available in that corridor right now. Anja Riedel-Bicknell: Notes that she lives on Christa Court. There is a major concern with infrastructure in the neighborhood, as the sidewalks are very narrow. If you walk from home to the Fry’s Spring pool, it would be impossible for people to walk next to one another because it’s so narrow. If there is a distracted driver there is no space in between the person and the driver, so if they drive onto the sidewalk you would be hit right away. It’s even difficult to walk with a dog because it’s so narrow. As mentioned before, CAT has cut back the bus service in the area. It has improved during rush hour but when it isn’t rush hour, the bus only runs every 70 minutes, which is not often. Many times the first buses of the morning don’t even show up because they don’t have drivers. This is also a concern because it means you have to walk. There is an elementary school nearby but they likely can’t add many more students to the school. 50 more homes means many more children and we have no idea what the capacity of the school is. Ultimately the infrastructure has to be improved before we add more people and cars. COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION Commissioner Dowell: One thing we definitely need in the City is affordable housing at affordable price points. Bringing a development of this nature and size into this area of the City looks a lot like 5th street. Going through 5th street during rush hour is playing Russian roulette. Adding 53 more homes would mean adding almost 100 more cars on the road. We recently witnessed a pedestrian being hit at Jackson Via Elementary School at about 5pm because of the exact situation that the residents stated. The report didn’t mention how it would impact the school system and we are having a tiff with that right now all over Charlottesville. Commissioner Lahendro: PUDs get a bad reputation and this is one example of why. The objectives for a PUD in our regulations states “to encourage innovative arrangements of buildings and open spaces to provide an efficient, attractive, flexible, and environmentally sensitive design.” It is a step forward to move from a single family plot that was there originally to a denser development, but what is shown lacks diversity and transition. It could be a denser development in the center that transitions to the single family and townhouses around it. Just because you are in between these two things doesn’t mean everything has to look alike. It also ignores the wonderful site it is on with rows of townhouses that turns it back to the wooded hillsides and wetlands. I am against this due to the many unresolved issues that staff pointed out, but also because it is a poor example of how a PUD should be done. Commissioner Solla-Yates: This is the best PUD that we’ve seen. This does what a PUD is supposed to do, which is clustering housing and preserving open space, which is a good idea and an appropriate idea for the Comprehensive Plan. There is a need for housing, parks, and trails near schools, especially in this very auto dependent area. There are serious infrastructure issues in the area and this is a part of a solution, but there are broader issues to consider here. The affordable housing component is exciting and it’s pleasing to know that many of these issues can be resolved in the site plan. Commissioner Heaton: Staff mentions in their report that this is a well put together PUD and that is true. The applicant notes that they didn’t have the back and forth that they would have liked to have had with staff to have brought an even better application. Infrastructure is not their responsibility and the City has to come up with a plan to make these old roads work with all these cars. The application does have some concerns that restrictions can be made or additions as the staff suggested, but this is exactly what you want PUDs to do. It puts the density in one place and preserves the open space. Commissioner Stolzenberg: For all the homes built in Fry’s Spring since 2010 inclusive, there have been a number of single family attached, mostly in the Longwood PUD, and they range from $260,000 to $320,000 with the 16 median at $289,600, which is about $6,000 below the Citywide median. There are also single family homes and some with ADUs that were built in the Huntley PUD or built by-right that range from $340,000 to $750,000 with the median at $446,000. This is a massive increase in price if they were to go by-right on the large lots. Having lived on Mosely Drive, having the road connection between Mosely and Longwood will be a big improvement to traffic by having the ability to go to Jackson Via and avoiding Harris entirely. If they built by-right they would only need to connect it to one of those two roads. There are concerns about the affordable dwelling units and the terms of that proffer and hopefully they can be solidified. Commissioner Mitchell: The vision looks nice but there are a number of unresolved issues. We need to hear more about the storm water management plan and what we can do to protect Moore’s Creek. Nutrient credits aren’t good enough because they don’t protect the waterways that run through the City. We need to know more about how we can protect the wetlands and Moore’s Creek from disturbance. When we make recommendations to Council we need to give some thought to the impact of these developments on the existing infrastructure. To make a recommendation to move forward without at least a vision of what it is going to be is not the right thing to do. Ultimately what the applicant would like to do is good but they need a little more time to think about it to make an informed vote. Chairman Green: We talk about land use plans where we want community engagement and we want the neighbors to be part of a community and sometimes it happens organically but I used to live in a complex very similar to this that achieved that. We do have infrastructure problems and enforcement issues in the City that we can hopefully further the conversation on soon. We need more enforcement when it comes to bike/ped. There are also concerns about the unknowns, including the storm water management plan, nutrient credits, and the comment in the staff report that says staff won’t accept the streets as they are into the system. As for the trail system, the City is trying to buy these areas anyway so we are either going to have to get it or purchase it and this is a win for the City. We do need more housing and trails near our schools and we talk about this in the Comprehensive Plan. A little more thought would be better and we wouldn’t mind a deferral so the applicant can come back with more questions answered to give us more information about this bottleneck at Keene Ct and Flint Drive, the storm water management, if we should have more than 50 dwelling units per acre to provide some accessory apartments for rental opportunities, and a plan to possibly have more than 5 ADUs at 80% AMI for longer than 10 years. Mr. Armstrong: We would like to move forward because we have been working on this for a while and we have a great project. We will commit to Council and the Planning Commission that before it goes to Council we will amend the proffers to make sure they reflect what we’ve heard. If that means having an additional public hearing that is fine. We will also correct the concept showing the street that doesn’t work like it’s supposed to so that they don’t have to vote on something drawn that isn’t what we would want to build anyway. We have a lot of work to do before this is a project on the ground so this won’t be the last refining but we are trying to set the limits that it has to move forward to site plan. Hopefully that is enough to move it forward and we commit to the Commission and Council that we will make those tweaks that we’ve heard to the proffer and we urge them to vote “no” if we don’t live up to that. Chairman Green: Encourages the applicant to take advantage of the opportunities to come before the Commission to have a work session to have some questions answered. Commissioner Stolzenberg: The staff report says that the streets couldn’t be accepted as public streets, but also that they couldn’t function as private streets. Does that mean that they would have to fix it no matter what or just that they wouldn’t work well? 17 Mr. Alfele: Even private streets have to follow the Standards and Designs Manual and this would not meet them in this configuration. The site plan could be adjusted and there is a tradeoff. The Planning Commission is the reviewing body to all site plans related to PUDs so the Commission would get a site plan to review and it would be your decision to determine if the proffered development plan and the site plan match. Being the reviewing body for site plans connected to PUDs, you are making that call on whether the site plan is substantially the same as the PUD development plan. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Is it possible to exempt accessory dwelling units and/or affordable dwelling units from the 50 limit? Mr. Alfele: The Planning Commission has a proffered development plan before you that the applicant has put forward. The applicant has indicated that they would likely make adjustments to the proffer. Depending on the action tonight, if it is moved on to City Council you are moving on what has been reviewed tonight. The applicant can make adjustments to the proffer statement between Planning Commission and Council. City Council will have to decide if they will hold a public hearing on their own to advertise the new proffers and they can kick it back to Planning Commission to review the new proffers or they can hold a meeting based on the materials the Commission presented. Commissioner Solla-Yates moves 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. Seconded by Commissioner Stolzenberg. Commissioner Mitchell: The vision is great but based on what we know today, the vote will be a no. Hopefully when it gets to Council the issues we’ve raised will be addressed and corrected to give the applicant their support. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Agrees with many of the concerns and some parts of the application are underwhelming, but the reason that he will support it today is because if this goes down and comes back with the much more expensive $500,000+ houses we will have made a big mistake. Commissioner Heaton: If it goes to Council with a denial, does that change the process for the applicant? Chairman Green: No. Commissioner Lahendro: Clarifies that the Commission is being asked to vote on what is before us in the application, not promises for making any changes. Commissioner Solla-Yates moves 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. Seconded by Commissioner Stolzenberg. Motion fails 4­ 3. Commissioner Mitchell: As the applicant begins thinking about their appeal to Council, it would be good to solidify the thoughts about the affordable housing piece and who the partner might be if they have a partner. Ms. Creasy: We don’t have an action at this point and we need an action. 18 Mr. Armstrong: Requests to defer the application. Commissioner Mitchell moves that we accept the deferral. Seconded by Commissioner Solla-Yates. Motion is approved 6-1. 3. SP19-00001 – 1617 Emmet Street 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. Staff Report, Joey Winter: The item before you tonight is a Special Use Permit request for 1617 Emmet Street. The applicant, Riverbend Development represented by Ms. Ashley Davies, is requesting a Special Use Permit to authorize a specific land use, which is a drive through window for a restaurant. Their proposal is to convert the existing structure at 1617 Emmet Street, a former bank, into a coffee shop with a drive through window. The proposed use of the building (defined as “restaurant”) is allowed by-right in the HW zoning district. An SUP is required for the restaurant’s drive through window. This application is for the drive through only, not the coffee shop itself. City Council approved an ordinance to authorize restaurants with drive through windows in the HW zoning district with a Special Use Permit on August 20, 2018. Prior to that, restaurant drive through windows were not authorized in the HW zoning district under any circumstance. The subject property is zoned HW with an Entrance Corridor Overlay. It is located to the Southwest of the intersection of Emmet Street and Angus Road. To the North of the property across Angus Road is a fast food restaurant with a drive through. To the East across Emmet Street are two hotels. To the South and West of the property is a retail shopping center. All adjacent parcels are also zoned HW with an Entrance Corridor Overlay. For some added context on the area, on Emmet Street from the Albemarle County line to Barracks Road, a distance of approximately one mile, there are currently eight business drive through windows. Seven of them are restaurants and one is a bank. Four of those businesses are north of the Route 250 Bypass and four are south of the Bypass. A preliminary site plan was submitted as a supplement to this SUP application and at the request of the applicant, this site plan is being treated only as an exhibit and has not gone through a full staff review at this time. There are three aspects of the application and site plan exhibit the Commission may want to consider. First, the site plan exhibit proposes to eliminate an existing entrance on Emmet Street. This is being done at the request the City’s Traffic Engineer. Secondly, the proposed staff condition #2 was included to address concerns from traffic engineering about vehicle circulation at the site. Based on trip generation data provided by the applicant, the coffee shop drive through will generate significantly more vehicle trips per day than the previous bank drive through did. It’s also important to note an existing ATM onsite that is proposed to remain and operate in the drive through lane farthest from the building. Thirdly, no changes are proposed in this site plan exhibit, but the applicant has indicated to staff it is possible they may seek to remove some of the canopy over the drive through in the future. This site lies in an Entrance Corridor so any alterations of the structure or canopy will require ERB approval. Proposed staff condition #1 was included to make this clear. No written public comment was received during the application process. The community meeting required by Code was held by the applicant on March 21 at the site and a second unofficial community meeting was held on March 28 at the site. Staff recommends that this application be approved with the following two conditions: that a Certificate of Appropriateness shall be obtained from the Entrance Corridor Review Board prior to any alteration of the existing structure or canopy and that 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 19 drive through traffic and specify that all traffic is one way. Please remember the factors to consider as you review this SUP application are listed in the staff report and can be found in section 34-157 of the City Code. COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS Commissioner Solla-Yates: This area has an auto-dominated history with troubles. Our zoning intends it to be more of a transition zone from auto-dominated to something more human-friendly where bicycles and pedestrians could be imagined. VDOT gave us a lot of money to go a crosswalk on 29 that terminates at this future potential coffee shop, but there is no relationship to the building. The building is far back and it is a drive through, which is a very auto-dominated use is being proposed to this building. Would it be possible to mitigate that in some way and if so, what would that look like? Mr. Winter: Ultimately it’s up to the Planning Commission. When the City Code defines the Highway Corridor Zoning District, it says the purpose of the district is to “facilitate development of a commercial nature that is more auto-oriented than mixed use in neighborhood commercial corridors.” The Hydraulic small area plan’s conceptual land use map designates this parcel as commercial that applies to community and regional shopping centers and highway oriented retail districts. Based on that, the zoning code and small area plan mention that it is auto or highway oriented, which is why staff found the use appropriate. Regarding the setbacks, the staff report mentions that the structure is over the maximum setback from both Emmet Street and Angus Road. The proposal is to use the existing building that it’s hard to see a way to do that and also bring the side in conformity with the setbacks. Commissioner Solla-Yates: In other places there are sidewalks that connect from the street to businesses. Could that be possible? Mr. Winter: Notes that he would have to look at the map, but there is a sidewalk all the way down Angus Road Chairman Green: The site plan isn’t finalized so it’s something we could ask the applicant. Mr. Winter: There were also questions regarding if there was a concern about the Angus Road entrance and the traffic engineer expressed that it wasn’t one of his concerns. Applicant – Ashley Davies, Riverbend Development: We have appreciated working with Mr. Winter and staff so far on the development. As Mr. Winter mentioned, staff provided a few conditions on the site, one being looking at additional signage and pavement markings to make the flow work well. We are already looking at how to do that onsite, but the good news is that the site has already been a drive through so it was designed specifically for that usage type. With a few minor tweaks, it should be in good shape for a coffee shop with a drive through window. This is a Highway Corridor so it is one that is more auto-oriented and it is situated for the most intensive commercial uses in Charlottesville. That being said, we have no intention to ignore the pedestrians and we welcome more conversation on how to improve pedestrian access. It is along our most heavily travelled corridor in Charlottesville with over 46,000 vehicle trips per day. We did traffic studies of the site and with a coffee shop use, there are more vehicle trips than with a bank use but there is no significant difference between a coffee shop and a coffee shop with a drive through. Shockingly, during the AM peak hour the one with the drive through is actually fewer vehicle trips than the by-right use. The difference between a coffee shop and a bank is that coffee shops are primarily pass by trips. 89% are pass by trips and its cars that would have already been there, which is why it’s so great to locate it on 29. Banks are primary trips to create a new trip on the road. Sustainability is also a huge topic. The building is pulled back from the road and we have considered a variety of uses for the site and in some of them we had new construction on the site. The great part about putting a coffee shop here is that the building is perfectly suited for it as is and it’s made of high quality materials. By using that existing building, we 20 can ensure the maximum use of those materials lifespans and reduce waste over time, not to mention all of the waste that goes into new construction, extraction of materials, and transportation costs. It’s the right choice for Charlottesville to reuse this building that is in great shape so we can adapt it easily for this new use. The coffee shop also serves a major community benefit. As staff mentioned, we had two meetings with the neighborhood association. They weren’t well attended but it gave us ample time to have discussions with those who were able to join us. While it’s on 29, it’s also part of the Meadows neighborhood and in talking to them we discovered that there is no place for meeting or gathering in that area. This particular use is a huge benefit to create a de facto neighborhood gathering and people seem to be excited about that option. Given its location on Angus, it’s also quite walkable to a lot of residences in that neighborhood. We think it will serve a great community purpose and felt support from those in the neighborhood that we’ve spoken with. We have been working with the proposed tenant on the site design and as we condition the potential for more signage for striping, we are exploring the idea of more of a raised median that separates the drive through area from the bypass traffic, which takes it to another level to make the site work better. We would like to leave it open to finding the best option to make that site as safe as possible and the raised median assists the flow from Angus and keeping that traffic from keeping any backups into the Angus intersection and road. COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS Commissioner Lahendro: If you took the handicapped drop-off next to the lane and extended that to the sidewalk through the planting bed, it would give you a sidewalk access from Angus Road to the building. Ms. Davies: The architect has proposed that and we are happy to incorporate that. If you don’t have the raised median, cars could come in from Angus and try to angle into the drive through lane immediately and this forces them to come in and get out of the road to keep traffic moving. Commissioner Dowell: What made you want to keep the ATM there? Ms. Davies: It was there and it seems to provide another community benefit to have it there even though the in- banking services are no longer there. The great thing about the ATM is that it doesn’t have peak hours and the traffic for it happens over the course of a day so it’s not conflicting with other peak hour uses. Commissioner Heaton: With two lanes and a coffee shop, how do you deliver the coffee to the far lanes? Ms. Davies: The drive through for the coffee shop is only the lane immediately next to the building. The middle lane is a bypass lane to get traffic flowing through and the third lane is just for the ATM. Chairman Green: Are there any questions from Council? Councilor Signer: We appreciate the consideration to go back to the prior format to have the public hearings in the beginning of the meeting because it worked very well before. Chairman Green: Unfortunately it doesn’t necessarily work for the public but we can certainly have more conversations about it. PUBILC HEARING: None. COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION 21 Chairman Green: Notes that she appreciates the bypass lane because if you’ve ever been to the coffee shop in Pantops there are major concerns about backup into the roadway, so this is a huge benefit for the parcel. Commissioner Lahendro moves 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 two (2) 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, and 3) the handicapped access lane be extended so that it connects with the sidewalk on Angus Road. Seconded by Commissioner Solla-Yates. Motion is approved 7-0. IV. COMMISSION’S ACTION ITEMS ENTRANCE CORRIDOR REVIEW BOARD 4. Entrance Corridor – Hydraulic Place – Old K-mart Site Staff Report, Jeff Werner: This is an EC COA request for Hillsdale Place, which is located at 1801 Hydraulic Road. It is a 9 acre site that is designated mixed use in the Comprehensive Plan and it is zoned Highway Corridor with Entrance Corridor Overlay. It is a vacant building but is on the site of what had previously been occupied by K- mart and Gold’s Gym. Hillsdale Place was initially reviewed by the ERB in 2017 and involves a partial demolition, partial reconstruction, and full renovation of an existing one story commercial building with surface parking. The intent is to maintain the current building footprint and reuse portions of the existing structure. The design includes articulated wall segments, varying parapet heights, and a 39’ tall tower in the plaza area. The 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. In 2017 the Planning Commission reviewed a proposed design and unanimously approved the COA with conditions. The proposal before you represents some revisions to the 2017 design and except for the color selection and façade alterations on the western end of the project, the new design is almost identical to the old and for the most part it addresses the conditions of the 2017 COA. Except for the changes to the western façade, staff would have administratively approved this request. Since the staff report was posted last week, the applicant has shared additional changes to the western end of the building that do address the concern staff had about the starkness of the elevations. These would be the walls facing Route 29 and the north wall at the rear of the building. Staff is comfortable administratively approving those modifications, which only leaves the matter of the proposed red elements at the west and south facades that we seek a decision on. The building materials, color palette, and landscaping are generally appropriate for the Entrance Corridor, however it is the red elements that conflict with 4 of the 6 Guidelines addressing color, which are that “the palette of colors should be compatible with adjacent developments, to limit the number of color choices, that bright accent colors may be appropriate for smaller areas such as awnings and signs on commercial buildings, and to not use strong colors that has the effect of turning the entire building into a sign.” It is not turning the entire building into a sign, but it is a strong color. Additionally, there is one provision of the EC Guidelines about respecting and enhancing Charlottesville’s character that says “Charlottesville seeks new construction that reflects the unique character, history, and cultural diversity of this place. Architectural transplants from other locales, or shallow imitations of historic architectural styles, for example, are neither appropriate nor desirable. Incompatible aspects of franchise design or corporate signature buildings must be modified to fit the character of this community.” Staff is of the opinion that the 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 22 and nature not seen elsewhere in this EC. We received one public comment via email that urged that we tone down or diminish the amount of red on the wall and signage. Staff finds the proposed design to be appropriate and recommends approval, but only with conditions that address concerns about the introduction of the red elements. The options to address this might include reducing the area of the proposed red metal panels or inverting the colors—red to white, white-to red—on the proposed metal panels. Additionally, staff recommends 5 conditions, 4 being from the prior COA and 1 that we recommend will accommodate the more recent updates to the west and north façade. These conditions are 1) all signage shall appear to be lit white at night, 2) all exterior lighting shall be full off, 3) dumpsters will be within enclosures constructed of materials similar to the building and landscaping and other materials will be used to reasonably screen utility boxes and panels from adjacent property, 4) indicate on plans the bus shelter or stop location, and 5) at the west and north elevation to use variation in the approved materials and wall details to further break down the mass and scale of each façade, as presented to staff on pages 9 and 10 of renderings dates May 7, 2019. COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS Commissioner Lahendro: Are the items from the agenda package no longer valid? Mr. Werner: They are absolutely valid and that is what you are reviewing. If you are inclined to approve the COA, a condition that the north and west elevations be further articulated would allow staff to move forward with what was sent last week. Ms. Creasy: The Commission has two choices. You could react solely to the materials in front of you, which notes 5 conditions that covers all of the concerns that Mr. Werner has put forward with the materials in front of you. Alternatively, you can reference a document that you have not had the opportunity to see that denotes a number of those conditions already being met with the main condition regarding the large red element on the building remaining. Commissioner Dowell: In your professional opinion, how is this harmonious with the back parcel that is proposed to be developed as well? Mr. Werner: There is vagueness in some of the EC Guidelines. On one hand there is an opportunity to revisit the Guidelines to clarify what they mean. In terms of compatibility, it keeps it somewhat consistently low key. On this segment we are just trying not to make the building jump out at us. Commissioner Lahendro: What is the elevation distance between 29 north and where the building sits? Mr. Werner: It is set down perhaps 12 or 15 feet. It’s not so much the color red that’s the problem, but it is the scale and amount of it that seems to overwhelm that corner. Commissioner Lahendro: Is there is a future outparcel on the west end on the building? Mr. Werner: There are a few of them. There are 5 sites planned for future development in some capacity. Commissioner Dowell: Regarding the sign, what about the inversion of colors? Mr. Werner: There is a similarly colored store further up on 29 that has an inversion of the colors where the red is less compared to the lighter color. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Do we know anything about the building marked “future” next to 29? Should we be considering that? Will it block any of it? 23 Mr. Werner: The applicant might be able to speak about how the outparcels work and what is planned for development, but we have to assume that nothing is there as of now. The signage will all be addressed in a comprehensive signage plan, which will codify what can happen there once reviewed and approved. Chairman Green: Can you give us some distinction about this? There is a big blue swath with yellow letters on it is just up the street, which is pretty vibrant. Mr. Werner: It is not as strong of a color and it is setback and above the street, so it doesn’t jump out at you as you are driving down. It is possible that the lower grade of this site mitigates that, but there is no doubt that it is much closer to the street and it is on two facades versus a panel over an entrance. Applicant – Kevin Lyon, Bignell Watkins Hasser Architects: When looking at the ERB Guidelines and taking into account the existing site, we wanted to create architecture that is visually interesting and aesthetically appealing. There is an encouragement of contemporary design in the Guidelines with specific materials laid out to achieve that goal, one of which is metal paneling. It also mentions creating a pedestrian experience that creates a sense of place and a focal point for organization of the site and that was a huge principal in what we did. As we look at the updated design, we wanted to make sure we stayed within the Guidelines in terms of the design with contemporary materials. It is a different color than what was shown before, but the material is not different, as it is metal paneling. It is a material that is high quality and has a permanence to it, which is what the ERB looks for. In terms of the site and how it relates, 29 and Seminole trail is 15’ up starting at the corner of the building where the design is concerned and it comes down more as you go across the site. It contributes to the design and how it will be perceived as it is approached by drivers along the Entrance Corridor. Landscaping was also touched on to enhance the site in general and is in the official site plans that have been submitted. A diversity of materials is also specifically mentioned in the Guidelines as something to be sought after and we are trying to enhance the aesthetic and create something that isn’t going to imitate an older style of architecture that is prevalent but to go with a contemporary design and fitting it into the context of what we have. Talking specifically about the red, in terms of Mr. Werner’s recommendations, inverting the colors would not be our preference. If the goal is to have something not be as stark as compared to the rest of the building, our preference would be to look at how the proportions of the red areas work and how we can work in some of the articulation that is elsewhere in the building into that portion. We looked heavily at articulation at a human scale for the pedestrian experience and tried to curtail vast expanses of a similar materials or a long blank wall like what is existing on the site right now. COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS Commissioner Dowell: Have you considered other renderings that are not so bright and will still achieve the target of what you are looking for? Mr. Lyon: Maybe that goal could be accomplished by taking some of the other materials that are elsewhere throughout the building and bringing them more into that area to reduce the red a little bit and articulating it a little more so that is isn’t turning a portion the building into a sign if that is the objection. There are certainly other elevations and designs that we have considered. Commissioner Lahendro: How critical to the tenant’s unique signature is it to have this much red on the building? Mr. Lyon: It is fairly critical. Whatever design guidelines are required by the jurisdiction are required, but we are trying to strike a balance and find a design that makes everyone acceptable of it. Branding is very important and signage is important regardless of the tenant. 24 Commissioner Heaton: You mentioned lowering the percentage of the amount of red. Are you going to be specific about that or are you just willing to consider it? Mr. Lyon: It’s hard to give a specific number because it has to do with proportion and how the red will fit within the context of the design of the building rather than popping out at you. There isn’t a specific dimension on that, but what’s modeled is an attempt to do that. Chairman Green: Are you losing this store if it is inverted? Ms. Davies: We would prefer to look at other design options than a big stark white wall with a red sign, which ends up being a white wall with a white sign at night. Chairman Green: It isn’t white. For instance, in north Albemarle if there was another type of store with a red logo and it was required to be inverted with a tan background with red letters, would it be a deal breaker for you and this location? Ms. Davies: What would be most helpful tonight is to get this type of feedback from the Commission about what is preferential for this particular part of the Entrance Corridor and what you see as compatible. Then Mr. Lyon and I would have a chance to go back and speak with that particular tenant and come back with options for further discussion. If you feel good about what is before you tonight we are happy to move forward, but if that is not the will of the Commission then we are happy to come back with options that possibly have a difference color palette or proportions. The Guidelines say that it’s fine to have colors that is an accent color and there isn’t anything that is particularly bad about red as a color. It is a more modern area and it is fine to be playful and colorful in this section of our community but it is a matter of how much of it is okay with this group. Commissioner Lahendro: The red needs something to spice up the development and the red is perfectly fine, but it is suggested that we pull back the proportion to 1/3 or 1/2 of what is shown now. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Given that this whole parcel is within the Entrance Corridor, are we concerned with the views from both Hydraulic and 29, or specifically 29? Chairman Green: Most of it is still brown colors and the large red wall that popped up is why we are here tonight. Ms. Davies: Notes that the building is approximately 200’ from the 29 and 400’ feet from the Hydraulic Corridor. Chairman Green: How far is the Best Buy sign from 29? It is elevated and a beacon of light. Does staff think the blue is not a big deal? Mr. Werner: It’s about 400’. This is where the subjective part comes in and red is a very strong color. There is an architectural element that is valid here if you can make the case for your design. However, the design argument is predicated on a brand. We have to be very careful about drilling holes in the bucket of our Guidelines and it is advised that we be measured in this. If the red is fine then we should establish that it is a design element that we welcome. Commissioner Lahendro: We have to think about the scale of this building and Best Buy compared to Zaxby’s or Cookout that is close and near the road and in a more transitional area that is becoming more pedestrian. The scale is important to consider because one size doesn’t fit all. In context, across a large parking lot this is not inappropriate to get attention. Chairman Green: Notes that she echoes that sentiment. 25 Commissioner Dowell: Looking at the entire project as a whole, it does not seem harmonious across this viewpoint in general. It doesn’t flow well and there are too many colors and too much going on. What about the project being proposed right behind it? Are they supposed to be totally separate? Chairman Green: Mr. Werner is the expert and it should be his call to make if he thinks there is a certain color palette that works better than others. Mr. Werner: As far as an aesthetic expert, that is not my background. This is how I am interpreting the Guidelines and you can certainly differ on that. The question is whether or not the design fits and feels good and the decision should be based on design and what feels good rather than a corporate logo, and the Guidelines are very clear about that. Perhaps a reduction in scale, a matte finish, or some texture to the red that could break it down a little bit. There is some compromise to be found relative to the Guidelines. COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION Commissioner Heaton moves that having considered the standards set forth within the City’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines, Commissioner Heaton moves to find that the proposed design for the Hillsdale Place at 1801 Hydraulic Road is consistent with the Guidelines and compatible with the goals of this Entrance Corridor, and that the ERB approves the Certificate of Appropriateness application with the following conditions of approval: 1) mitigate/ address the red element by inverting or lowering the proportions of red by the scale of 50%, 2) all signage shall appear to be lit white at night. All exterior lights shall be full cutoff, 3) Dumpsters will be within enclosures constructed of materials similar to the building, 4) Landscaping and other materials will be used to reasonably screen utility boxes and panels for the adjacent property, 5) indicate on panels the bus shelter or bus stop location, and 6) at the west and north elevation use variation in the materials and wall details to further break down the mass and scale of each façade, as presented to staff on page 9 and 10 of the rendering dated May 7, 2019. Seconded by Commissioner Lahendro. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Is that 50% area or length? Commissioner Heaton: They are referring to scale or area, so you’d measure what it is and take it down by 50%. Commissioner Heaton moves that having considered the standards set forth within the City’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines, Commissioner Heaton moves to find that the proposed design for the Hillsdale Place at 1801 Hydraulic Road consistent with the Guidelines and compatible with the goals of this Entrance Corridor, and that the ERB approves the Certificate of Appropriateness application with the following conditions of approval: 1) mitigate/ address the red element by inverting or lowering the proportions of red by the scale of 50%, 2) all signage shall appear to be lit white at night. All exterior lights shall be full cutoff, 3) Dumpsters will be within enclosures constructed of materials similar to the building, 4) Landscaping and other materials will be used to reasonably screen utility boxes and panels for the adjacent property, 5) indicate on panels the bus shelter or bus stop location, and 6) at the west and north elevation use variation in the materials and wall details to further break down the mass and scale of each façade, as presented to staff on page 9 and 10 of the rendering dated May 7, 2019. Seconded by Commissioner Lahendro. Motion is approved 6-0. Commissioner Solla-Yates abstained. Commissioner Heaton left the meeting. 5. Critical Slope – 915 6th Street SE 26 Staff Report, Carrie Rainey: Shimp Engineering, on behalf of Rayonix, LLC is requesting a waiver from Section 34­ 1120(b) of the City Code to allow for construction of a mixed use development that would include two buildings with 28 one and two bedroom multi-family residential units and commercial use, and a surface parking lot with vegetated canopies. 34% of total site area contains critical slopes, 78% of which are proposed to be disturbed, accounting for 27% of the site in total. Much of the site is wooded. A single family home is currently located on the site near 6th Street SE. 36% of the total critical slopes on site are greater than 60%. Critical slopes great than 60% proposed to be disturbed account for 30% of the critical slope disturbance. The applicant’s justifications for critical slope disturbance are summarized in the staff report, and are included in the attachment section. The Environmental Department made the following comments: Efforts should be made to limit the disturbance of critical slopes onsite to the maximum extent practical. In particular, care should be given to minimize or avoid impacts to slopes greater than 60%. The site also has significant tree canopy coverage, which is largely proposed to be removed. The site will produce significantly more storm water in the post-development condition. This additional storm water should be managed onsite to avoid impacts to Pollocks Branch, to which the site discharges. Given that Pollock’s Branch has significant water quality and quantity challenges, all water quality and quantity requirements associated with the site should be completed onsite without claiming the 1% rule for water quantity compliance, which is a state allowance. If not managed properly onsite, the additional storm water will leave the site with increased velocity and can have the potential to cause increased pollutant loading and erosion and sedimentation in Pollocks Branch. The Environmental staff also noted that the critical slope area that is proposed to be disturbed will not have improvements located therein and should be stabilized with heavy plantings of local native woody and herbaceous vegetation. A significant area of critical slopes are 60% of greater and uncontrolled storm water runoff over these slopes will likely cause them to erode and the displaced soil could potentially travel to adjacent sites or travel to public right-of-ways. 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 Downtown area. The General Land Use Plan of the 2013 Comprehensive Plan calls for the 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 property is designated as Mixed-Use Urban Corridor (Transect T5) in the Regulating Plan of the SIA Plan. The SIA Plan states Transect T5 should have low- and mid-rise buildings of approximately four to five stories in height with buildings set close to the sidewalk. Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider the following items: 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 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 remaining on the adjacent parcel. For example, wire reinforced silt fence or super-silt fence could be prescribed. Staff recommends storm water impacts to adjacent properties or environmentally sensitive areas. Both 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 storm water will not leave the site with increased velocity and have the potential to cause increased pollutant loading and erosion and sedimentation in Pollocks Branch. Staff recommends considering 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 like herbaceous layer, shrub layer, sapling layer, and canopy to promote a diversity of species. The planting of locally native woody and herbaceous 27 vegetation can be required to both stabilize remaining slopes and minimize impacts to vegetative canopy and wildlife habitat. Staff has provided a series of recommended conditions that address those three items, should the Planning Commission recommend approval of the critical slope waiver request. COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS Commissioner Dowell: What is the current health status of Pollocks Branch? What are the potential impacts from this development are proposed to the waterway and the quality of the waterway? Ms. Rainey: There isn’t a specific number to provide. Pollocks Branch has been noted as in need of improvements and repair to the system, but if there is a numerical system, staff is unaware of it. The potential impacts could be increased erosion to the waterway of Pollocks Branch and adjacent properties if not properly controlled during construction, which regards the erosion and sediment control measures and at a longer term stance. This is why staff recommends the condition to treat all storm water onsite. The 1% exemption, which is an allowance by the state for exceedingly small sites to not treat the water onsite, which could get down to Pollocks Branch and create additional erosion of the slopes and sediment into Pollocks Branch to decrease the health. Commissioner Lahendro: How does the present design comply with zoning? Are we meeting the required setbacks, side yards, and building heights under present zoning? Ms. Rainey: Yes. There is a minimum 35’ height and a maximum of 101’ for Downtown extended for mixed use projects. 6th Street SE is a primary street, which has a maximum setback of 15’. 2nd Street SE is not designated in the corridors as a primary or linking street so there isn’t a required setback there, but the applicant has shown the building close to the street in line with the SIA plan. Along 2nd Street the building height is proposed to be 49’ and 38’ on 6th Street. Chairman Green: Isn’t this an overlay of the SIA? Ms. Creasy: The SIA is a guide so it is not zoning-based. It is one of multiple elements that can be reviewed. Ms. Rainey included a lot of information in the staff report because that is what we are striving for and the applicant has kept that in mind, but that is not the word of law at the moment. Commissioner Stolzenberg: The SIA plan map shows Rayon extending up to Blenheim, which it doesn’t seem like this plan conflicts with that in that there is no building in the way. How would that street be envisioned to be built? Given that there would be a downhill there, does this change any of that? Ms. Rainey: There wasn’t any detailed envisioning of how that street would be constructed during the SIA process when the plan was discussed and passed. It would entail great regrading to meet slopes. There also isn’t any building proposed in that area. It would be surface parking lot, which could potentially be revisited if the City was looking to include streets. Commissioner Lahendro: We heard earlier than storm water requirements for a site is not controlled locally and it is a state regulation. Can it be required that we have all the storm water treated on the site? Ms. Rainey: Council has approved similar conditions on other critical slopes waivers, but this requirement is not based on the storm water process itself, but as a special condition allowing you to impact slopes that the City has determined to be critical and not otherwise allowed to be impacted. It is not a storm water requirement per the code, but it is related to storm water as a potential condition. 28 Applicant – Peter Russell, Shimp Engineering: The project is .77 acres and the existing use is a single family house. The proposed use is 28 1-2 bedroom residential units for rent with a possible commercial use along the 2nd Street façade. The total critical slopes is .26 and the total critical slopes to be disturbed is .21 acres. On the General Land Use Plan in draft form, the parcel is designated high intensity, which is defined primarily as most intense urban areas within the City. The parcel also currently faces two different zoning areas. Regarding the critical slopes, the contiguous slopes from the critical slope continue down 2nd Street, but they are interrupted by housing and staircases along the street. In the late 1970s Pollocks Branch was covered and developed and street connections were made, which drastically widened the grade to allocate spaces for parking in the street. Overall, this complies with the Comprehensive Plan and draft versions of the General Land Use Plan, as well as the SIA. COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS: Chairman Green: Have you reviewed this based off of what is approved in the Comprehensive Plan? Mr. Russell: Yes. It complies with the 2013 Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Solla-Yates: Why not 4-5 stories? Mr. Russell: It is 5 stories along 2nd Street and 3 stories along 6th Street. The idea there is to have the more commercial side (2nd Street) match the existing use. The 6th Street side is decreased to help transition more easily into the single family homes across the street. Commissioner Lahendro: How tall is the grade elevation difference on the north side of the parking area? Mr. Russell: It is varied and depending on the variation it would be 6-10’ tall at the highest point. It will be sloped rather than a continuous face of 10’. Commissioner Lahendro: At the bottom of the retaining wall, will the critical slope stay the way it is now? Mr. Russell: Yes. We are trying to grade as little as possible past the retaining wall. Commissioner Lahendro: For the buildings facing 2nd Street, can they be pulled back so their footprint is not within the critical slope, either by making them taller or pushing them to the south property line and letting the sidewalk be on the north side that is elevated post grade? It would let the critical slopes continue underneath. Is there a design way to push the footprint of the buildings on 2nd Street so that they are outside the critical slope? Mr. Russell: There is a setback on that side because it is next to residential, so we are pushing the building a little further west. The setback is 20’, which is why the building is positioned on that side of the site. It does unfortunately push us into the critical slopes more. Commissioner Lahendro: Can you make the building taller to reduce the footprint? Mr. Russell: Making the building taller is an option, but because it is so thin we have to provide the correct amount of parking, which is why the parking is so spread out in the center and the buildings on the ends. Increasing the height on the 2nd Street side wouldn’t help us in terms of helping to reduce the actual disturbance. We can talk to the developer about that possibility. Commissioner Solla-Yates: The parking is the dominant visual element when looking at the site plan. Directly to the north there is a huge surface parking lot. Is there any way of leveraging that to make this work better? 29 Mr. Russell: In terms of getting people to the 6th Street side that becomes less possible because it isn’t adequate. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Is there a legal requirement that it has to be that accessible by foot? Chairman Green: Isn’t there is an ADA requirement? Ms. Creasy: There are handicapped parking requirements for distance, but there are also allowances within the code for general parking to be within certain distances of developments Commissioner Stolzenberg: Does that include shared parking agreements? Ms. Creasy: There are different options and that is one of the options. Chairman Green: Are you saying that for the commercial, you could access 2nd Street and the parking easier than what the residential could be on 6th Street? Mr. Russell: Correct, and if the adjacent parcel was developed that would potentially eliminate that parking availability. Chairman Green: Is it possible to do the mitigation recommendation that staff made on this site? Mr. Russell: It is expensive, but it is possible. COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION Chairman Green: The housing and commercial are both needed, but the difficulty lies in allowing the critical slopes to be disturbed and cutting down all those trees for parking. Chairman Green: Have you really looked at this design in depth? Mr. Russell: We’ve look at it and this design with both buildings fronting on both streets and this scale works really well for the site. Disturbing less critical slopes is extremely difficult, especially if we want to address 2nd Street. Commissioner Lahendro: There is likely a design way to help reduce the amount of critical slopes being disturbed along the buildings along 2nd Street. Commissioner Stolzenberg moves 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 storm water 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. 3. Require a fixed, immoveable barrier to protect 30 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. Seconded by Commissioner Solla-Yates. Motion ties 3­ 3. Commissioner Lahendro: Notes that he cannot support the project. It doesn’t comply with the Standard of Review, which is to “unreasonably restrict the use, reuse, or redevelopment of such property.” It can still be used and redeveloped just fine if we can keep the building out of the critical slope. Chairman Green: Agreed. Commissioner Stolzenberg: It’s important to remember the bonus height analysis, which says as soon as we rise above that 5 story mark to switch to concrete and steel, the apartments will get much more expensive. Commissioner Lahendro: That is old thinking. They are now building laminated wood buildings at 10 stories tall. Commissioner Stolzenberg: True, but they are very expensive. Commissioner Lahendro: The recommendation is to redesign the project so that the buildings fall outside of the critical slopes. Commissioner Mitchell: If we do this, the price rises and we begin to defeat our desire to increase our affordable housing stock. Chairman Green: It’s also increasing the price by doing the onsite water. If this were affordable housing it would be different. Commissioner Dowell: The only time we talk about affordable housing is with apartments and that should not be the only affordable things being sent our way. Homeownership is one of the biggest ways for generations to come out of poverty. Commissioner Stolzenberg: It’s not the case in this case. Homeownership is still possible with apartments and apartments are naturally a more affordable form of housing. Chairman Green: It’s not about the rental vs. non-rental. The rates for these apartment rentals is probably going to be $1400-$1800. There’s not any affordability. Commissioner Mitchell: Mr. Lahendro, do you not think that the mitigations address the things you are worried about? Commissioner Lahendro: They address the storm water issue but it’s the slope itself and the fact that it is vegetated with large mature trees on it. It’s an important piece of the character of this area and we are protecting the critical slopes for a reason. It’s a difficult site but it’s not impossible to do that. 31 Commissioner Stolzenberg: It’s not rent-regulated affordable but in terms of prices, but as soon as you go from stick built to concrete the cost building goes up 21.5%. Commissioner Solla-Yates: The critical slopes waivers need a public purpose to do it. Could we include an affordable housing element as a requirement? Ms. Creasy: That doesn’t seem like it would be directly related to the critical slope portion itself. The condition needs to be related to the slopes. Mr. Russell: We believe this site plan addresses 2nd Street and 6th Street in a thoughtful way. We are disturbing a substantial amount of critical slopes, but we believe that this plan meets the goals that are set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and the SIA this plan does those things by creating mixed use along 2nd Street with residential at a scale that is appropriate for what the vision is for the area and what is there now. We want to create appropriately sized housing and this site plan achieves those goals. Not disturbing critical slopes would require us not to address 2nd Street in the way that those documents point towards. Chairman Green: What are the commercial elements there? Mr. Russell: It would be a commercial bottom floor commercial but the tenant hasn’t been determined. Commissioner Lahendro: The presentation showed the 1960s when Pollocks Creek was still open. Was that a natural slope down to Pollocks Creek where this site is? Mr. Russell: The furthest end is possibly native slope, but the northern side looks to be completely disturbed with grading and the parking lot of the street. Chairman Green: It looks like the slope has been graded on the IX Park side. While we have this immovable barrier in place to protect trees, what kind of mitigations are there if something accidently happens? Ms. Creasy: We would shut the site down and make them correct it. Chairman Green: It would be difficult to mitigate a 24” maple. Many of these trees’ roots are large and when you cut that into an 8’ retaining wall they are not going to last. Commissioner Solla-Yates: Since we are talking about mitigation, can we talk about reducing parking impact as a mitigation effect? Most of this space is surface parking and if we require less surface parking we get more critical slope. Commissioner Mitchell: Where does the parking go and aren’t there regulations to follow? Ms. Creasy: They would have to adhere to the regulations, so if the parking onsite decreases, they have other options within the code to work with. It could limit the number of units, the square footage of commercial, among other things. Chairman Green: We’ve had some places where they are allowed to calculate on-street parking on 2nd, which is a commercial corridor anyway. Is there any way to utilize some of the on-street parking to eliminate some of the parking? 32 Ms. Creasy: There is a process that comes into play with that and it is unclear if we can condition that or not. To do that, there is a count done about utilization of parking onsite and approval has to be provided to count it onsite. It might be a tough call, given the proximity to Downtown and levels of parking, but we don’t have any of that data. Commissioner Stolzenberg: They could do a cooperative parking arrangement anywhere within 400’. That has no regard to hills and probably doesn’t include the ADA requirements but that is a pretty significant distance. Commissioner Lahendro: If the block of building closest to 2nd Street was reduced in footprint to avoid destroying the critical slope and letting the next block up be the footprint that it is, that would be a good compromise. Chairman Green: It feels like we have a lot of good alternative ideas that could be looked at by the Engineering firm. Commissioner Lahendro: If we deny this, would that tell them to go back and look at it further? Ms. Creasy: With a recommendation for denial, they would have the opportunity to come back or go straight to Council. Commissioner Lahendro moves to recommend denial of the critical slope waiver for Tax Map 27 Parcel 36. Seconded by Chairman Green. Motion is approved 3-2. Commissioner Mitchell abstained. Mr. Russell: Moving forward in trying to reduce parking, is there a way for us to do that prior to bringing it forward again? Ms. Rainey: The code does have allowances for a certain percentage of spaces required to be reduced through means of off-site parking agreements or reductions based on proximity of bus stops and bike facilities provided onsite. There is a limitation as to how far the applicant can reduce the required parking based on those measures, which are detailed in the site. Ms. Creasy: There is a full code section to review and the applicant has to understand what the uses will be because the amount of parking will be tied to that. Commissioner Dowell: It’s not that we don’t want any parking so we don’t need it reduced to no parking onsite, but we don’t want to see the vegetation and the critical slopes disturbed so drastically just for parking when there are other alternatives. Commissioner Dowell: In November we should review how we proceed with our preliminary hearings for joint work sessions with Council. Right now it is not feasible to anyone to change things. V. Adjournment 10:15 pm – Chairman Dowell moves to adjourn until the second Tuesday in June 2019. Planning Commission Work Session May 28, 2019 5:00 - 7:00 p.m. NDS Conference Room Members Present: Chairman Lisa Green, Commissioners Jody Lahendro, Lyle Solla-Yates, and Rory Stolzenberg Members Absent: Commissioners Taneia Dowell, Gary Heaton, and Hosea Mitchell Staff Present: Lisa Robertson, Brian Haluska, and Kari Spitler Chairman Green called the meeting to order at 5:15 pm. 1. Roles and Responsibilities of Planning Commission Chairman Green: We do not have a full commission tonight, which is unfortunate because both items on the agenda are important and deserve a full commission review. Let’s have a quick discussion on the roles and responsibilities for the Planning Commission, but we will be putting this on the agenda at a later time when we have the attention of the full commission because it is that important. Does anyone have questions about the roles and responsibilities of the Planning Commission? Commissioner Lahendro: Is this the review of the document that Ms. Robertson sent out? Chairman Green: Our bylaws were updated in 2017 and we have operating guidelines as well that were created by the Planning Commission at that time. There was also the Planning Commission Role that was a guideline Ms. Robertson found from California. She struck out things that weren’t applicable to Virginia, but it has good outlines. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Regarding bylaw 3.5, Procedures for Consideration of Planning Items, section 3 within that document details ways that non-commissioners can bring up a non-routine major planning item. Separately from that in section 3.4 it says that any matter not on the agenda can be brought up with the majority of commissioners present. Based on section 3.5(3), the regular meeting is the appropriate time to bring up new things at least for non-commissioners. What and when is the appropriate way to exercise section 3.4? Chairman Green: The order of business to come before the meeting shall be expressed on the agenda, so there would be a conversation beforehand that could then be talked about on the agenda. It also gives it a chance for it to be advertised. Commissioner Stolzenberg: The agenda is set in advance, but there is this clause to add a new business item. Ms. Robertson: Section 3.5 subparagraph 3 talks about non-routine major planning items, which are referenced as planning matters that will involve study or research over a period of time and consultation 1 with organizations or groups of individuals outside NDS. This is saying that various people want to ask the Commission to look at things and it can be a citizen, a Commission member, etc. After preliminary consideration by the Commission, if a majority of Commissioners deem it to be worthy of consideration and study, the Commission can proceed with a study. In the past, someone in advance of a meeting while the agenda is being developed would put that matter on the agenda for consideration of a change. The Commission can initiate a change by a motion. In the past what you have done to indicate whether you want to have a further study is to put it on the consent agenda if everyone is agreement, or to put it on as an agenda item, but either way it is done in advance. Section 3.4 addresses that you can change your agenda, but very rarely has a major planning item been initiated and discussed at the same meeting when it isn’t an agenda item. Section 3.5(3) says that after preliminary consideration by the Commission, which gets done by having something on an agenda for discussion, then if a matter is deemed to be worthy of further discussion, the Commission would vote at that meeting to determine if it should proceed with a study and go from there. Commissioner Lahendro: This is not well-written and it is not clear. Ms. Robertson: That’s why we want to have a discussion. How the Commission interacts with each other and how you want to conduct your planning business should be reflected in the bylaws and operating guidelines. This is a fairly new Commission and if you want to organize yourselves differently or handle things procedurally differently, then you should have a discussion together before something comes up and agree upon it, and then we can revise it to say what this Commission wants to do. Commissioner Lahendro: Even 3.5(3) isn’t clear about what it’s saying to do. It states that “other planning items may be brought to the Planning Commission by the general public, which may be put on the agenda after discussion by the Planning Commission.” You mentioned that they need already be on the agenda, but it doesn’t say that here. Chairman Green: It should say to be put on a “future agenda.” Commissioner Stolzenberg: It says for it to be put on the agenda after a discussion by the Planning Commission, so do we need to put a discussion about it on the current day agenda and discuss whether or not we want to discuss it on a future agenda? Chairman Green: As a person of the public and as a local government official, there is a lack of transparency with having that discussion that day. Commissioner Stolzenberg: The discussion in this clause seems to be the discussion of whether to put it on a future agenda to discuss it rather than the meta-idea of discussing it. Ms. Robertson: Paragraph 3.5 section 3 is trying to get at how you develop a proposal to a point where it is worthy of public discussion. There is a difference between receiving requests at Matters from the Public. The issue that is attempted to be dealt with here is how something gets initially discussed among Commissioners and the level of information that Commissioners should have to even have a preliminary 2 discussion about it and under what circumstances you would move something forward as a potential amendment to the zoning map or zoning ordinance. It is a two level inquiry. Commissioner Lahendro: What other avenues are there for having that done? Is it just through writing into the Planning Commission? Ms. Robertson: The other variable is that there is a state law about how zoning amendments gets initiated. There is not a provision in the state law that allows a member of the public to bring forward anything other than the initiation of a change in the zoning for his or her particular property. Other amendments are to be initiated by City Council and referred to the Commission for study, or by the Planning Commission itself by a motion. Members of the public have to come to you through Matters from the Public or writing in to express an idea, but the Commissioners are the ones that evaluate what should be developed for further discussion and a proposal to be an actual part of the City’s zoning regulations. Chairman Green: There is a work plan that is established by City Council and the Director of NDS, right? Ms. Robertson: There has been in the last few years. It is unclear if that is a standing work plan, but it certainly was the case for the Commission for 2017 and into 2018. Chairman Green: Are we part of that work plan? Ms. Robertson: The Commission has done a lot of work on the work plan and now things are taking a step back and considering having a consultant come in and look at the work that has been done and to consider revising the land use plan, which would potentially include proposals like Mr. Stolzenberg’s. Once that guiding plan is established then it would look at how you might use your zoning ordinance to further the goals of that plan. We are looking at coming back with a comprehensive review of the zoning ordinance at a later date. That doesn’t necessarily require you to stop consideration of all changes to the zoning ordinance, however big changes that should be informed by goals and objectives in the Comprehensive Plan might want to be rolled into that process. There are a range of responses including not making any changes until there is an updated Comprehensive Plan or only considering matters that are minor housekeeping changes that would clarify what people currently needed to do. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Is the work plan available to the public? Ms. Robertson: Yes. It was a resolution adopted by City Council at the end of 2016 or early 2017. Commissioner Lahendro: It would be good to publicize that this is where we would like them to bring forward proposals and suggestions for the Commission to study. Otherwise we would have to be able to entertain that coming forward to us at our monthly meeting. Ms. Robertson: Many years ago, the Director of NDS would do an annual housekeeping proposal in which they came up for any provisions in the ordinance that were difficult to interpret or were perceived as creating problems throughout the year. There were housekeeping amendments that came 3 forward once per year. It was always very well-received and something similar could be done for items from the public. Commissioner Lahendro: We could do that and gather data for developing our annual work plan with public input. Chairman Green: We started something like that, which was our parking lot. This annual list hasn’t been seen in a long time. We used to have priority planning work sessions. Ms. Robertson: If you were to use something like a parking lot list, you would have to carve out time to actually get to it. Commissioner Lahendro: Lately we’ve just been reacting to what comes to the Commission monthly. Mr. Haluska: When Mr. Emory was on the Commission we did have a retreat and items needed to be cut because you couldn’t get to everything. There are high priorities of the Commission and housekeeping items for changes in the text, which are very different in scope, but determining the Commissions interest in dealing with those things would be helpful for staff to effectively get those items to you. Chairman Green: The priority planning meetings also informed how we looked at the CIP. However, this was brought to us to be looked at. Commissioner Lahendro: There is a concern about how the public can bring matters to the Commission. If the only opportunity is in the Matters from the Public at the meetings, it is not acted on. We often don’t even respond to them. Ms. Robertson: That might depend on if you update these documents to provide some mechanisms. If you knew there would be an annual housekeeping, you could say that it should be something that staff should advise you on as part of the annual housekeeping changes. You could also set a calendar at an annual meeting with items you hope to attack and then build in meetings or work sessions to determine how to best to work on those things. You could do things in a more deliberate way with less frustration. Commissioner Lahendro: When we get the entire Commission together we should discuss the possibility of having an annual work plan and housekeeping meeting. When reading the document, there are a number of other questions if we want to get into that without the full Commission. Chairman Green: There are Commissioners that could benefit from these discussions and we may want to wait so that we don’t have to go over it twice. Ms. Robertson: This publication seemed very well done and raised many points that are on par with what the Commission has been struggling with. Commissioner Lahendro: It was nicely organized and it prompted many questions to bring up so that we are all in agreement with one another. 4 Chairman Green: While this is a California publication, we can determine what items from it are appropriate so we can create our own Role to be aligned with our bylaws. Ms. Robertson: We could also create one for you that is based on how we do business here and what Virginia laws are. We didn’t want to attack that without having input first. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Some of the things are covered in the bylaws and the guidelines, but it makes sense to talk about it together to make these decisions. It does have a lot of parallels to the materials from the VCU land use class, but there are also differences in how they do things and what they prioritize. Chairman Green: Let’s continue this with the full Commission present. 2. Zoning Discussion – Fry’s Springs Commissioner Stolzenberg: Fry’s Spring has had a wave of development in recent years that is actively continuing and will soon see the remaining greenfield land developed. Much of this development has been significantly outside the existing character of Fry’s Spring, speaking specifically of the built form and the price range of affordability. The developments in Fry’s Spring, particularly the by-right developments and a recent PUD, have been significantly larger homes. As we fill in these areas, the homes are significantly more expensive and much larger than those around them, not only because they are detached, but they are also physically quite different. Some of the new homes, especially on Porter Ave and Oaklawn Court are among the most expensive homes in the entire neighborhood. They are in the range of $750,000 to $800,000. There are about 7 older historic homes in that price range along JPA closer to the University, but for the most part the newer homes are above and beyond the bulk of the neighborhood. While there is a premium for new builds, that premium is not enough to explain the whole difference. In terms of square footage, they are quite a bit larger than the average homes in the neighborhood, most of which were built between the 1940s and 1970s. For example, one house on Oaklawn was built in 2017 and is 5800 sq. ft., whereas the average is 1424 and the median is 1200 sq. ft. range. In terms of cost, the brand new homes are at the median for all construction, which is $298,000 and it has gone up significantly in the past few years. Ms. Robertson: You aren’t accounting for changes in assessments during the timeframe versus changes in the cost of a newly constructed home, which should correlate most of the time but for something that was constructed 5 years ago, an assessment may have changed. Commissioner Stolzenberg: This is using assessment as a proxy for cost. This is the current year assessment and I expect that to be true. Ms. Robertson: Likewise, for something that has been there in the 1950s, you are reflecting assessment and not really what would be the cost of constructing that new today, even at 1400 sq. ft. 5 Commissioner Stolzenberg: Yes. To construct something a 1950s era house today it would require purchasing land at today’s prices and constructing it. Mr. Ikefuna: Based on the information you have, what do you think the estimated cost of land of construction would be right now? Commissioner Stolzenberg: The new built premium isn’t the main driver because even with the new built premium, you aren’t spending significantly more per square foot to buy a brand new house. It’s a little cheaper to buy an attached house and significantly cheaper to buy a duplex, even the newly built ones. Compared to the smaller 1950s era houses, you are paying the same or less, which indicates that the market doesn’t significant value these new built premiums. Because of the nature of R1 zoning, which has the same dimensional requirements as R2 but requires that it only be one single non-divided house, builders are incentivized to build as much as they can. They could divide it into two and get more homes out of it, but they can’t so they built the exact same houses that are much larger. Because assessments in general are significantly higher now than in the 1950s, there isn’t a lot of incentive for them to build smaller than the allowed envelope so they build and sell it for as much as they can. Lastly, there is a misconception across the City that R1 zoning reflects the existing character of the neighborhood. We can see that it isn’t true in terms of the built form character, but there are also non- conforming uses all over the place, even in R1 zones that were R1 for many years. The lesson to be learned is that our regulations are driving the high costs of these new homes. It is possible to build new homes and sell them profitably by dividing them in two and selling them separately. As of now we don’t allow that, but even with R2 zoning they could build exactly what they see on Porter and Oaklawn. We could stop them from doing that unless we actually amended the zoning text, but if we believe that more affordable homes are a better outcome by only allowing the most expensive outcome, we are ensuring that we get the worse outcome. Chairman Green: What is the guarantee that they cut them in half and they are still selling for $300,000- $400,000? Commissioner Stolzenberg: That is a plausible outcome, but as a Commission we have to determine if it is better to have two $300,000 duplexes or one $600,000 home. That second family still has to go somewhere and will likely end up moving into an existing home, potentially displacing someone else. As we’ve seen in the RCLCO study a few years ago there are many people who would and can afford to move up market but can’t because there aren’t homes available. We don’t have enough homes for how many people want to move to Charlottesville for our historically and nationally low unemployment rate and high quality of living. Chairman Green: What is your proposal? Commissioner Stolzenberg: Notes that he would like to be less prescriptive today and hear the thoughts of the Commission and whether you agree with the conclusions. Do you agree that there is urgency and that we might have these bad outcomes before a potential Comprehensive Plan and zoning rewrite is passed? 6 Chairman Green: You are saying that smaller lots create more affordable housing, but there are areas shown where this is not the case. In order to get this smaller cost, instead of doing single-family homes they have to be attached, not just smaller lots? Commissioner Stolzenberg: They don’t have to be, but yes. It could be smaller lots as well but this is already R1S zoning. Ms. Robertson: The zoning says for new single family detached dwellings that you are supposed to have 6000 sq. ft. However, if you have an existing non-conforming lot as to size, you are allowed to build one dwelling on that. We want people to be able to use their lots. The question is what the benefit is of getting rid of the non-conforming duplexes versus if looking at whether having different setbacks, building envelopes, and smaller lots would accomplish the objectives more efficiently. Commissioner Stolzenberg: There is a third option too. You can make non-conforming parcels conforming but it doesn’t change much in terms of outcomes. If we are going to do that, it should be done as an aside as we make changes more broadly. We have all these parcels on Naylor but they are all zoned R1. However the ones on Mosely are all single-family attached, the ones Longwood have the PUD, and north of Harris there are a number of duplexes and single-family attached homes. Why are they zoned to be different from everything surrounding them? Is that a positive outcome when we know that doing so would create more expensive homes, especially on streets like Naylor where the street isn’t an accepted street yet because it’s new? There aren’t neighbors on the same street that will be affected by any perceived negative consequences of having single-family attached homes near them like parking, given that they are all going to be new homes. Commissioner Lahendro: There is the issue of lot size, but the other important part of that is street frontage. All of these lots are very narrow and the existing buildings almost fill them up from side property line to side property line. At the core of this is a national and state historic district and an unintended consequence might be that a developer might buy two or three small lots and make it one lot for a multipurpose building that destroys the historic character of the core. Commissioner Stolzenberg: That is a great point. In R2, the dimensional requirements for detached units don’t change but the side setback requirements for attached units do. There are duplexes scattered throughout the historic district so if we are talking about the existing and historic character of the district, that character is specifically mixed housing types, zoning or not. Commissioner Lahendro: Although a lot of those started off as single-family residences and were cut up into duplexes for students. It’s important to keep the buildings that were originally built as single-family dwellings and can be converted back. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Is it important to keep them as single family alone, or is it important to keep them as the historic structure that they are? Commissioner Lahendro: As long as they are kept and have the option of going back to a single-family home, that is the important thing. 7 Commissioner Stolzenberg: Most of it is R1s and because of those larger lot size requirements for attached units, they couldn’t easily be converted but you couldn’t just tear one down and split one up if it was already at the 6000sf for a single family home. Commissioner Lahendro: It would be nice to have something that allowed the backs of these very long lots to have another dwelling on them and be able to keep the historic building on them. It would be great if we could cut the property in half and sell off the back half. Chairman Green: Access is a problem and there are critical slopes and watershed here as well. Ms. Robertson: Is this too large of an area to consider planning it at a small-area plan level? Some of the issues are likely to be found anywhere the City has R1 zoning and we are hopefully about to embark on a comprehensive review of the land use plan. Arguably, this is an argument for looking at it wherever it occurs in the City. However, if you want to start on this particular neighborhood, why wouldn’t that be a good argument for a small area plan to identify the goals for the whole neighborhood and then look at how to write the ordinances to implements those goals? Commissioner Lahendro: It isn’t representative of all of our single-family neighborhoods, but our older communities closer to Downtown have similar characteristics that would all benefit from a small area plan. Ms. Robertson: We already have 26 different zoning districts so instead of creating a new zoning district for a particular neighborhood, it seems like maybe it would be better to do something like a small area plan and figure out how to adjust zoning ordinances for when certain conditions occur. Chairman Green: It feels large and there are concerns knowing that this Comprehensive Plan is coming and personally feels that change is coming. If we started this as a small-area plan with community engagement, it’s almost like having community engagement like a small-area plan process to be able to engage the community. We need to make sure the neighborhood knows about this and see how they feel. Community engagement is a large part of the discussion of our Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Robertson: In 2014, one of the biggest complaints about this neighborhood was that the duplexes already there were being occupied by mostly UVA students. They had lower rents and the neighborhood residents felt that it was adversely impacting how their neighborhood felt cohesively and was developing. We are looking at it through a different lens now, but it would be good to engage the neighborhood again before you get too far along in a specific proposal because that part of town does have quite a bit of influence from UVA. Chairman Green: In full disclosure, I had an impromptu conversation with neighbors and asked pointed questions because we kept hearing that it was the renters. When we had deep conversation about it, it was not about people who rent and don’t own, but it was about UVA students coming in chopping up the house and overcrowding it. Typically speaking, some of the 1st year students who have a car park it in the neighborhood because it’s close to the school. We have to put enforcement tools in place to handle the problems that we have so we can have a better understanding and buy-in. Renters are not 8 the real issue, but it is the University not taking accountability for their student housing and for the 1st year students who are bringing their cars when they aren’t supposed to and parking it in the neighborhoods when they aren’t supposed to. Commissioner Stolzenberg: I also spoke to many Fry’s Spring neighbors and will be attending their July 12 meeting to talk about this analysis and how to address it. For example, it is difficult to report a zoning violation so it might be helpful to have better informational pages on the website to point people to the right place. Regarding the 2014 zoning, it was focused on areas like Cleveland and Shamrock, which are already R2. This analysis largely focuses on the southern area around Mosely Drive, just west of the R2 area that is more affordable, as well as Camellia, Monte Vista, south of Harris, and Porter. This area is too far from UVA so aside from graduate students there probably isn’t a significant population. While we should improve our enforcement mechanisms, this is distinct from that conversation. Chairman Green: Enforcement isn’t just zoning. It’s also property maintenance, police, parking, etc. and it is understandable that we have frustration in this neighborhood. However, it would be helpful to promote the app so that more people are using it. Commissioner Solla-Yates: There are many infrastructure, safety, and connectivity issues in this area and we should look at that and we aren’t looking at that in the Comprehensive Plan currently so it is a serious strategic concern that should be connected to any housing we look at. Moore’s Creek and the school are here as well so there are some strategic interests that are worth looking into seriously. Looking at the whole thing, it doesn’t make sense but tightening it up to be more focused makes sense. Commissioner Lahendro: The streets like Azalea, Camellia, and Hilton aren’t in the historic district and they have very different housing types. Commissioner Stolzenberg: It’s almost the southern Fry’s Spring analysis but it was important to get Huntley in there to demonstrate that it’s not PUDs that make it affordable. Chairman Green: Regarding the infrastructure problem, the sewage system we recently spoke about is for suburban areas we got an answer to our question that determined that the pump needed to be 150- 200’ from any dwelling. We all have the conversation that the lots are too large and it needs to be connected so it isn’t adversely impacting the neighborhood because then we are just adding one more thing to it. Ms. Robertson: Those are arguments of why you look at an area comprehensively and our Comprehensive Plan has historically not dealt with transportation or public sewer issues. Many localities’ comprehensive plans do address those issues in the context of how an area will develop or redevelop. Commissioner Stolzenberg: If we initiate a small-area plan, would it take longer than a Comprehensive Plan? 9 Ms. Robertson: Generally, a small-area plan is a piece of the Comprehensive Plan. Presumably a consultant will be working closely with the Commission as a group and it’s not too late to address these problems simultaneously, assuming this gets started soon. Commissioner Stolzenberg: The concern is that if it’s on the scale of something like the SIA plan, it could take years. Perhaps we can have a community engagement process now and find the concerns and needs of the community without making it to ambitious. Chairman Green: While the SIA plan, while it seems like it isn’t being worked on, the plan has been in place for a while. Are you suggesting that just we have a Comprehensive rezoning? Commissioner Stolzenberg: Yes. It seems odd to create a specific zoning district and perhaps a form based code may be what they are looking for, but at this point we are 5 years into the SIA form based code and it doesn’t seem to be there yet. Ms. Robertson: The SIA plan was a component of the Comprehensive Plan to set out goals and objectives that specifically referenced a form based code. It took some time to get buy-in on the heels of adopting that new component of the Comprehensive Plan. Some localities will adopt a Comprehensive Plan amendment and at the same time will adopt the ordinance changes necessary to implement the amendment. This can move along expeditiously, but it requires everyone to buy into getting it done sooner rather than later. Chairman Green: The desire of the Commission is to not have any lag time. We can put a small-area plan around 100 different circles, but we have to have the political will to follow the plan once we get it in place or else it means nothing. Unfortunately we have yet to see that happen in the City. Commissioner Stolzenberg: That is a good point and it’s not only when things come to the Commission and Council that we disregard the plan, but it’s also when the ordinance isn’t aligned with the plan. Under our existing Comprehensive Plan, we are seeing outcomes that are not in alignment with it. If we aren’t going to follow the existing 2013 Comprehensive Plan because we think it is too old, we need to consciously make that decision. However, just because we are two years overdue we shouldn’t say that we aren’t going to take any action until we have a new one. Ms. Robertson: Which provision of the current Comprehensive Plan are the PUDs not compliant with? Commissioner Solla-Yates: The housing chapter and the land use chapter. Ms. Robertson: Even in the Comprehensive Plan, it’s necessary to have better integration of the components. You can’t have land use that is separate from all of those things. The land use map should be the guidance but it should already take into account housing and other issues. Commissioner Stolzenberg: The land use map doesn’t make any comments on this because it’s all within the confines of low density, but it’s not in alignment with the stated vision of both the housing and land use chapters. 10 Ms. Robertson: The land use map has to bring everything together and state the long range recommendations and what we anticipate the area to look like as it develops over 10-20 years. We need to fix this piece because it has to bring the housing, environmental, and transportation together into an integrated recommendation with definitions, including density recommendations. Density should be a recommendation in the Comprehensive Plan, not a restriction in the ordinance, and we do it backwards. Commissioner Lahendro: It’s pointless to do a small-area plan if we haven’t finished all the Comprehensive Plan sections that it will refer back to. Ms. Robertson: It is planned to be updated with some tweaks. The housing piece needs to be updated to account for data to account for the basis of the recommendation, but once that is done, the main thing to be done is to factor in how to come up with a land use recommendation based on housing, environmental, and transportation factors. It has to be built into the land use recommendation. Chairman Green: We took a pause because we have a housing strategy and we didn’t know if the housing strategy would match the land use plan. The whole guiding principal behind where we are going is for this new long-range planner and the RFP for consultant to work together to complete the Comprehensive Plan, land use, and housing strategy to make sure they all meet and work how they are supposed to. Once they bring us the information on what matches, then we can make recommendations. This Planning Commission cannot do the entire creation when we don’t have all of the information. On the heels of that is looking at the zoning ordinance and making sure that matches. Based off of conversations, we have to get these things right or else we will just create a bigger mess than we already have. Mr. Ikefuna: You have to look at the resources available. If you initiate it now, we have to look at getting funding. We also have the Comprehensive Plan coming as well. We have to seek the resources to do it and then we have to look at the big picture approach, which we are getting ready to embark on. Chairman Green: Hopefully once we get it started, it will move much faster than what we have seen. It will be dedicated resources because it is under the City Manager. Commissioner Stolzenberg: To summarize, option 1, which we are leaning towards, is to wait for the long-range planner to be hired, the RFP to be made, and to finish the Comprehensive Plan and figure out what to do from there. Option 2 is to amend the existing Comprehensive Plan in the meantime to flesh out details that it doesn’t mention. Option 3 is to work within the existing Comprehensive Plan and rely on the text and do something at a smaller scale with incremental change under the guidance of the existing plan. By the time we are done with this Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance, most of the area will have already been filled in. Mr. Ikefuna: If we start preparing a small-area plan for Fry’s Spring right now, how could we stop that from happening? 11 Commissioner Stolzenberg: We could rezone those to R2 without a small-area plan under the guidance of the existing Comprehensive Plan and not touch existing streets and homes, except maybe the ones that were built in the last 2 or 3 years. Chairman Green: If we were to rezone them to R2 immediately, the builder can still build one single- family house. It still won’t guarantee that we won’t have these big houses. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Everything that is mandated in R1 is possible in R2. It’s possible that we change it all and nothing changes at all, but by only allowing the most expensive outcome, we ensure the worst possible outcome. Commissioner Lahendro: What is the mechanism for coming forward with changing the zoning of those lots? Does staff need to pull it together first or does the Commission need to first say that we need to look into it and then ask staff to look into it? Ms. Robertson: Staff needs to validate based on their expertise and would need to do some vetting to ensure that you don’t create a new problem by fixing this problem. Usually this is talked about in the case of a downzoning and when you do an up-zoning and do it piecemeal, you’re talking about a zoning classification that applies throughout the City and there may be similar places where this is happening but you’re only talking about dealing with one place. It feels disjointed, which is how we got to the ordinance that we have. You have to balance wanting to address the issue of affordability through one set of measures that seem to make sense but you need a process that makes sense. Commissioner Lahendro: Is the argument that we are so close to getting the Comprehensive Plan done that we should wait to finish it before doing this? Ms. Robertson: Yes, or you should look at simultaneously doing a Comprehensive Plan amendment of the current Comprehensive Plan with ordinance changes to solve the patterns of development we have seen come forward in this area. Chairman Green: How are we going to have staff to do this amendment? Our task is to make recommendations on a Comprehensive Plan, not to write the plan itself. Ms. Robertson: You don’t have resources assigned, although the development of the Comprehensive Plan and the recommendations for what should be in there is very specifically one of the Commission’s duties. The question then becomes if you should roll it into the process for which you know you will have outside resources because the director has said that we don’t have the resources. Commissioner Stolzenberg: If the existing Comprehensive Plan doesn’t differentiate between the two things we are talking about, then a Comprehensive Plan amendment would require adding an entire additional layer of breaking down into more specificity than the Comprehensive Plan ever provided. It makes sense within the zoning map to allow the same thing that is on the other side of Naylor without doing a Comprehensive Plan amendment because it fits the plan. 12 Commissioner Stolzenberg recommends initiating a rezoning from R1 to R2 for the Naylor Street parcel, Porter Avenue and Oaklawn area, and optionally the Flint Drive and Belleview areas for staff to review it for its feasibility. Mr. Haluska: Typically, the Commission would vote on an initiation of a study that results in an agenda item in the future. Chairman Green: We can write a memo to initiate a study for discussion at the July meeting, tentatively. Commissioner Solla-Yates: Could we look at similar parcels within the City? Ms. Robertson: That is a major project and the concerns that have been brought up are the same concerns that led us to need a housing strategy and update the Comprehensive Plan to get a better zoning ordinance. The focus is supposed to be the land use plan and making sure the housing strategy feeds into it. Commissioner Lahendro: Notes that he is willing to let it go forward and let staff study it, but that is all. It would be good to have more information on it. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Now we have a tool that can be used for any area in the City. Hopefully if we can establish a process and precedent of doing small incremental changes, if the Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance come about in a year or two we can keep making small incremental changes as we see urgent needs arise. Chairman Green: What happens if it goes against the housing strategy? This makes a lot of sense, but we have resources allocated from City Council and it would be a shame to pull those resources back for small incremental changes that have no guarantee will work. We also have no guarantee if it works within the housing strategy and we are taking staff time. Mr. Haluska: An initiation is typically a 2 page memo and this one might be a little longer. We would note concerns if there are any but we wouldn’t be doing a full on rezoning staff report with accompanying documentation to do an initiation. Ms. Robertson: There is a difference between initiating a text/map amendment and initiating a staff- supported study. If the Commission wants an initiation of a staff-supported study on the July agenda, the recommendation is that the agenda item include a specific list of properties involved to make sure the property owners and neighborhood are aware of it. Mr. Haluska: We will tentatively plan on putting in the July agenda. 3. Public Comment Brian Becker, Fry’s Springs Neighborhood Association President: This has been a very thoughtful discussion. We are honored that you are looking at the Fry’s Spring neighborhood and we appreciate the urgency. Public engagement is key and that is what we want. The concern was that this came out of 13 leftfield and no one in the neighborhood had been contacted about this. There is a longstanding history of lack of zoning enforcement. The number one issue is that we have noncompliant parcels and that’s because there is lack of enforcement. Proposing rezoning just makes residents concerned that there will be more noncompliance, so I question the wisdom of rezoning noncompliant parcels to R2 because it simply validates that noncompliance. If you go back in history with the 2014 rezoning, we were seeking R1S so we support the ADUs. We aren’t against density, but it is about what it looks like. Hopefully form based code can be part of the discussion, as well as the infrastructure issues and how we can enforce our ordinances. Fry’s Spring is on the south side of the City and we aren’t near where the jobs are so it doesn’t make sense to focus in one of the far away neighborhoods because we want to encourage pedestrian and biking connectivity. Susan Quinn, Fry’s Springs Neighborhood Association: Don’t underestimate what the proximity to the UVA gives us. You should add owner-occupied versus renters to the discussion. We just did that assessment for our street when we were thinking about asking about parking restrictions in our area and we were shocked. Observably on Raymond Avenue, there are 3 duplexes and 50% of the units are occupied by students, which that means 4 on each side and 8 cars. The entire front yard is gravel and parking, but it doesn’t always accommodate 8 cars so there is pressure. You can’t figure out how many are students, but the observation is that with it being that close to the University it is 50%. Further way it is probably less. Jess Wenger: Thank you to Commissioner Stolzenberg and the Commission for starting this conversation. Mr. Haluska and Susan covered many of the concerns of the neighborhood and it is not density. We welcome new residents and neighbors whether they are renters, owners, or renters who want to become owners. Our neighborhood has generally been affordable to make that transition, although we are slowly getting out of that realm. Zoning is one of the keys there because the lack of enforcement and lack of City staff to enforce has been a problem, which is why some of the neighbors direct their ire at renters but it’s really about the lack of zoning and enforcement. We aren’t near the jobs and we are about 2 miles away from UVA. Having better infrastructure to support transportation, sidewalks, and bike lanes to get us out of the neighborhood if we are dense so that we can get to the places we need to go is important and keeping those things in mind when having these conversations will be awesome because those are most of the concerns that residents have. Lastly, thank you to Mr. Stolzenberg for coming to the upcoming association meeting to have conversations with even more residents. Adjournment: 7:10 pm. 14 CITY OFCHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT APPLICATION FOR A REZONING OF PROPERTY JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF HEARING: June 11, 2019 APPLICATION NUMBER: ZM19-00001 Project Planner: Brian Haluska, AICP Date of Staff Report: April 29, 2019 (Revised May 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 Proposed Zoning Classification: NCC Mixed Use Corridor, subject to proffers 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 zoning map amendment to reclassify the Subject Property to Neighborhood Commercial Mixed Use Corridor District (“NCC”), subject to proffered development conditions (“proffers”). The Subject Property is currently zoned R-1S and is the location of the Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church. The proffered development conditions (see draft proffer statement dated May 15, 2019), Page 1 of 11 if accepted by the City, would: • limit the maximum number of residential units on the Subject Property to 15 units • designate at least 4 units as affordable housing units • mandate internal locks within the building for security • prohibit non-residential uses on the property, with the exception of educational and day care facilities • close the existing Hinton Avenue entrance to the property upon issuance of a building permit for the new multi-family structure. • Establish a maximum height of 38 feet on the property. • Place a six foot minimum setback along primary street frontages on the property. 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 Property in order to obtain an approval allowing development of a specific project: a multi-family dwelling. Within the current R-1S zoning district classification, multi-family dwellings are not permitted. If rezoned to NCC the Subject Property could be developed at the following density/ densities: • By-right (per Z.O. Sec. 34-700): up to 21 dwelling units per acre (DUA). • With a Special Use Permit (per Z.O. Sec. 34-700) permits residential development up to to 43 DUAwith a special use permit, but the applicant has proposed a proffer to limit the residential density on the Subject Property to 21 dwelling units per acre (i.e., voluntarily giving up the right to seek a special use permit under the provisions of Sec. 34-700). NCC zoning would also permit some commercial uses on the property, whereas no commercial uses would be allowed within the current R-1S zoning district. However, the proffered development conditions include a proffer that no non-residential uses will be permitted on the Subject Property, with the exception of educational facilities and day care facilities. 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 Page 5 of 11 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 prohibited on the site. 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. 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 application materials state that the specific development project proposed will provide housing for developmentally disabled individuals. Page 6 of 11 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, especially if in fact it will serve developmentally disabled individuals. 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. Staff Analysis The property is not within any of the City’s design control districts. The proposed zoning reclassification of the Subject Property 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 and the accompanying proffer statement would raise the maximum permitted building height to 38 feet, a three foot increase over the maximum height under R-1S zoning. It would reduce the side and rear yard setbacks to 10 feet, establish a six foot minimum primary street frontage setback, and impose a 10 foot maximum primary street frontage 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 not be a significant change from the current zoning regulations, or from existing patterns of development within this area. 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 Page 7 of 11 providing additional residential housing options for an underserved group of individuals, including a type of residential dwelling (multifamily dwelling) that is not permitted under the current low-density zoning of the property. Additionally, while several members of the public have asked whether a different zoning district classification, such as R-3, might be a better to allow for this specific proposed development project, that could not be done at this time, because (since the applicant has proffered out commercial uses) the R-3 classification would allow a higher density of development (up to 87 DUA with a special use permit, per Z.O. §34-420). At this time, the rezoning proposal described within the required notice of public hearing is for NCC, limited to a multifamily dwelling at a density of not more than 21 DUA, and the Commission is required to complete its review and make a recommendation to City Council no later than June 27, 2019. Staff has included a memo previously drafted, which compared the R-3 zoning classification with the NCC classification. 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, and low- density residential development is contemplated by the long-range [future] Land Use Map within the Comprehensive Plan. Neither the Future Land Use Map nor the Comp Plan narrative sets out a density range to define the term “low density”. The proffer which restricts density of the residential development to not more than 21 DUA provides an overall density that is relatively low, but is higher than what could be achieved within a SFD development in the R-1S zoning district (per Z.O. §34-1123 SFDs are allowed at 7.26 DUA, as a result of the 6,000 SF minimum lot size requirement). The applicant has indicated in their proposal that the purpose of the rezoning is to allow development of this specific project: a multifamily dwelling that will provide housing for developmentally disabled individuals. The goal of providing housing to an underserved population in the community is supported by the Housing chapter of the 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. Page 8 of 11 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 The specific development proposed by this application within the Subject Property will be evaluated for overall compliance with zoning and public facilities standards, during site plan review. Due to the location of the Subject Property, staff anticipates that all public services and facilities would have capacity adequate to support this development. The applicant has proffered that the existing entrance on Hinton Avenue would be closed upon issuance of a building permit for the construction of the multi-family dwelling. This would then 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 located on-site at the Church will be reduced with the proposed development, which will in turn increase the demand for 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. Technically: redesigning the parking lot within the site plan process, to accommodate the needs of the multifamily dwelling, will result in no net decrease in on-site parking that meets current 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. 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. Page 9 of 11 • 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 Future Land Use Map was approved in 2013 and in many ways it simply mirrors the current zoning of the City, without anticipating potential needs for different types of housing within “low density” residential areas (i.e., housing types other than SFDs). As referenced above, staff finds that this proposal is in conflict with the Land Use element of the Comprehensive Plan. The text of another chapter, however, gives the City additional guidance. As the applicant notes in their presentation, many of the goals in the Housing Chapter 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. The Transportation Chapter references the need to locate development proximate to transportation centers. 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 established 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 Land Use goals with the Housing and Transporation goals, relative to this specific project and its location. City staff continually stresses that the Comprehensive Plan is a guide for making land use decisions, not a “law” or “requirement”.. In evaluating the proposed residential use within this application, staff has given more weight to the goals of the Housing Chapter, and supports the potential Page 10 of 11 rezoning of the Subject Property to permit this specific development project: a multifamily dwelling, up to 21 DUA, serving developmentally disabled individuals. 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 offered a proffer that would limit the maximum height of any new buildings on the property to 38 feet, which is only three feet higher than the maximum height in the R-1S zone. Additionally, staff finds that the concerns raised by adjacent residents regarding the extension of commercial uses into the 700 block of Hinton Avenue were originally a compelling argument against the application; however, the applicant responded to these concerns by proffering out all potential commercial uses of the Subject Property. The result is a rezoning that would allow three additional uses on the property by right – multi-family dwellings, educational facilities, and day care facilities – and in staff’s opinion these three uses that are complementary with the existing single-family dwelling character within the R-1S zoning district. Based on staff’s evaluation of the proposal in relation to the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, specifically staff’s determination that the application meets the goals of the Housing chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, staff recommends that the application for rezoning be approved. Suggested Motions 1. I move to recommend approval of ZM19-00001 to rezone the Subject Property from R-1S to NCC, subject to proffered development conditions, to allow for the specific multifamily development described within the application, based on a finding that the rezoning is required by public necessity, convenience, general welfare, or good zoning practice. OR, 2. I move to recommend denial of ZM19-00001. Attachments A. Rezoning Application Received March 19, 2019 B. Re-Zoning Petition Application Supplemental Information C. Draft Proffer Statement Received May 15, 2019 D. Applicant’s Public Meeting Details, dated December 6, 2018 E. Comparison of R-3 and NCC Zoning on 750 Hinton Avenue, dated May 13, 2019 F. Public Correspondence Received as of June 3, 2019 Page 11 of 11 r City of Charlottesville ~ ~ lib . · ~ l'. .· . -~ • . ~ ~ .. e\1 .Application for Rezoning "'"" ~ - . GJNJA·.· . "I\Project Name:. ~ ~ t ij LL ~ ~ ~y .t~ ··· ' 'iO th1'MJN l\,11. ~l~1 tfUJflUI 1 Add.ress of Property:· ~Q !1Utt11l h"'; t~A&U111f~'illL!'.\ iA m E•\IV1ED Tax Map and Parcel Number(s):. ')tb I Ct 14CO MAI~ 19 2619 Current Zoning:l... J~ NBGHBOOKOOD DEVEl.OPMENf SEIM :ES Proposed Zoning': N·cC. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: 1"w ~E.l:l~ITX 1!~ I D!VT, ~ l,. Appl leant: 1htf]~N l~E.. UNIT £t> Mti~~~J~I C.iUJ1lltl I ~--;~~ ~u L"-~w~ 1 I Address: 7~ l:lttil4'~ A~t · a l WAtU.4T'l!4\IJL~ I Y.~ "l t'lb'? Phone: {4 ~· zc;~-7o.4 ~ Email: e. h1ArchGhin-1-on ven "l 1 U/YlC.tJr' .../ Applicant's Role in the Development (check one}: Ownerr' Owner's Agent Contract Purch.aser Owoet of Record: ~ttJ1hl ~~~y~ u.. 11~11/1) 1~1' ctiua£H Address: ]4.> ~ lf!ffH ~~l:. C#A&z.61'1 ~2~1LlJ. I VA 1..l.~O'Z. Phone; (11;...) z_4:i~1a ~ ~ ' Email: church'? h;oiooaven 1 '.._Jrni .ar '¥ (1) Appllca~nd (2) OWnx:wres . (1) Sisnatui'e fl<.t 01.J.A ·Print Stu- I\ Wo:>cJ~ Date oft~ l tq ApJ)licant's (Circle One): UC Member lLC Manager Corporate Offi~er (specify) (2) Signature ' rfi!iFFJ~~l.'!9. '* 1J;.!)~ ~ & . CJ'o ~UJ... ~ Wocd ?o n Print Date t o( \~ \£1 -! owner'~ {Circle One): UC Membet LLC Manage-r Corporate Offit:er (spe~ify) @pecify): C4Attl () ;_ Tit.V 1-ff-:) l ., ~oTTEsp City of Charlottesville ~~ &'ll!llLll~ Pre-11.pPlication Meeting Verification - . . B· ~..~GINlA....• \:t\~ ~ ~ l&lllf..1 Project Name: _.................__.~____ 1 HAVtN......__________ Pre-Application Meeting Date: __,_f-=!;__..~. . . . __.Z......1~,1--'i.....o' --'l_.'6'-------------­ Applicant's Representative: . ~\lbU.W ~. 1.UMA~, Aftl1Jt1:£t.-r Planner: gg1AJJ, l\A LUS¥A 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. --------------------------­ Planner Signature: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ­ 2 - -- - ·- · - - · yOTTEsp City of Charlottesville - {fl[:J 0I . ~ -. ~ ~ . t!l. ttt ••• ~ . "' 4\ I Application Checklist i-------------------------4 Project Name: Jl~ L\.Jf l I ~ llf\Vl"'•i ·. GJNIA .. \: I certify that the following documentation is ATTACHED to this application: 34-157(a)(2) Narrative statement: applicant's analysis of.conformity with the Comprehensive Plan 34~157(a}(4) Narrative statement id~ntifying and discussing any potential adverse impacts~ as well as any measures included within the development plan, to mitigate those impacts IB 34-158(a)(6): other pertinent information {narrative, illustrative, etc.) @ Completed proffer statement [a' All items noted on the Pre-Application Meeting Verification. Applicant Signature & awo)v~ Print g\ll.. ~- Wocdson Date By Its: l ff 1' 1R, <1 f- J ~U l,Tl.£ l (For entities, specify: Officer, Member, Manager, Trustee, etc.) 3 --- -- - - - - - - - - - - - · - -~- - - - - - - ---- - - ­ . :LOTTEsp City of Charlottesville ~Ma Community Meeting -~~GlNIA.f~ -~ Project Name: ___..._ll...... ·P.._c.,___ ~ _'1. . . ~. -~-~_N______ ~ i.__L_'__ Section 34;.·41(cH :2} 1lf the Code -of the City of CharlottesviHe {adopted Qctobe.r 19, 2015) requires appU"' cants seeking reionings 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, .a bout 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 respon$ible for the following, in connection to the community meeting required for this project: l. Following <:onsultation with the city, the applicant will establish a date, time and focatiari for the community meetit'lg. 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 mailfng. 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 presentthe .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 ort the .nature and complexity ofthe 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 satisfaqory to the City. Records of attendance may include using the mailing list referred to. in #1 as a sign-in sheet (reqiJesting 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: 6u.t ~. \/V oodtJo () By: . Signature~ OJ)}~ Print Date (Officer, Member, Trustee, etc.) 4 . ' ~OTTEsp. City of Charlottesville 119~.·~ a~ ~~ Personal Interest Statement Project Name: -~-·· t4....,..C......U ....l .....L_'\-'---_Jl;. :. .~Y A ~'-.. N______ ~GINIA. - '°I\ I swear under oath before a notary public that: Q1"' 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. .,. t..1 t_ .t.. _11"' tt ~ ! ,. ~1 ( C\1~1\.L0"\16.1-Vll.U. 1)1t,1rt.,t1 ,.f-1tf Planning Commissioner(s): I\ .-Y. !3 I\~ _]_ tt~ II ff ~ - UJlrtt~ - t'1 f:tl=J'2f)IL,T e"&J&''I Or D No member of the City ofCharlottesVille 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): - - -- - - - -- - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - ­ Or D No member of the City of Charlottesville Planning Commission, or their immediate family member, has a personal inter est In the property or transaction that is the subject of this application. Applicant: ':JUQ f\ . UV&ocbm . By: . Signature Jiu_ a£Uw~ Print --~· ~~· "'--'-A _.V,:_;,Vo~ _--=. . . ?;___On .: __ Date _3_._V---'1<./.-1--/_Jq+-_, Its: £ IJ..1R. If 1'R.VS.~~ (Officer, Member, Trustee, etc.) Commqnwealth of Virginia City of Charlottesville The foregoing instrument was subscribed ~d sw,orn before me this day of M ~ 4.. . , 20-1..i_ by '2> lfe... uJoo~ ~.)/\ A. Notary Signature ~~~ ..........._,,./...__ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Registration #: 7 ~~0 .........}...2;..;;;o-+/_..2-:::....::..0.:...I'1-+----­ Expires __o_ci s .. .· . yOTT.Es~ . City of Charlottesville ~-~to I ~· · f !~11·-' _____ o_w_·_n_e_r_~_s___: ::e__·~-r~_>a · e_ _· ___ tio_n_s_____ ---1 ~GJNIA "' \ ProjectName: 'lltt.ttltt'~ J.\AVlN Right o.f 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 rezoning application. Owner: J.1 111 J 4 ~ ij ~l ~b'fl\21>1~1 li/l!RLll Date M,k.. /~ 1 2.b f1 By {sign name): _ {)J.)J_ _ Print Name: Sue A Wood 'om Owner's: LLC Member LLC Manager Corporate Officer (speCify): _ _ __ _ _ __ Other (specific): l He..1g 4'f- .111.\ll,11! l 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 rne, my successors and assigns. Name of Individual Agent: '""PJ dlo ~ ro.-d..e_V\ Name of Corporate or other legal entity authorized to serve as agent: v' a Ch a~ ( ' umc. 1-h~~ f\e. I owner: Su.t A Wood 'SOY) Date: 'O /ti.[ / t CJ By (sign name): Okt OAJJuvdi'l!YYJ Print Name: 3 C-UL I\ Wood fJ CIYl Circl~ one: Owner's: LLC: Member LLC Manager Corporate Officer (specify):._ _ _ _ _ _ __ Other (specific): Ch~" o~ Tr ~ke.."? 6 -- '--·-- - · · - ­ City of Charlottesville Disclosure of Equitable Ownership Project Name: t ~ t N~L 1 ~ UA J/lN Section 34-8 of the Code of the City of Charlottesville requires that an applicant for a special use permit make complete disclosure of the equitable ownership ''real parties in interest'') of the real estate to be affected. Following below I have provided the names and addresses of .each of the real parties in interest; including, without limitation: each stockholder or a corporation; each of the individual officers and direc­ tors of a corp-oration; each ofthe indiViduat members of an LLC ·(limited liability companies, professional limited liability companies): the trustees and beneficiaries of a trust, etc. Where multiple corporations, companies or trusts are involved; identify real parties in interest for each entity listed. .Name._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Address_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Name Address ---------- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Name._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Address._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Name Address Pl.£.Ac.£ _ '7 . , . .,,=--1---,.,.-=-- 1JJt- -.-A-- ,1A-t.H ....,,.. " 1-- . ---..,... N1~-N_,- /..-.,....- Vt.fl-___TO Ul U N l__ Attach additional sheets as needed. Mi.l~1) 1 C,1' C.lJl.1~ !.OUb ()~ ;,.U~7U '7 L 1~1 Note: The requirement of listing names of stockholders does riOt 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. Applicant: l1~1otJ t\v1NVA \JtJ\'tlb r1!lllb)l~i ctllJlllH By: Signature btu auJcvc/Jom Print Sc.u_~ Wooc1S()tJ. Mailing Costs per letter $1 per letter Newspaper Notice Payment Due Upon Invoice TOTAL 4 'UJI)t1.,,, Office Use Only Amount Received:._ _ _ _ Date Paid _ _ _ _ Received By: - - - - - - - - - ­ , . REZONING PETITION Please Return To: City 9f Charlottesville Department of Neighbomood Development Services PO Box 911 , City Hall ChartOttesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone (434) 970-3182 Fax (434) 970-3359 Fot a PUD please include $1500 application fee. For any o1hertype of project, please include $1200 application fee. All petitioneni must pay $1.00 per required mail notice to property ownerii, plus ttle cost of the required newspaper notice. Petitioners will receive an invoice for these notices and approval is hot final until the invoice has been paid. t>e.~~~t~ I~ ~ '>"P~Al 'ftJl-tJ~f'.1 ti/llJ~ • Information on Property Applied for Re:zo~ - Please note any applicable deed rt$1,ricitions 1. ~ feet ofti:ontage on 1N1 H I> .,AW:J!Ol (name of street) :z. Appto~te prwerJY dimensions: 1.~i ....·. . . feet by . 12 7 feet. . 3. Property size: ~. 1~ f () (square feet o~ . . .· 4. Present Owner: HINldN ~VL (I, $ 1_,,,Tt. . ,ame} as evidenced by deed recorded in Deed Book Ntunber _ _ P~ . . .. , with tht; Clerk of the Cti:cuit Court. ;a ,.'TT~ '1D1£tr'f f¥ffftr'll1l~IJ +.J4.Ut. 5. MilllingAddress ofPtesentOwner:~ +ltN"Jnl Mti. CUM.~ .VA tz!lt 6. CityReaJPropertyiuMaKit1~ ~~(s) Jfl~,rl'f! · ~~.t(s):_ _ _ _ __ A PETITIONER INFORMATION . Pe~oner N~e (Print or.TtiJe} !»N1D~1')fllt~ UN!l;l)Mf:MD . . ~I. ct:ILJR.l~ Petttloner :Mailing.Address: 1511116[!~~. c~UI \I.A 'Z.~.11. ... W6tkPhoue: Fax.~:-------------- Home Phone: Email Does·Petitionec cun:eotfy" own the property wht:fe the r~Qllingis requested? VE ~ ::--------- -- - - - ­ lfoo, please explain _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ .B. . ADJACENT PROPER1Y OWNE~ ~DRESSES '(use adchtionalpaper tf ~ecessa.ty) Pt.EA~! ~ 4'11-.tll@ Property Ownec Name Mailing.Address City Tax Map and Parctl # C. ATTACHMENTS TOBE SUBMITTED BYTHE PETITIONER 1. A sketch plan filed with .dlis petition showing property lines of d1e property to be rewned, adjoiiilng pr.operty, buildings, land uses, zoning classifications and streets. .. ~ ,l1l4ftM.b . . . . 2. Other attachments as required by Section 34-41 oc Section 34--5 l~ of tbe City Code (office use: Submitted__ _ __ __,, 3. Arezo11ing peti.ti.ou filing fee of~ for a PUD, OR~foc all others, made payable to the City of Charlottesville; (Siguattire also denotes ccntunionent to pay the invoice fur d1e r.equired tnail a11d newspaper uotices). .~ /fe /Jia.. ()J)J~ . Signature ofPetitioner(s) For Office Use Only (Sign Posting} I certify that the sign(s) as required by Section 31-44 ofthe City Code as amended has been posted on the following date: _ __ Signature _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Date Paid: _ _ __ _ _ Amt Paid: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Cash/Check#: _ _ __ Recorded by: - - - - - ­ Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church Property Ownel'$hip Information March 2019 Current assessed owner of parcel id no. 580161000 Lots 1-7 Hinton Avenue Methodist Church Recorded Deed Book number and page with the Clerk of the Circuit Court Lot 1 and east half (20') of Lot 2 Deed Book 229, Page 317 Lot 3 and west half (17') of Lot 2 Deed Book 207, Page 2 Lot 4 Deed Book 182, Page 385 Lot 5 Deed Book 205, Page 13 Lot 6 &Lot 7 Deed Book 139,_Page 394, Pl.at Page 395 1 Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church 750 Hinton Ave. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Adjacent Property Ownership lhformation (based on the City GIS base map) March 2019 Property Owner Name Mailing Address City Tax Map & Parcel# Hinton House LLC 513 Hinton Ave. 580173000 Viewmont Associates LLC 759 Belmont Ave. 580172000: Gardner, Amy E 753 Belmont Ave. 580171000 Williams, Julia V 751 Belmont Ave. 580170000 Helenius, Ira M 711 Belmont Ave. 580169000 Suchak, Sanjay 503' Church St 580162000 Taylor, Stuart W 710 Hinton Ave. 580162100 Krosby,.H Peter, Quincy & Paige 713 Hinton Ave. 580150000 Lorenzoni, Peter David 717 Hinton Ave. 580151000 Murphy, Grier R & Kevin D 725 Hinton Ave. 580153000 Murphy, Kevin D & Grier R 727 Hinton Ave. 580154000 Pfaff, Raman 733 Hinton Ave. 580156000 Monticello Manor Housing LLC 402 Monticello Rd. 580268000 Morris, Hoover & Ras~ S 800 Hinton Ave. 580267000 Hackett, Jeffrey Colin Harper, Mary Katherine · 801 Belmont Ave.. 580247000 > · ... Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church Board of Trustees March 2019 Name Address Sue A Woodson, Chair 105 Gloucester Ct., Charlottesville, VA 22901 Bob Braden, Vice Chair 3005 White Oak Lane, Charlottesville, VA 22911 Irene Dorrier, Sec 506 2nd St NE, Charlottesville, VA 22902 Sandy Walton 1684 Shady Grove Ct., Charlottesville, VA 22902 John Wilkinson 1601 Antoinette Ave, Charlottesville, VA 22903 Harvey Brown 1126 Meriweather St., Charlottesville, VA 22902 Neil McLaughlin 2309 Dellmead Lane, Charlottesville, VA 22901 Gary Bibb 513B Stewart St., Charlottesville, VA 22902 1 l.e"J,-" Legend 708 'it 12 P;ucels 714 :..~· !JO Structures 415 Addresses .,lic~lio "t:?.o 821 R-2; R-21 .• .. . E :-2UH "1'1~,, •rl\°L R-3; R-31 . . UMD; 708+ .q"'e Bfo UMDH S 712+ 714 816 820 MR;MRH Feet Title: Date: 3/14/2019 rt~ DISCIA IMJ!R:1'hi$ drawing i,, n1!itJ1~r a l.:Jtall)• recpment (check one): ~ Owner's Agent Owner of Record: 3€'-~o,.,,.,.. Sre:r=lo-t.? '-L ~ ~ ;A..o$C: '--E '1 C~\tPJJ, ~ c_ t Address: S a."""!! a.t a...bo.1e.. b6 () UunJ. tY ..]1 51-s, l () \ c..·..,.,1 .. ,..,,.11 ~~Cit ~ I Phone: ._ _ ~ -°"-""'~...-... ~----- Email: Sa..-«. Print "1;;;;;11:..&...j;.;:;_.;;;...._....;..:..~p.=~~ Date /~/p-/£" -----------~~~----~ - I Corporate Officer (specify) - - - - - - - - -- ZM tra-00003 .' $WWDFKPHQW$+0D\3XEOLF+HDULQJ2OG Pre-Application eeting Verification Project Name: l=l1nt: H1 '// Pre-Application Meeting Date: October 10, 2018 ---~---------~----- App Iicant'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: ~A...... 1o/1 c I 1e r ' 2 .,, i , $WWDFKPHQW$+0D\3XEOLF+HDULQJ2OG 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: r1 e ...,.,,be" (For entities, specify: Officer, Member, Manager, Trustee, etc.) 3 .. I $WWDFKPHQW$+0D\3XEOLF+HDULQJ2OG 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,ul: o A/Y'. f t-r~::J Date _ e.____ _._f-=o_,_,/r......,o.._,"""'/,...... Its: -~r{ -~~~-b ~e~r___________ (Officer, Member, Trustee, etc.) 4 .: . $WWDFKPHQW$+0D\3XEOLF+HDULQJ2OG City o,f Charlottesville Owner's Authorizations Project Name: _F_li_nt_H_i_ll_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ 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:._.:!.~:::!::::L4-..::0 :;· ~9C!:::::...,L!.~~....u:~~~..:.._~~.L~c-- -::o . : : : : : __ _ Date / J -( o -/ r Owner's: LLC Member Corporate Officer (specify): ~-~---------- 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: . a~..r """"'-·O..._'T .S +....;\ +, > t... L ~ Circle one: Owner'~ LLC Manager Corporate Officer (specify): ___ _ _ _ __ _ Other (specific): ----------- 6 $WWDFKPHQW$+0D\3XEOLF+HDULQJ2OG ~OTT.Esp City of Charlottesville - !e 111a a~ Personal Interest Statement ~ ~~ Project Name: _F_lin_t_H_il_I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~GJN1A ·'\I\ I swear 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): ---------------------~~~~~~-~ Or ~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~cr.,1.,._ A .l'""" .H::v::vv Date to/rofla ----'. e..... -. Its: -----'M _~""-'-',.'------------ (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 be« . ,20J.L by Cha.tht. AnYlshcs a& ti_._e_m_&_r_ol fe)m s.. p,,. ~,.nr .ht: 2- 1--q ( l Name f'ia. . k. 8c. lt·P Address 11 0 s. Pa,.hu I LJc 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""""-.---""'b.....•.._r_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (Officer, Member, Trustee, etc.) 7 . $WWDFKPHQW$+0D\3XEOLF+HDULQJ2OG '. 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 $WWDFKPHQW$+0D\3XEOLF+HDULQJ2OG City of Charlottesville Pre-AppJicatio11.Meeting Verification Project Name: l=f t i1 f: H1 'II 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 f 2 $WWDFKPHQW$+0D\3XEOLF+HDULQJ2OG 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 $WWDFKPHQW$+0D\3XEOLF+HDULQJ2OG 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 .. # $WWDFKPHQW$+0D\3XEOLF+HDULQJ2OG 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. A true 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. · C, a Virginia limited liability company I ,,,.?' - 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 $WWDFKPHQW$+0D\3XEOLF+HDULQJ2OG 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 $WWDFKPHQW$+0D\3XEOLF+HDULQJ2OG -= I $WWDFKPHQW$+0D\3XEOLF+HDULQJ2OG of Ch, Ile Comm.unity Meeting 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-- ?- J, 12.- /,3 B 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. By: Signature ------------ Print 0 r o'- T f?u\\.f •. ~s r-\6.v10fdi>ate J '2.c.:.kl< \ ,l '\ , Its: .1....1..i.a..:.~~.:.------------- (Officer, Member, Trustee, etc.) 4 $WWDFKPHQW$+0D\3XEOLF+HDULQJ2OG BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA IN RE: PETITION FOR REZONING (City Application No. ZM-18-xxxxx) STA TEMENT 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 $WWDFKPHQW$+0D\3XEOLF+HDULQJ2OG Flint Hill PUD Development Plan April 17th, 2019 c- --Qf--l'(J])1oqah_. . ,. . TNll"llDDo: ,,..... -"-t ......1)-e..""'l.oh _.,._ !llDD I 1........ S&&r!) 'fGf(lhrl 21 11111tC117Dl......-l'la1M1wjdl-­ $4-517(•)(1) A"""'1P-lt-,.ml~ll:o-1""11.,..11> bo looh>llo4 w!ll:!Dlbl!'Ul).i...l-1*">iublll!& Mtftl' r• 14"pro11:U~~~d:bmo"•B ,, (1)of1lopami(1)eobohoWwtitdild:.ePl.ID. ~ Z: llolrtbw c 5 I 34:517(&Jt;'l) A--oflowll:ool!l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ byll:op.,.....iPUD. P"IJll&:- $4-511(&)Q)A'"" ;1wdo1 ' ; •P..,o;; liuo-....i...m.... p1Quj:oqil:io&Pml...i,.;,.uo.i....., ~~--of~w.ef:a'ad~ti:Od~~~-Ql'l 1 t, Pcp.t:~O ':'a i..~rarp.,,....i..-...i..,;;,.,., ...... !iooi!ili.....i..... ~~ l'"lfl'4:1.-1U.Pb. o.1...-d---~ , . . 4: l.-1 u.-. d. ~ d""'lllo&mlpttp>!Od qi...m l - - l l l o Iii» I • 4 1; PtllfJfll 4: LaM U. Pb. o. !...-DIt!J~ fir rb• kl }' ltMtil n.:~ DllH fl1t4 Hillrll IJM4. .. Alln-y,bya:r._pcool_ml. _ _..,oftll~pomila-•1"'5---oflbo ~ofll:oPUD, ~lbadllll>c""""'-dw;Hl..,oa or-. l'1lp 1: CV.....fl::ro b.Aaizi-,. ofdlo api"-'..-iw+il M --~of• :m.ia<:blilll.i• miiiimm.: *"'"' I · .m...-...i......,.-...ll::lm.lnsilllr:: e 101; a;aias-of~Wi;:wor-"<:~ _....~otilmai""'"'1.,_.._._.. .... topi,p:q:li,r, .i-ii.i a..mt.ofi!ve(S) 6- "'lou. mtioll~al ak, .mlv I 7 ·..;., ... 1b..... adb.~-fllliliilldl«>. ~"""'~ )4.'17(<)(7)A-4-dioo'-ar- ..,mt tl:r bop:opi.o;d la! -C•). ... _,.,,,,!...prffltWP.,. ·~po!& ll#1Jlill:I ,, ...... _....,_,ii¢..,...... ~-.-for. """"""" .... W'-t......wi. "". ,. - - lol'llld-qfi'q/LfMfl+.'OOllDrt+t """"" ,. - -lMqfj' qfM...,DIM. ~-li""'111a/Jlo ,,..,. ,. ,.,..,. ...W/oll"'1.,....~D>M. $4-517(&)(!1) A-llcmal.11~ -~lln> 8ow """51ti:>&aordool"°'-fitt111<11""1."""11""1 -C•l· 'l'Nfowfl- _ _ _ , _ _. . . . . ....w;.,w111i..,.,,,.-,,--........ Co.. r Sheet Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc. Pago I of 8 CbarlottollVIUo, Vlrglnla April 17111, 2019 $WWDFKPHQW$+0D\3XEOLF+HDULQJ2OG Conditions \ \ \ '' '\ \ I \ II PARCEL 200259220 \\ILSON, JEFFREY M & RUH~N L @ 11 PARCEL 200277000 GOODSCN, STANLEY A & BRENDA M TR @ PARCEL 200271200 MCCC(oJNELL, JUSTIN R & HEATHER M ZONE: R-1S ZONE: R-2 ZONE: PUD PARCEL 200259230 PARCEL 200276100 PARCEL 200271100 \\ICWNE, Ko\ROLD E ZONE: R-1S @ NErnBORHOOO IN'KSThlENTS , LLC ZONE : R-2 ® RUTKOWSKI, AUGUST J & MELANIE ZONE: PUD PARCEL 200259240 Pi'RGEL 200276000 PARCEL 200270400 SS~H ljCHolH-~ OORRIS, MIDS E JR & MILDRED K ZONE: R-1S @ NEIGHBORHOOO IN'.l:SThlENTS, LLC ZONE: R- 2 @ GOPl>lAN, VAR UN & NARAYAN, SHILPA M ZONE: PUD PARCEL 200259250 PARCEL 200275000 PARCEL 200270300 SPENCER, JOYCE P ZONE: R-1 S @ CAIM:R, ADRANA R ZONE : R-2 @ ™C, Sflo\UN L & KRI STA M ZONE: PUD \ PARCEL 200259360 PARCEL 200274000 PARCEL 200270200 \ il'J'U, JUDITH A ZONE: R-1S @ NErnOORHOiXl IN'KSThlENTS , LLC ZONE : R-2 @ METZGER, JU STIN C & M>\UREEN J ZONE: PUD PARCEL 21A099800 GAO, JWllNG @ Pi'RGEL 200273000 GOODSCN, BRENDA M & STANLEY A TR @ PARCEL 200270100 SOOBRA, ~f P ZONE: R-1S ZON E: R- 2 ZONE: PUD PARCEL 21 A09 9700 PARCEL 200272000 PARCEL 200278000 flo\\ES , CHARLES 'II & ROSEMARY A ZONE: R-1 S @ NEIGHOORHOOO lrM:SThlENTS, LLC ZONE : PUD @ CITY OF CHAALOTTE~LLE ZONE: R-2 PARCEL 21A099500 PARCEL 200271400 PARCEL 2001 96000 MNJER, JANINE Cll'JRE ZO NE R-1 5 @ BUSTOS, FRANCIS P & CHRISTINA C ZONE : PUD ® MOOORS, GEORGE S JR & FRANCES B ZONE: R-1S SCALE 1"=50' Pqe2of8 Flint Hill Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc. April 17th. 2019 Charlottemlle, V'qinia r.h11.1'lntt-ITif!. Vlnlnt.11. '[~ ,. .. :; "' I"~ ~., sc "'~ WILD- GINGER ~ n FIELD SERVICES § ~ 78"30'30''W ~ _,r ~ I '' 1 1 ~ Q' I I ~ ~ !­ .., I " Ir $WWDFKPHQW$+0D\3XEOLF+HDULQJ2OG 11 "' 1\ - ... ,.o-.•~,•'t . !"' • ~ 0 :tl') ... __, 0 i"' • ~ Ill ,..,,,, 11r1 . ti "' .• I. I . r ...s II "' ~,~, ~~:_~_\\'_ \ , , , "' ~ i f'I• ~ulitert ~ 11 .trl, I :''Tire Rofainlng ~ . ' Wall ~ '· t. ~,, z:.;::::: .,_ $. "':! r7 I I Chimney .,, A '- V# ,. Q 1~ ~ Pu~~°c_usf t.:j , ' z ,. ::c: ....#cf ~ :z< -· c: v ~ i:--' I[ ~ '.:j ~ - " ~ c::: ::ti t.:j en - ....... ,_5 ' ·- ' ·~ II Legend 0 ~ ..ll . L--l Sj\e l\!9~n<;f~ry ~ [[; • Site features. "' --- -- Broken Pipe - - Comour Line$ (2 fl) - Streams sourc.es; Ea.ti, HE.RE Delorme, USGS, 1t11erm1p. INCRE~e~~RCl81l 1 ~. '·"'I ii:'~ V~nlands. Esrl JaPiln. ME.Tl, Esri CAM { folO'l"Q Kol'tg) _Esrl K«e1. Estl CTti MIPO>Ylndl• te•SU.•IM8Jl cooirlbutors. llllld Ill• GIS ), ~ Commun~ .-'-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~· ~ S' $. "' ~f P' 0 16 0 320 48 0 640 CJieated by Wild Ginger Fi:eld Services, I.LC !" i~ ----=====----====Feet Charlottesville, VA .. """ g:- ~ -.." fl, ~ 5' !' $WWDFKPHQW$+0D\3XEOLF+HDULQJ2OG .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. SllJEWAU 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'T IS LOCAtED Ill :!DllE I A!l SKOJll Off l'EDEB.ll. l!llm::EllCY ~ AG!!t'CT FUlOD 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'S P'BOP(l'!IJ) tmt· 1JP 11> 60 RB:llDl!llI1AL 'IOJllllOllES (6 Arn)Rl>ABLI! Dlll!WllG lllflrn) OfllH SPA&• {)11agrmp· w. OP121 BP.ACS '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, 2. J, COVtR CRlnCJll 9..CPES Pt.AH ARE JRUQ( AUTUTURll 1 01llEBS I 4, ARE JRUQ( AUTUTURll 2 A!lSllCIAtUl!I .UID/llR OOHil!O 11> l'llB CllT. ~~eioro l'lmlm SllALL E'l'.CEll) SOM Wllll/S. / -· 5. 8. ARE JRUQ( AUTUTURll ARE JRUQ( AUTUTURll 7, IJIJIOSCJlPE Pt.All 8. IAlsSSUIC Pt.Ml I J 4 RIDIDIXC 3f1MCD: !1!0«'!: SIDI: O' Q' ,·' 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 LOT .!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 19. UllUN A.NiJ 'I1UP'ltC SlUbY! 'rolITTI ' 1 'l'PO = Z94 mRA lPD l 'll'O 047) Oll irosm.EY ORl\'I Al8I l 1l'l> 047) Oll LOJIGl!OOll Dmt l'1l! (l.llO) RJSIDl!ITW. alllllOlOl!IUl!/OOl1l!l{Ola8 rt' - D.78 1'>(t) - UOJ.n(X)+4.28. llUl!lll!!! AlllAl'lllO"llDllD(fl'JIDlll!BBI'. ~iJITIS RrJ 1 'ViRouglily Jaokson-Vla ~qwre EIEITI entltUf/O"H 5"ACtC•t) 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 Site Information Post-Development Project (Treatment Volume and loads) IMP(WIOUS COVEJt (IC) IMHAVIOUJ COVC.ll fll:f.4tt0 (•t) MMAGfO 1Ull;f A~ (IC) MANAGED fUflF.AJlfA llltAftD (1~ MIACHICll uo ........... uo 0.00 0.00 0.00 ... o.oo ........ ... 0.00 0 00 0 00 000 0 00 O<. .......... .... •• •• •• •• Site Ti"e;,tment Volume (ft'J( s.011 Land Cover f•lla™OYAI: llb/yt) ... 3.61' us 0 0,00 .... c • 0.00 OA.O • 000 .......' TOTAL ,... l,6>1 lm~•(-1~ o hrrq/(\IHS,,,- ....... _., . . ~ltrf..llft-~ ..,,,.,_ vir;in.. AUflofl--d>iMMftftOll .,, ff' U>AO llltOUCTION AatlCVIO llbM Tfl lOAO MMAIHING (lbhr) 0.29 0.00 o.co .... 0.00 000 000 0.00 ""' o.zt Cons_tm~ MnloM~lnl•• T--~!Wlll ~I --_,_ ~ff Coe:ffldents (-" ..... 00> ..... ..,. OOl I ... .......,, CSOll• • !!!_____, HmtOGlH I.DAO "10UCTJ)H ACHtEVlO TonJI Phosphorus ~lb~}~)--'1::11.7=1_ _,__..;O.::;OO:::,__ _,__ _,O::.OO:::..,._,__.,:O::OO::.,__...__,:O,:OO::..,._i....-'1::1."71'--J (lb/ytJm.QS ....... nNA&. POST~lVn.OPMlHTTP lOAD lotalP'o,,,._Cll'l l MC ¢22 lot.I N1 ~ltt.Nill~~ ,. IMt: ....._ _ _ _ _, - 0.15 1.16 '"" 0.1! ·~ 0 r AfJ!;" .:.,.., ·~ Tt' LOAD llOOCTIOH IUQ_UllllO (lb/.,,I 1.SO TP U)4D AlOUC"nON ACHJf.VID I~ 2.56 "Jluntt-(411nO:t.clft fMl>!lf'J JP I.DAO Al.WlHIHG (lb/yt}t lM ltCMIJNIHG fP WAD lttOUCTIOH "tQUlltfO (lb/yrl: 0.00 •• TAA(jO T, lllOtJCllOH t KUlDro . ... O..Df l8/'l"EAA •• Post-Development Requiremenl for Site Area Total Nitrogen (for Information Purposes) ~---~ POST.OEVtU>,MEHT LOAD llbhfl ~J ~ NmtOGlH t.0.w RtOUCTl)H Aourvro IJb/'f't ta.11 ltfM.t.lM'.NG POST· OEVUO,MtNT NfTllOGt.• lOAO {Jb/,.-1 l"14J Drainage Area A I A Sollt I &Sol~ I ,,.., I DSolb l ot•b 1,A;ftdCOYtrRY fot'IKli()fftl ~· ,~. 0.00 0.00 M•l'lfl!d Turl foJI. 'DIE roJA1 Ol8 fW.SIDJWID ARU FOR '00: m>JBC1 IS 4.60 AC IBlCB OICLlTOIS 1Bl RO.mi 'IO 81 BVII3' TO UOSD.J;T DBii'B ARl> LOHG'fOOO lllU\11. 11lBXt mt 131 nm:E!: DISCBARGI POIM7S FOR 'JBJS om:LOPlal!f7 .-.zro AIL PODll'S WILL Bl: SBO'lfll 'ro PROVIDS .~I ADBQ17AIT! ~oral. 'ro 11!l! 100-YR PJ.OOIJPlAll1, LEVBL nro BRJPILlER AX nm Con:R °' 18l: 11',\tm QUWIT POR110U OF lBB DLVBI.OPMEUl' JUL 1J'SB ,\ m OPs:R SPA.CB IR 1111: ctn.-Dll-!AC Al!F.l AllD/OR O'll!ER APPOO\'lll Pl!ACl'll:BS AS }mcl58.!RT. Pl&'8B SBB fBJ A'mCHIID \'RPJJ Sfft:UDSKEL'T FQR IWl'lllJ! GUID.\RCB. ---------------- 100 St.ll.1:1 *=100' 0 100 150 200 Flint Hill Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc. April 17th. 2019 Cbarlott.esville, Virginia Cborlo\\eovillo, Virgini• $WWDFKPHQW$+0D\3XEOLF+HDULQJ2OG Preliminary Plat ....""".,. r r ~------<-- __ _J_ __ _J_ __ _j_ __ _j_ __ j_ __ ~ C1 C2 61.43' 46,16' .....,. 1TOl'll' .... f2.74' II ~"4'07" W / ; ,/ C3 C4 41.lS' %1.73' US.74' n'»'SO' 41.tl' !11.74' 14.79' S Sn.1'47" E 11 &n.f16' E I ... I \ C5 2ll' 1:t.SO' tllS' 1.114' s 1&$1$' Vi , I \ I 2W' :N~13' \ Qi 285.74' 10.63' S E ,,,, S 40'21'21' E I I \ 1'48'00'47' 15.38' ,,,.. 21.tt' , 211'$?'1J" ,.,.. 1511.lt' II 4inl'Z7" II I CD \ \ " ,.,,. c;io 288.t&' """ ,,,,, ,..... II 18'11J'2S' W \ \ I 0 I I z I 1 © l \ 0\ ) \ 80 tllHGH A M PAAK AV(HUt rornuth Q F t f-EVtlL£ ,.... .• • Choi ------ @ I I I1I I • NOeHILL JOHN-SON 11100( ST I .. ....,. ""+-F!l'!-1--:;:'l,"' VtlLAOC PAAKSIOtl ,. ..... 5 SPAtNG CAOLES at::":fa ••4#/ltr LA HO I HO - CONDOS WILLOUOHIY P.i'Nlllt \ D ;:; \ SHlJl:WOOO MANOR "°"'<•0< """"'' Q ~ • Mill CAtt:K ~ OAK HILl. tHOUSTAIAL ,AAK LAM!SIDE 9 I M0$8Y (!ffiJ ; l'ICINITY !lAP ; s:!.l£J:: 1" =e.ooir l I '\ ,./ • ...... s 4.16S IJll:I$ "4R1S .GmQ EU 111 f1'f'1 4S FM&"'° ~JJ111# 1:) lOiS .... ...... AI04T or 101)£ a a 3 ""v1.s-u ............., .,,,., fi\Ok 0 l'IWa 2'COl:51llt ~- lt«(;lt-1!: "11.Jt!llM • • CAA.09t w @ 1\11':0. Zll.13$@ llo:J(9)1!>1)00 11.ml'DI!\, U£ ~IE:. l!-t @ ..... 18 ,., """ ''''"'"' u.srns. .m1u:a • uiwa nt: Cflt.Q: ~ Ill[ WO ~!18) IS '1elll Ill[ @ 0 l'IWa~m lrUO'I,. s:rrPD • lt«(;it-1:: .t llll!Wo'\1 ~ ® mm=- OOlO!O'' nw II • ~IE:. l!-t MD.Ill H " """.....''''"'"' @ ,., w::oll.llQL IOl!t!'fl It t llorn£'1t ~ Ata 0011w1r or .uo 11 '1CCCRl"a wnc 111€ OCIE fX "»£ UIOOl:9Q'G> !J'A'Q IRllS'!tI$. 6t @ ,.,..... fl:ftCEL~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. OlllV. AU ~Tr.!DOl!l M't>EI 10 ntf> Pl.Al J.IE. 1111.E .UO 0 tro:u•t ~3.0 lt«(;lt-1:: € @ 1\11':0.l!-tzo::rmi(O llo:J(9)1!>1)00 IW.ml'OI!\, U£ ~IE:. Rll!lal''9<,>l.QATJt ~.IE CQ "1CT TO nt em or HY '31V~ 0 fl:ftCEL~~ ~~~€;ft.ti lt«(;lt-1:: Vl.Cl'ID l @ mm=­ llo:J(9l11>1loo 1W.ml'DI!\, ~IE:. l!-t u.c 80.MlllT runa~ u.c: no!.. PMRP.. CR.t ............. Ql~Tlt!\U£. W1 UBll e mm=­ r:uuo.~~ ~IE:. l!-t 11 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!-t @ ,.,..... """"""""' .t llliroER M!'fl C W«.11001 J :r~w~=,,~~-•~•...... -~.-...-..~.~.-...,=~ .. @ mm=- OOlO!O'' V .t: SN\£\' 8ffXlro I\ 1' @ ,.,..... l'NlCO. ~~, 20Qrml '° 80'41£ K: ntS - - OAY (f 20- ~IE:. l!-t Sl'l4'ME Gr 1.1'.iTAtt M11.X: @ mm=- u.c llo:J(9l11>1loo 1W.ml'DI!\, ~IE:.l'l.O @ """""""" 2«E:. l!-t CRY ~ CIWl.D!!89.'U.E ,.~ W),; - - - - - - "" (<)HS$(11 00\ffs: _ __ @ 1\11':0.flOzo::rmf\:J'-r'"' / ~~ \ II \ \ ~/ ~ \/~\)( ~ I~ P.I" ~ trl >-< ~ Qll ~ '"O '"O 0 s. °' (]q CTl ~ (D c.u ~ [ '!,_ \ \ \ \\ \\ \',',,_\,\ ~ y"--' "-- ~ - --- . __,,., / I ~ . '-.... °'-. - ...._.___ --- /'-.'-..... --......_ "" ""---..__ '-...._ ""' ".. '-.... '-..... '-..... I ~ E1 \\ \·,,', I " - , ' , '-..... ""' ""' i-...........___ " " ,, i!,_ \\\\""" '-..... . I '-.....""'"'"' ""'" I - -. . _- -. . _ '-..... \ --......_ "' ""' " CD \\"'""" \ ' \''" ', "' "' " "" \ "-\ \ -, ' '' .\""" \ ' \ ',\ ·\ '--._ \:;" \\ - \ $WWDFKPHQW$+0D\3XEOLF+HDULQJ2OG •i 1 "':i::j ~ I='! t~ r~ •• ... .. .... .. 9wAL ... ~ .... -- ,-- -;:\ 9 MA;~~ (ID B' UNK ~ _ / ' ()AK 0 .. 6' UNK "''td"'uNv AK .... .. . f'LooJJpMiJr . . .. 10' MAP .. ~ . .... II "° ~ 2MAP "'q ~o 9MAP . . .. .. QAP"' .. ""(?.\.._, t L'\ J OV 0 .. /, ~ !~ I /~ 1-:::3 ..l .. .. .. ,?' S4~7: .... "" .. p.i . .?' ~ ~ /' ' E,:Js; -4R!' .. ".iJ!J J, f4f,r1y S,rW[i .. '-- 6 ) ..p I ~ '-- G .?5.. R ~ Q WAL " 1~ t"'ll " co>"" 12' WAL " " di R!> """" ~ I'll .... 0 (:I ~ Cl> !'I I 1 ( ,0 $WWDFKPHQW$+0D\3XEOLF+HDULQJ2OG Tree Survey 3 / / / / / / / / /~ / .... ( .... 10" MAP .... "" ""' ~ ~pt.lAP .... .. QAP .... .... .... ~ :» .... .. .... n--3 ~ cz .., . .... .... .... " tr:I .... .... "''""d .... :» 0 .... .... tr:I .... ... ['0 "" QWAL ... .... 12" WAL .. 9wAL "' .... KEYMAP ,__________ ijQ 100 SCAU!: l" = i;O' Flint Hill Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc. April 17th, 2019 Cbarlottenille, vqlnla Cbarlottenllle. Vlninla SOURCE OF BOUNDARY SURVEY: $WWDFKPHQW$+0D\3XEOLF+HDULQJ2OG 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-54- ~~/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 $WWDFKPHQW$+0D\3XEOLF+HDULQJ2OG $WWDFKPHQW$+0D\3XEOLF+HDULQJ2OG $WWDFKPHQW$+0D\3XEOLF+HDULQJ2OG $+0D\3XEOLF+ QW$+0D\3XEOLF+H $WWDFKPHQW$+0D\3XEOLF+HDULQJ2OG $WWDFKPHQW$+0D\3XEOLF+HDULQJ2OG -.. ..... - ----- ·-... -- $WWDFKPHQW$+0D\3XEOLF+HDULQJ2OG Preliminary Plat ,,_. cs 111.(I/ ---· ~--.~~~,~~~---.---., .1 '1 ' I ,..-----, \\, / ' rJIP Z0-196 PA11£lL •r .t CJTT PARK LAND DONA7'10N LOTS zt .t 88B .... -- ,._,_, •m1e• .... ....~ 1,' 12' 5,llNTARI' EER WEIEIT II! 387 PO 25 ...... ....................... .... '' ' \ I EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B \ EXISTING PLAT PROPOSED PIAT 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' 900' llC'1.2: 1" - 100' Flint Hill Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc. February 7th, 2019 Cbarlottenille, YiqiDia Cbarlotteimlle, Viqiida $WWDFKPHQW$+0D\3XEOLF+HDULQJ2OG $OIHOH0DWWKHZ )URP /\QQ:DKOO\QQPZDKO#JPDLOFRP! 6HQW )ULGD\0DUFK30 7R $OIHOH0DWWKHZ &F 0DUWLQ:DKO%ULDQ:DKO 6XEMHFW )OLQW+LOO38'5H]RQLQJ3XEOLF&RPPHQW )ROORZ8S)ODJ )ROORZ8S )ODJ6WDWXV )ODJJHG ĞĂƌDƌ͘ůĨĞůĞͲ  DLJŚƵƐďĂŶĚĂŶĚ/ĂƌĞƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŽǁŶĞƌƐŽĨϭϭϭ^ŚĂƐƚĂŽƵƌƚĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƚŽƚŚĞĂƌĞĂŽĨƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘tŚŝůĞ ǁĞĚŽŶŽƚŽƉƉŽƐĞƐŽŵĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůƚŚŝƐĂƌĞĂ͕ǁĞƐƚƌŽŶŐůLJďĞůŝĞǀĞƚŚĞŶƵŵďĞƌĂŶĚƚLJƉĞŽĨƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƵŶŝƚƐŝƐ ĞdžĐĞƐƐŝǀĞĂŶĚƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂďůLJƐĐĂůĞĚďĂĐŬ͘&ƵƌƚŚĞƌŵŽƌĞ͕ǁĞďĞůŝĞǀĞƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐŚŽƵůĚŝŶĐůƵĚĞĂŵŝdžŽĨ ƐŝŶŐůĞĨĂŵŝůLJŚŽŵĞƐ͕ĚƵƉůĞdžĞƐĂŶĚƚŽǁŶŚŽŵĞƐ͘&ŝĨƚLJƚŽǁŶŚŽŵĞƐǁŽƵůĚĚƌĂƐƚŝĐĂůůLJĐŚĂŶŐĞƚŚĞĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŽĨŽƵƌĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐ ƐŝŶŐůĞĨĂŵŝůLJŚŽŵĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͘  tĞĂƌĞĂůƐŽĐŽŶĐĞƌŶĞĚĂďŽƵƚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶŶŽŝƐĞĂŶĚƚŚĞƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůĨŽƌĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶƌƵŶŽĨĨĂŶĚĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůĚĂŵĂŐĞƚŽ ƚŚĞĐƌĞĞŬŝŶƚŚĞƌĂǀŝŶĞďĞŚŝŶĚŽƵƌƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͘  WůĞĂƐĞĨŽƌǁĂƌĚŽƵƌĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐƚŽWůĂŶŶŝŶŐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŵĞŵďĞƌƐ͘  dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵ͕ >LJŶŶĂŶĚDĂƌƚŝŶtĂŚů  ^ĞŶƚĨƌŽŵŵLJŝWŚŽŶĞ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ttachment I NEW Attachment J TABLE OF CONTENTS 500' radius for adjacent properties PUD Development Plan (Sec 34-517) This PUD Development Plan (Pages 1 through 7) meets the requirements of Charlottesville City Code Section 34-517(a). The below table of contents lists PUD requirements and references where in the PUD Development Plan the requirements are illustrated or described. Contents: 34-517(a)(1) A survey plat describing and depicting the entire land area to be included within the PUD development site, including identification of present ownership, existing zoning district classification(s) of the parcel(s) to be included within the PUD. Page 2: Existing Conditions 34-517(a)(2) A narrative statement of how the objectives described within section 34-490 are met by the proposed PUD. Page 7: Narrative 34-517(a)(3) A conceptual development plan, supporting maps, and written or photographic data and analysis which show: a. Location and size of existing water and sanitary and storm sewer facilities and easements; Page 2: Existing Conditions b. Layout for proposed water and sanitary sewer facilities and storm drainage facilities; Page 4: Land Use Plan c. Location of other proposed utilities; Page 4: Land Use Plan d. Location of existing and proposed ingress and egress from the development; Page 4: Land Use Plan e. Location and size of existing and proposed streets; Page 4: Land Use Plan. f. Location of existing and proposed pedestrian and bicycle improvements, including connections to nearby schools; Page 4: Land Use Plan. Note: City sidewalks and bicycle lanes provide pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to Jackson Via elementary school Via Longwood Drive and Harris Road. g. An inventory, by tax map parcel number and street address, of all adjacent parcels within a five hundred-foot radius of the perimeter of the PUD, indicating the existing zoning district classification of each. Page 1: Cover Page h. A site inventory of the significant natural, environmental and cultural features of a site, including at a minimum: historic landmarks contained on any state or federal register; vegetation; existing trees of eight-inch caliper or greater; wetlands, topography, shown at intervals of five (5) feet or less, critical slopes, and other, similar characteristics or features, and a plan for preserving, protecting, utilizing and/or incorporating such features into the design and function of the proposed PUD. Page 2: Existing Conditions; and Page 3: Environmental Features; and Page 4: Land Use Plan 34-517(a)(4) A proposed land use plan. Such plan will identify: a. Proposed land uses and their general locations, including without limitation, building and setbacks; Page 4 : Land Use Plan; and Pages 5-6: Use Matrix b. Proposed densities of proposed residential development; Page 4: Land Use Plan c. Location and acreage of required open space; Page 4: Land Use Plan d. Square footage for non-residential uses; Non-residential uses are not proposed. e. Maximum height of buildings and structures in area of PUD. Page 4: Land Use Plan 34-517(a)(5) A general landscape plan which focuses on the general location and type of landscaping to be used within the project as well as the special buffering treatment proposed between project land uses and adjacent zoning districts; Page 4: Land Use Plan. 34-517(a)(6) Phasing plan if needed. Each phase shall individually meet the requirements of this section. Phasing is not proposed. 34-517(a)(7) A statement from the city public utilities department verifying whether water and sewer infrastructure capacity does or does not exist for the proposed land use(s). A statement has been provided from the city public utilities department that water and sewer infrastructure capacity does exist for the proposed uses. Water is available via a 6” water main in Flint Drive off of Longwood Drive and an 8” water main in Flint Drive off of Moseley Drive. Sanitary sewer is available via an 8” sewer line behind lots along Longwood Drive. 34-517(a)(8) A statement from the fire marshal verifying whether adequate fire flow service does or does not exist for the proposed land use(s). The fire flow tests have been provided and our modeling will be provided under separate cover. NEW Attachment J NEW Attachment J NEW Attachment J NEW Attachment J NEW Attachment J NEW Attachment J Narrative Project Description Flint Hill PUD May 20th, 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 of the Planned Unit Development ordinance as follows: 1. To encourage developments of equal or higher quality than otherwise required by the strict application of zoning district regulations that would otherwise govern; This proposal is of equal or higher quality than otherwise required by the strict application of zoning district regulations that currently govern because it proposes to provide higher density and more affordable housing options than would be built on the existing platted, but unbuilt, 13 parcels that make up the project. If built by-right, the existing 13 parcels would be large single-family 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 single-family homes, the developer is proffering additional deed-restricted affordable housing that will remain affordable even if the market prices of other homes rise. The PUD also proposes to donate a large parcel of park land along Moore's Creek to the City of Charlottesville for preservation, conservation, and/or passive recreation uses, and proposes to construct a pocket park or rain garden in a central open space within the PUD and a pocket park on the north end of the site. 2. To encourage innovative arrangements of buildings and open spaces to provide efficient, attractive, flexible and environmentally sensitive design; The proposed arrangement of buildings avoids the large areas of steep slopes, avoids the riparian areas along Moore's creek, builds on an upland area already subdivided for development long ago, and preserves large areas of open space providing 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 inclusion of houses of various sizes; The development will primarily be of a single housing type to encourage density, but will promote inclusion of houses of various sizes, architectural styles, and price points by including townhomes of varying widths and square footages, including some townhomes with rear-alley-loaded garages, and by proffering guaranteed affordable housing. 4. To encourage the clustering of single-family dwellings for more efficient use of land and preservation of open space; The proposed PUD clusters the new single-family housing on less than 4 upland acres of the site and preserves more than half the site, while donating land to the City for addition to an existing park as well as preservation of other open spaces. 5. To provide for developments designed to function as cohesive, unified projects. The proposed PUD will be cohesive and unified in its form and function, 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 of adjacent property, and/or consistent with patterns of development noted with respect to such adjacent property; The project will have housing types very similar to what was built in the adjacent Longwood PUD. The PUD also causes 306 Camellia Drive to remain as a large 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% of the site, a significant achievement in a development that also provides significant density and affordability. 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 The proposed PUD will have coordinated architectural styles, governed by an Architectural Review Board that is part of the 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 and pedestrian linkages via a new road and sidewalks that will connect Moseley Drive to Longwood Drive. The PUD will also provide for trail connections to Moore's 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 mentioned above. It is located only one block from Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT) Route 4. In addition, the construction of the road and new sidewalks on Flint Drive will connect Moseley Drive to Longwood Drive, 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, a busier street. NEW Attachment J BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA IN RE: PETITION FOR REZONING (City Application No. ZM-18-00003) STATEMENT OF draft PROFFER CONDITIONS For the Flint Hill PUD Dated as of May 20th, 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 if the Subject Property is rezoned as requested, the rezoning will be subject to, and the Owner will abide by, the approved PUD Development Plan as well as the following conditions: 1. 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, at no cost to the City, 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) and §34-12 (g), with affordability over a term of a minimum of 10 years. The ADU requirement shall be recorded as a deed restriction on each ADU lot. 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. 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 XXth day of XX, XXX. Owner: Owner's Address: Belmont Station, LLC 170 South Pantops Drive Charlottesville, VA 22911 By:______________________________ Frank Ballif, Manager 1(:$WWDFKPHQW. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION REQUESTED BY STAFF ll!llBI!: BIU!Jl!!T 3r&llOl!, UC IN ADDITION TO PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONTENTS mrq,qrc;J; l!llUlllll' srm DI IOfll: I .lS !ROIU Oil P'EbDW. EM'llG!!lCY ~!lT .ICl!ICT rulOb lllSUl.ll/CB lUP ll1JllllE!! !!l)OSC02.86D, bil!O 02-0<-:oo!SS Vicinity Map ll!'Mnf BlJIIJ)nlC BHIGB'f; ~· IR llDCll'1 VlllAOI = 6.Z Ulll'lll/ACRB ltAXDll1U CUlWll'I um V.l(:AllT ImS YRQPOOfID USR; UP 10 60 l!BSllJElmll. l'Olll!HOlaS (6 IDWIJMM:. O'Rl!WllG Ull!ra) OPQ SP•CB OJX!8SRl'f'· m I 1 flf'l''S tP•IHC • .. ..._ I i - HO liDfX' 1. COt si..a>ES Pl.Ali 3. ARE TRJCK NJTOTURH 1 OPIR SPACB 'lO BB O'OIO iUm M'.Slli'WRIO BT .. BOllE (llffIR!I ASSOCIAtJON .um/OR DOltl'.l!D 10 'II{]! cm. I 4, ARE TRJCK NJTOTURH 2 J.lli!IJllm; KO LrotlllRG = m l :!11.W. laC!l!O :S.00 UOOlPE Pt.JliJ 8. l.!t.SS!llC Pl.AH I 9. l.!t.SS!llC Pl.AH II -n: rt 10. llASSICC P\..6Ji II i!lDB: O' - 11. OPOI SPACE PWI Wl!: 10' 12. PARSOllG PWI •tC.' Mnl BB?IIIN RO\\'S OP 'Jf.S~ AD. (29.llr.) i().?8 .... ('1.9") ~.18 ..._ (~.8X) -- 13. TREE 9.R~ 1e. unUTY Ml 20. LDO EXHll!Jl 1WtlC srupx· 'llll!lll!ODS!ll '!RIPS Pl!!! DAT fl'PD) - 7 ~ mm:s • 1 'IPD = A94 BXm.~ t'PD I 11'0 (147) Off llDSEIJ:l'. DRll'T! Alf!) I 11'1> (147) Off l.Ql>Gl!OOD Dl!!Vt m: (fOO) Rli!lDEl!l'W. COllDOlm11Ull/romll!OllBB Jf'- Q'l'6 SCALE 1" = !)(10' Lll(I') = o.BOLn{X)+ue. llUllll!!!! or tnlll'S, .111 l'lil BO!li WEEICDlT T =~ '!RIP PlR DAY Flint Hill Roudabush, Ga.le & Associates, Inc. l!ay 2oth, 2019 Cbarlotlelll'llle, Vlrg!Dla Charlollesville. Virginia 1(:$WWDFKPHQW. Critical Slope Map: Zonin~ Critical Slope Map: Subdivision 100 0 100 200 300 LOO LOO 200 300 (J+-1120(bX2)) ~~~--~--~--ril--~--ril--111111 . ~-- ~llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllJllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll~llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllli . ...... (29-3) ~~~--~--~--ril--~--~~--11111--~-- ~llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllJllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll~llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllli ...... DEflNITION OF CRITICAL s..ol'E. A CRITICAL SLOPE IS ANY s..ClPE \lllOSE GRACE SCALE:l "=100' CRITICAL SLOPE REFERS TO THE PORTION OF A LOT THAT HAS A GRADE IN IS 251: OR CREA TER AND: EXCESS OF TWENTY-AVE (25) PERCENT. A. A PORTION OF THE SLOPE HAS A HORIZONTAL RUN OF GREATER THAN 0.51 AC OF CRITICAL SLOPE DISTURBANCE TWENlY (2D) FEET AND ITS TOTAL AREA IS SIX THOUSAND (6,000) SQUARE 0.29 AC DISTURBANCE FOR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE FEET OR GREATER; AND B. A PORTION OF lHE Sl.CJ'E IS MTHIN lWD HUNDRED (200) FEET OF ANY WATERWAY AS IDENTIAED ON THE MOST CURRENT OlY TOPOGRAPHICAL MAPS MAINTAINED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DE\IELOPMENT SER.,,,CES. 0.36 AC OF CRITICAL s..ClPE DISTURBANCE 0..26 A!: DISTURBANCE FOR PUBUC INFRASTRUCTURE NOTE: THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE SHALL IE STAKED BY A LICENSED SURVEYOR. TREE PROTECTION FENCING SHALL BE APPLIED 1' OFF OF ------ LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE WITH 'MRE SUPPORTED SILT FENCE J' OFF OF lHE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE. SEE SHEET 20 FOR DETAILS. LIN ETYPE LEGEND ENERGY DISSIPATER OUllfl SHALL NOT REI.EASE FLOW ABOVE CRITICAL LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE SLOPES. DISTURBED CRITICAL SLOPES ~~ Flint Hill Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc. llay 20Ul, 2018 Cbarlot.tenflle, VhliDia Charlott.enllle, VJrabUa 1(:$WWDFKPHQW. 40' Firetruck Autoturn 1 .. 7.59' 22.75' ..• · ,•. I_------------- Fire Truck --I Overall Lenqth 40.0ft - Overall Widfh Overall Body Heiqht Min Body Grouncf Clearance 8. 91ft 10.591ft 1. 02ft ,,, ..... - Track Width Lock-to-loc k time 8. 91ft 4s - . Max Steering Ang le (Virtual) 40.0 ' r, !. Piac I I 1 I 1' / Pr / I ..01 .P... r~"'- / / / / p.,. PASSIVE OPEN SPACE I ./J 1 P- l R .., I II I 0 ...... 0 ~ I I ./ .... I f,\, I I 0 'fS'k-/ I ,£ 0 \ ~ . ·..,... ·.. ·" .~: .. · :· ..•.... .P, 0 'r-...: I !:J. I 1'!, I 1 I I ~/ t:ft I ~i OPEN SPACE .....c -7 I / I Jj) I ( 0 r .... oO •rrI p.,., ) - 1 0 f"" .....0 o I.... ,\ -b \ () \ \ () \~ .f- 1 ·- 0 ~ ~~ \ .~, \ - 0 \ .... \ ...... \ ..... \ ...... \ DO "- SCALE:1" =40' Flint Hill Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc. Kay 20th, 2019 Charlott.emne, Vlr&lnia Chariottemlle, Vlrg1n1a 1(:$WWDFKPHQW. 40' Firetruck Autoturn 2 ....... ____ _ I -----~ 7 .59' 22.75' --+------ .• Fire Truck I /• Overall Lenqth 40. Oft Overall Widfn 8. 91 ft Overall Body Heiqht 10 .591 ft Min Body Grouna Clearance Track Width 1.02ft 8. 91 ft ....... Lock-to-lock time 4s . M ax Steering Ang I e (Vi rt u a I) 40.D° ..... r. ,1 I p,.., I I .,CJ I t 1' / I I ,...., PASSIVE OPEN SPACE D.., I I I 0 ..... 0 fJ/ I / I 0 I I 0 '""' f.: I £ 0 \ ~ . ·.1.·. ·. . . '" ,AO ltlOUCTION AfO 8V OJ)t lOff"tAll • • Post· Ocvclopment Requirement for Site Arca Total Nitrogen (For Information Purposes) ~---~ l'OST..OEVU.OP'MlHT LOAD llbhf) ~J ~ HmlOGlH l.OAO lttDUCTl)H AOOCYlD jlbhf) 11.71 RCMAINIHG POST·OC'VUOf'MfNT NmlOGOf lOAO (lbhtl l1.A1 Drainage Area A ·- DraiMr c Ate a i\ Und Cover {•ere•) I A SoHs ( $ol> O Tol• b Iland Cow r ltv rorllMi~ ~"' t•cn.-t) o.oo 0.00 t.brv.l!"dT...-1 [M'"I 0.54 o.s.i 0.20 lrnP""'°"' ccwr ~I l L20 L20 o,gs Totol L74 6. Bloretent.lon (RR) 6 .1. li0ft1C111IOI\ •l Ot MiUO-llOtfl tnllon •l • • • • .... ... ... .... Ot ~b•n &iottltf!tlotl (~et '9) l.b. llion!tcnUot1 12 or MIUo-<0.iorc-tcntion •l (Sl)C'(d) .. "' .... I 110 • Ml• ... 4,$JO " 50 .... .... LS6 .,. 11IE WA!IJ! QU.llf!ITY l'Ol!llllff WILL USl nm llOD llRl'/J. nll!l!E WILL Bl 11!REE OllCS.IRGl POIM'IS rOR 'MIS Pl"f'BL nm 100- ut PWOllPIAllll. 'I8E 11'AflR ClV.WIT POR'OOR W lBB DLVm.OPYmlf l1lL VS8 A LEVIL T'll'O Brontml Ar nm CIITTER or m OPlll SPACE IH 11IE CUL-Dl1-9AC Al!El AllD/O! Olll!R APPllOVEO PlilCm!S .IS RBCI3S!RT. PIBA3B 3BB '1BJ A'1UCBBD VRRM'. ~ FOR roma:R GOIMICI. ---------- Flint Hill Roudabush, Gale &: Associates, Inc. llay 20th. 0019 Charlolt•sville, Virgioia CblU'lDttasvtlle, Vlrglnla 1(:$WWDFKPHQW. 100 0 100 200 300 Preliminary Plat r-1 • • • I ~ ...... ,' ••••• I I I Cl Sl.43' 1913'117" 51.18' ...... 22.1+' II Jl'31~7' YI / I I ' ~---..L.- __J__ ---C..::__ )SCALE: r=100· • I ---L c::> 41 ..~.. 41.2$' 18,111' 211.J.t" / I llOSE!Jrr DIUVB \ 11nrt8" 18,18' s 18'Sf'15* w I \ ...... 10.03' S z+'SJ't)" E I I I I I \ I C8 159..0T II 4!n.1'Zi t I I \ Zll)... II 40'2.1'2" t \ \ I 0 \ I ©\ I ) \ I PAAk AVlHUt 8U~tllHGHAM Ft f£YtlL£ r0tn1Hllh 9 I • . \ JOHN-SON AIOGC ST ""'+---J'-::1~~-::_n ...... .......... NOeHILL rAAKSIOl/ V•LLAOC I CA.OLES Ff'V 5 SPAtNG ,• """" .,,,.,, LA HO I HO @ - CONDOS WILLOUOHl't' ._, \ D i!j SHlJl:WOOO "°"'l!!"M• c...,. MANOR Q ~ Mill CAf:[K ~ 0AIC HILl LAKlSIDE \ tHOVSTalAL '"-•• SI I \ E!il ,, , MOS.BY V!CJNJT.( llAP SCJU: 1• =ZOOO' 1 \ ' •q .,,. ..... ~P1A.l:Eic • iv~ !D-tte .............. .... ,, ~fall.J4l.S 0"8lcn:l'~ffc:;:J'Jil ~ .wia:I ~IQ!/{$ IJ \ \ LOT'S 2,, J .t U-J2 R! ro EE omim J.S llla>Wl'CIC. a ..v. ro nus l\AT J.1.[ JllSI[ ~JIO <:Offt£CI' ro M er <1- 11v IOIOlrUIICL 0 1~)0 llt1tsrem. us: BP.al. 3Xlrn Zllle Pl.O ~ r....g ?rj ~ JJ ~ ! ~ , \ \I \ \ ' "' /~ ""- I '-- ~ - --- ,/ / I --- ~ /' '---- . '-. '-- '-- " - ------- ------- --... --.._ "'-- '-- "'- '---- ~ --- "'- '---- ""- "'-- '--'ti , ." l I . ~,>/J 9 u S'.D'--"IVS' ;.; C '-- "'-P,n . 6' --... "<- ~ '-- "'- ' ~ n~ m CD I "- "'- "- "- ""- " "- '-- I '-- " '---- "'- "'- "' IE \iZ I ...__ "'- \ " /M ~ :» c;-:i trl 1(:$WWDFKPHQW. r- "-=i;j I ~ l:S r+ . :::t: J/~CP f:S 7 ¥CP /// / r- - ~ ~;;;:.~ O~ l . 18-~// 3• ~ \,24")'CP . "'c l}rr /2A 0 8"HIC"' .. ,,ND ,,RI( .. :fJ.o DoNA "' .. r.i Acree'.> 'floA;MAP ~r.i ..., V MAPxJ "' ~ . VMAP . 9wAL .Qi 12"HIC "' , .,. - ,,-- -;;;\ 9 MA;-Q:~ ~MAP .,. 8"M~ 0 (JS) 8" LINK~ - - / UN~TMP • OAK Ll Q .. 6" UNK "'lo"' 20-196 AK "' ~AP 12.@M ~ 32 AC 8" MAP Ow/7'1 ._ Q 18'~ l°'(ER11.• ifc: _.,. • Q"' ... Q "' t'1o'MAP ""- 18" LINK . MAP 12'MAP ~ .. .,. .. hf7( ' • • AP • QMAP ~K~AP 15, FLOO!Jp4 ~ND "' s 18' .. ~ . . .. '!;V "' " . ~·uo • ' "' .. > 1 • LINK 8"MAP D (.') 11"MAP 24''MAP MULTI 9t.1AP "' • A M~ f:\, ~ At'1'2..... "' \ J 6" MA1'> \ ~'- '>t-l 6 .- I ~O .. 10" MAP .. ~ ~~MAP . .. 9 • MAP UNK "" 20"WAL .. ~ .. .. 8" WAL f) ~· ~ "' "' 6• MAP QM:;, 5• MAP dl'"MAP i .. QAP " • "" "' 8" M~P"' 1"MAP .0 "' s• WAL ®-3 0 .. 0 r "' z "' tr:1 "" '"O ~ .. 20' OAKx2"" .. 0 tr:1 rv "' "' "' QWAL "' "' "' 12" WAL .. "' OwAL .. KEYMAP 1""1~50--~---~---~---~-~-~0~~~~~5-0iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~100~~~~~;·50 SCALE: 1" 50' = Flint Hill Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc . ..., 20th, 2019 VirllDia Cbarlottel9llle, Cbarlot.tenllle, Vlr&fnia 1(:$WWDFKPHQW. SOURCE OF BOUNDARY SURVEY: PLAT OF RECORD i~fs1iiJG oio~g~~~H~kovIDED BY THE CITY PF CHARLOTTESVIILE GIS DATA. I Lr-'1 I m~A~~~~~11JiN~C~[~~DI~N~:ti~E MAP NUMBER 51003C02BBD, AS SHOWN ON FEDERAL EMERGENCY DATED 02-04-2()55 PROPOSED USE: G UNITS) UP TO 50 RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOMES (5 AFFORDABLE DWELLIN ~ifNo$i~c~pf~:~~s~r OWNED AND MAINTA[NED BY A HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION AND/ OR DONATED TO THE CITY. BUILDING SETBACKS· FRON!: O' SIDE: o' REAR: 10' *lO • MIN BETll.EEN ROWS OF TOWNHOUSES LAND USE SUMMARY TOTAL SITE AREA: 9.81 Ac. (100%) 306 CAM!LlA DR ±0.97 Ac. (9.9%) LOT AREA: ±2.90 Ac. (29.6%) RIGHT-OF-WAY AREA: ±0. 78 Ac. (7.9%) OPEN SPACE AREA: ±5.16 Ac. (52.6%) 306 CAMILIA DRIVE TO REMAIN R- LS • I y 1 , ,ef. _} y ,.. SS~H MCl-MH-f.4- LOO a 100 200 soo r-m~------- I SCALE:l "=100' Flint Hill Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc. lfay 20t.h, 2019 Cbarlottenille, Virginia 1(:$WWDFKPHQW. 1. SET POSTS AND EXCAVATE A 4"X4" 2. STAPLE WIRE FENCING TO THE POSTS. TRENCH UPSLOPE ALONG THE LINE OF POSTS. WIRE BACKED SILT FENCE PLASTIC TREE 3. ATIACH THE FILTER FABRIC TO THE WIRE 4. BACKFILL AND COMPACT THE FENCE AND EXTEND IT INTO THE TRENCH. EXCAVATED SOIL. PROTECTION EXISTING FENCE SURFACE CRITICAL\> [ SLOPES ---- - ... ..... " ..L:.."--.i.---~--"""'t""~- COR RECT METHODS OF TREE FE NCING " ".--------- " " " SURVEY PR OPOSED " "" STAKED SURFACE LOO LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE EXTENSION OF FABRIC AND WIRE INTO THE TRENCH. NOTE: LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE SHALL EE STAKED BY SURVEYOR. TREE PROTECTION SHALL EE PLACED 1' OFF OF THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE. WIRE SUPPORTED SILT FENCE (SUPER SILT FENCE) SHALL CORRECT TR UNK ARMORING BE PLACED 3' OFF OF LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE WHEREVER THE LATEST EROSION AND SEDIMENT TRIANGULAR BOAR D FE NCE CONTROL HANDBOOK DICTATES THAT SILT FENCE (placed at dri p line) SHOULD BE PLACED. CRITICAL SLOPES OUTSIDE OF THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE SHALL NOT BE WIRE BACKED SILT FENCE DETAIL (3-05-Al) DISTURBED. TREE PROTECTION FENCING DETAIL (3-38-2) NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE *REFEREN CE VIRGINIA EROSI ON AND SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK ( VESCH) FOR DETAILS REGARDING INDI VIDUAL CONTROL MEASURES. Flint Hill Roudabush, Gale &: Associates, Inc. lfaf 20th, 2019 Charlottemlle, vqhlla Charlottemlle, Vlrgjllia Attachment L My husband and I have lived 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. There are several issues to be considered regarding the rezoning application for Flint Hill. At the May 14th, 2019 Joint Public Hearing, it was mentioned how nice it was in a Washington, D.C. development with a central area in front where the community could gather together. What will happen to the community of homes on Longwood Drive and in Azalea Gardens, especially Moseley Drive and Camellia Drive when their streets become the thoroughfare for access to 50 townhouses? The potential of having up to 100 or more cars on their streets will have a profound impact on their communities. These are residential streets with children playing and riding bikes. The increased traffic will make it more dangerous for the residents along them. There has been a lot of increased growth south of the city and our area is a cut through for many of these cars. A few years ago, my husband was riding his bicycle on JPA going toward Fry’s Spring Beach Club. A car passed him and abruptly turned right onto West Park Lane. My husband couldn’t stop fast enough and hit the side of the car. The police and rescue squad were called. Fortunately, my husband was wearing a helmet and sustained only scrapes and bruises. The driver admitted that it was his fault and paid over $400 for bike repairs. We were lucky as it could have been a lot worse. I worked at UVA Hospital for over 40 years and both biked and rode the bus to and from work. Toward to end of my working years, when leaving work, I tried to get to the bus stop before 5:00 PM. After 5:00 PM, I often didn’t know what time I would get home. The next bus would either get stuck in traffic or simply not show up. What will be the effect on the property values of the homes along these streets if a development of this size is approved? One would think that it would be highly doubtful that anyone would jump at the opportunity to buy a home for their family knowing that your street would have a huge increase in traffic. As far as the visual impact on these homes, one only has to look at the new homes in the back of Johnson Village that now have Beacon On 5th in their backyards. Would you have bought one of them if you knew that your backyard would abut Beacon On 5th? Another concern is that the properties will be converted into rental units instead of being owner occupied dwellings. The city pushes for home ownership. Can the city guarantee that each one of the homes will be owner occupied, and not, for example, become housing for a group of UVA students? Depending upon how many bedrooms in the homes, the rent would be split among the occupants. This could make the townhouses an attractive investment property to acquire as a rental property. How many parking spaces will be provided for each townhouse? There are too few parking spaces in Willoughby Townes and, as a result of this, cars have to park along Harris Road. Finally, can the land surrounding the Flint Hill property absorb the runoff of water and the contaminants in it? For these reasons, we request that the rezoning application of Flint Hill be denied. Please keep these properties Low Density Residential. Dennis and Sandy Erksa 112 Shasta Court, Charlottesville, VA. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT REQUEST FOR A WAIVER: CRITICAL SLOPES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Original held on May 14, 2019 DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: June 11, 2019 (P19-00013) *Update Memo* Project Planner: Matt Alfele, AICP Date of Memo: May 29, 2019 Applicant: Belmont Station, LLC Applicant’s Representative: Charlie Armstrong (Belmont Station, LLC Current Property Owner: Belmont Station, LLC Application Information See original Staff Report for May 14, 2019 Update (Summary) On May 14, 2019 the Planning Commission held a joint Public Hearing with City Council related to a rezoning request for (13) vacant parcels between Longwood Drive and Moseley Drive. In connection with the rezoning request, a critical slope waiver request was also submitted. At the meeting on May 14th the Commission focused on the rezoning request and granted the applicant a deferral before a full discussion on the critical slope application was held. The Commission did state some concern with stormwater and how that would impact critical slopes and Moores Creek. The original application and materials can be found within the May 14, 2019 staff report. Below are explanations of what updated materials have been provided. 1. Limits of Disturbance: The applicant has updated the maps within the application to better illustrate the limits of disturbance. Additional information on how the critical slopes, trees, and limits of disturbance will be defined and protected can be found on the last page of the Supplemental Packet of the Page 1 of 3 rezoning request. Staff Comments: Staff sees no change in the limits of disturbance, but they are now more clearly illustrated. 2. Note added to the Critical Slopes Map: The applicant added the following note to the critical slopes map (last page of the application) “Note: The limits of disturbance shall be staked by a licensed surveyor. Tree protection fencing shall be applied 1’ off of limits of disturbance with wire supported silt fence 3’ off of the limits of disturbance. See sheet 20 for details. Energy dissipater outlet shall not release flow above critical slopes.” Staff Comments: Staff is concerned that wire supported silt fence is being used and not super silt fence. Staff is also concerned the note calls out a detail on a page that is not in the application materials. The Development Plan Document stops at page 8 and the Supplemental Packet is not numbered. Suggested Motions and Conditions *Updated* Motions 1. “I move to recommend approval of the critical slope waiver for and in connection with the Flint Hill PUD Development depicted within the application materials for ZM18-00003, 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) 2. “I move to recommend approval of the critical slope waiver for and in connection with the Flint Hill PUD Development depicted within the application materials for ZM18-00003, subject to the following conditions that are necessary to mitigate the potential adverse impacts of development within the critical slope area: (i) in order to protect the sensitive on-site wetland features and stream buffer of high environmental value along Moore’s Creek from increases in stormwater flow volumes and velocities: all water quality requirements for the Flint Hill PUD Development will be satisfied on-site and not through Page 2 of 3 off-site measures or nutrient credits, as proposed and represented by the developer within its narrative supporting the PUD rezoning ZM18-0003. (ii) all stormwater outfalls and associated energy dissipaters shall be outside critical slope areas and wetlands; no critical slope area will be disturbed with borings for any sanitary sewer laterals; the final site plan for the project will include measures to reinforce eroded areas currently existing in the upper reaches of Stream 2; the on-site biofilter shall be designed to offer opportunity for groundwater recharge; the mature upland wooded area will be permanently preserved. (iii) the following shall be included as part of the erosion and sediment control measures for all construction activities within the development area for the Flint Hill PUD Development: use of super silt fence with wire reinforcing and six (6) feet stake spacing, to be detailed within the E&S Plan and SWPPP for the area within the PUD; (iv) fixed, immoveable barriers shall be installed during construction activities within the area of the Flint Hill PUD at the drip line of trees to be preserved, and this requirement shall apply to the protection of the root zones of existing trees within the mature upland wooded area Applicant has stated will be preserved; to native woody and herbaceous trees and plantings in the critical slope areas and wetlands; and to protection of other mature trees identified within the tree preservation plan component of the final site plan for the Flint Hill PUD. These barriers shall remain in place throughout full completion of construction activities. (v) This critical slope waiver is approved only for and in connection with the proposed Flint Hill PUD Development and shall not apply to any other development on the Subject Property. This motion is 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 steep slope waiver requested for and in connection with the proposed Flint Hill PUD Development depicted within the application materials for ZM18-00003. Attachments A –D. Staff Report and all materials from the May 14, 2019 meeting. E. Updated Critical Slope Exhibit dated May 20, 2019. Page 3 of 3 Attachments A - D Old 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 Applicant’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 “Flint Hill PUD” 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 Attachments A - D Old 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 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”. Vicinity Map Page 2 of 8 Attachments A - D Old 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. 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; Page 3 of 8 Attachments A - D Old 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. Applicant’s Justification 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); See the applicant’s 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 Attachments A - D Old 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: The critical slope waiver application was reviewed by the City’s Environmental 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 and within the forested area. Any efforts to meaningfully “reinforce these eroded areas” would 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) The drainage area claimed to be treated in the ‘biofilter’ would be able to 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 Attachments A - D Old 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 Attachments A - D Old 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, 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) Page 7 of 8 Attachments A - D Old 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, 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: _____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. “I move to recommend denial of the steep 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. 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 Attachments A - D Old Attachments A - D Old Attachments A - D Old Attachments A - D Old Attachments A - D Old Attachments A - D Old Attachments A - D Old Attachments A - D Old Attachments A - D Old Attachments A - D Old Attachments A - D Old Attachments A - D Old Attachments A - D Old UPDATE Attachment E