Agenda PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DOCKET TUESDAY, July 9, 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 – June 11, 2019 – Pre- meeting and Regular meeting 2. Minutes – June 25, 2019 - Work Session 3. ZTA Initiation – Access Management 4. Preliminary Site Plan - Gallery Court Hotel 5. Preliminary Site Plan – 901 River Road 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. CP19-00001: Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Future Land Use Map Amendment- The Planning Commission and City Council will jointly conduct a public hearing on a proposed amendment to the 2013 Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use Map. The Future Land Use map is provided for the purpose of guiding a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development of the territory within the City limits, in accordance with present and probable future needs and resources. The purpose of this request is to evaluate 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”), which is the subject of a rezoning application (ZM19-00002) seeking to increase the intensity of uses as well as allowable density of residential uses. The Subject Properties have frontage on Maury Avenue and Stadium Road. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map for this area currently calls for Low Density Residential (15 Dwelling Units per Acres); the proposed ZM 19-00002 seeks to reclassify the Subject Properties to the R-3 zoning district classification, which would allow multifamily dwellings and a residential density of development of up to 21 DUA by right or 87 DUA by special use permit. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment is being evaluated by staff to see if it is appropriate to change the Future Land Use Map designation to High Density Residential (Over 15 Dwelling Units per Acres) based on existing patterns of development, probable patterns of development, and other factors. 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 Comprehensive Plan Amendment request 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. Subdivision – David Terrace 2. ZTA Initiation - R-1 to R-2 in portions of Fry’s Spring V. FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE/ADJOURN Tuesday, July 23, 2019 – 5:00PM Work Presentation - Fontaine Avenue Session Streetscape Tuesday, August 13, 2019 – 4:30 PM Pre- Meeting Tuesday, August 13, 2019 – 5:30 PM Regular SUP –602-616 West Main (University Meeting Tire site) ZTA Initiation – Access Management 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, SP19-00002 – 1201 Druid Avenue SUP and Critical Slopes – Seminole Square Mixed Use site (Old Giant building) Entrance Corridor – Hillsdale Place Comprehensive sign package Persons with Disabilities may request reasonable accommodations by contacting ada@charlottesville.org or (434)970-3182 PLEASE NOTE: THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PRIOR TO THE MEETING. PLEASE NOTE: We are including suggested time frames on Agenda items. These times are subject to change at any time during the meeting. LIST OF SITE PLANS AND SUBDIVISIONS APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY 6/1/2019 TO 6/30/2019 1. Preliminary Site Plans 2. Final Site Plans 3. Site Plan Amendments a. Walker School Temporary Modular Classroom– June 17, 2019 b. 700 Harris Street – June 20, 2019 c. 112 Clark Court (Jefferson Scholars BMP change) – June 24, 2019 d. 1333 Carlton View – Carlton View Apartment II – June 28, 2019 4. Subdivision a. BLA – Carlton View II TMP 56-43.1 & 56-44B – June 5, 2019 1 Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DOCKET June 11, 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: Vice Chairman Hosea Mitchell, Commissioners Jody Lahendro, Taneia Dowell, Lyle Solla-Yates, Gary Heaton, Rory Stolzenberg, and Mr. Bill Palmer Staff Present: Missy Creasy, Lisa Robertson, Kari Spitler, Brian Haluska, and Matt Alfele Vice Chairman Mitchell called the meeting to order at 5pm. The request from community members asking Commissioners Heaton and Stolzenberg to recuse themselves from the Hinton item was noted and it was clarified that legal conflicts of interest do not exist for either member. Commissioner Stolzenberg asked for clarification on the number of affordable units included in the proffer for the Hinton request and it was confirmed that it was 4 units. Vice Chair Mitchell asked if the Traffic Engineer has reviewed this request due to the entrance changes. Mr. Haluska provided background. Commissioner Stolzenberg asked about the deed restriction in place on the Maury Avenue application. It was confirmed that this is a private item that cannot be enforced by the City. Mr. Alfele provided the standard of review for a rezoning request and additional information was provided by Ms. Robertson to assist Commissioners in the process for evaluation of the application. Commissioner Lahendro noted that the Flint Hill application did not contain much change. Mr. Alfele provided an update of the differences. A revised listing of conditions for consideration for the critical slope waiver request was handed out and a brief explanation provided. II. COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Beginning: 5:30 pm Location: City Hall, 2nd Floor, NDS Conference Members Present: Vice Chairman Hosea Mitchell, Commissioners Jody Lahendro, Taneia Dowell, Lyle Solla-Yates, Gary Heaton, Rory Stolzenberg, and Mr. Bill Palmer A. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Commissioner Lahendro: Attended the BAR meeting on May 21 where two COA applications were granted and there were four miscellaneous discussion items. The BAR is reviewing their Guidelines by meeting every third Thursday of the month from 5:30-7:30 pm. We have worked through about 3 chapters and will continue to work through the rest. Anyone is invited to attend. There was also a Tree Commission meeting last week that I was unable to attend. At the meeting there was an annual review of the Urban Forest Management Plan and there was a consensus that the 2009 plan needs to be updated to become more relevant to our needs today. There was a committee that made comments on proposed changes to the Standards and Designs Manual. Lastly, the 2 Charlottesville Area Tree Stewards and Tree Commission will be working together again this fall to plant trees in the Belmont area and the planning for that is going on now. Commissioner Solla-Yates: The full Housing Advisory Committee met on May 15. There was discussion about reforming our accessory dwelling unit policies. That work was done 8 years ago and nothing has been done with it. I have been asked to serve on steering committee for the Comprehensive Plan, housing strategy, and the rezoning RFP and we need one more Planning Commissioner on that body. The HAC will start requesting monthly housing updates from the City, County, and University that may be a useful source of information to us. Commissioner Dowell: MACCA Project Discovery will be holding a forum entitled College 101 this Friday from 10am to 1pm. The only requirement is that you are a recent high school graduate that is college bound. It is a great opportunity to get resource information. The UVA Credit Union will be talking about financial planning and an officer will be coming to talk one-on-one with the students about creating good relationships with law enforcement. We will also have folks from local and not so local colleges and universities. Commissioner Heaton: I was unable to attend the HAC meeting but did attend the Thomas Jefferson Planning District for the Regional Transportation Plan. They brought on another committee member and they are close to approving a plan to be passed on. Hopefully we will have action by the end of the summer. I also continue to be involved in the Unity Days work. Commissioner Stolzenberg: No report. B. UNIVERSITY REPORT Bill Palmer: There was a Board of Visitors meeting last Thursday and Friday where there was an approval of a new School of Data Science. The next step would be to get approval from the state. There is a building associated with this that would be about 70,000 sq. ft. and the preferred site is for it to be on the Emmet/Ivy Corridor roughly where the Cavalier Inn stood before. They also unveiled the draft of the strategic plan for UVA that takes us through the strategic plan through 2030, which is called the Great and Good Plan. There are 4 goals, 18 sub­ goals and 10 initiatives, including the Good Neighbor program that focuses on four community issues that were identified earlier this year, which are housing, living wage, local education opportunities, and healthcare access. To advance those, it calls for establishing a community engagement office. There is an initiative with the Emmet/Ivy redevelopment site to put forth development of that site. It focused on themes of creativity, democracy, and discovery. From the Building and Grounds Committee, there was design approval for an Inn at the Darden School. It’s a 200 room replacement of their existing facility, as well as an outdoor arboretum. There was a design review for the next building in the Brandon Avenue corridor where we have been building student housing and the student health building. A second student residence building is being redesigned right now for that area. C. CHAIR’S REPORT Vice Chairman Mitchell: Mr. Palmer invited Mr. Ikefuna and myself to the UVA Masterplan Meeting. The University is going to grow about 15% over the next 9 or 10 years, which is roughly 5,700 more people. There will also be a lot of capital improvement that is going to eat up a lot of parking. In the beginning we will see a reduction of about 1,000 parking spaces in and around UVA. When everything is done we will still be down about 600 spaces, so they will have to do a lot of unique things to accommodate the growth and reduction in parking. They are thinking of a number of creative ideas, including a change in the fee structure, having a greater cooperation with CAT and JAUNT, and general technological enhancements to the way parking is managed. For the Commission, it will be good to keep in touch with UVA to see what they are doing and to see if there is anything we can use in the City to help us with our parking challenges. We recently received results from the 3 Fontaine Avenue Streetscape charrette from the April 18 meeting. The feedback was pretty consistent with the first one and consistent with what the streetscape board is asking, which is to have better bike lanes, wider sidewalks, and to be sure we don’t obstruct emergency vehicle access. D. DEPARTMENT OF NDS Missy Creasy: There are a few workshops happening this week. The East High Street Streetscape workshop is occurring tomorrow at 5pm at the Water Street Center. There is also a Planning Commission/City Council joint workshop for the Standards and Designs Manual, which is an open meeting. This is the technical manual for development and infrastructure and there is a feedback session for that on Thursday. NDS has a new Grants Coordinator named Erin Atak. They are still working on scheduling the Form Based Code workshop due to various scheduling difficulties, but it is still on the horizon and hopefully it will come in the next few months. The June 25 Planning Commission work session will be on the access requirement discussion, which is the code request that we received from Mr. Steigman concerning entryways into developments with more than 50 units. The July 23 work session will be a presentation on the Fontaine Project for the Commission. E. MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE FORMAL AGENDA Mark Kavit: I watched with both amusement and disappointment at the last Planning Commission meeting when Southern Development presented an application that needed a lot more work before moving on to the Planning Commission stage. This and previous Boards have sent the message that it is okay to submit incomplete plans that leave many unanswered questions. However, the Commission now needs to send a clear message that this is not acceptable. Tonight on the agenda there is a question of rezoning on Hinton Avenue. A petition was sent to the Commission two days ago where a group of concerned citizens are asking that Gary Heaton and Rory Stolzenberg recuse themselves on this matter tonight. While I appreciate Mr. Heaton’s measured decisions on many issues, the fact that he is a Methodist minister means that it would be inappropriate for him to weigh in on this matter due to the potential conflict of interest. Mr. Stolzenberg’s recent and ongoing public statements on social media shows a very strong bias. He has made derogatory and sarcastic remarks to citizens who have expressed their views and concerns on this matter and other development issues. As a Planning Commission, you should be using zoning code law and the Comprehensive Plan to guide you in your decision making decisions. Sometimes by saying no in the planning stages, you obligate developers to come back with a more appropriate project. 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 Commissioner Solla-Yates moves to approve the consent agenda as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Lahendro. Motion is approved 6-0. III. JOINT MEETING OF COMMISSION/COUNCIL Beginning: 6:00 pm Continuing: until all public hearings are completed Format: (i) Staff Report, (ii) Applicant, (iii) Hearing 4 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 (nonresidential) 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) street wall: 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). Vice Chairman Mitchell: We received quite a few emails regarding the recusal of Commissioners Heaton and Stolzenberg. The Commission addressed that directly with legal counsel and it is the opinion of legal counsel that they have no legal or financial interests with this application so there is no need to recuse themselves. Staff Report, Brian Haluska: The current property is zoned R1-S and this proposal would rezone the property to Neighborhood Commercial Corridor Mixed Use Corridor with proffers. Proffer #1 limits the residential density to 15 dwelling units. NCC does permit SUP requests for additional density and this proffer would eliminate the possibility of doing that. Proffer #2 is the affordable housing proffer that would require a minimum of 4 residential units meet the HUD definition of a low income unit. Proffer #3 is the residential safety proffer that ensures that there will be locking doors between the multifamily use and house of worship use. Proffer #4 would prohibit any non-residential uses other than educational facilities and daycare facilities on the property. Any commercial uses are prohibited. The current zoning does allow for education uses and daycare uses by special use and there is an active special use permit on this property for a daycare facility. Proffer #5 regards access and the access would be limited to Rialto Street. Access would be closed at the time of the multifamily structure being constructed. Proffer #6 is a height limitation of 38’. The maximum height in NCC is 45’ and the maximum in R1-S is 35’. Proffer #7 is that the street wall regulations will be a minimum of 6’ required on a primary street frontage and a maximum of 10’. The 10’ maximum is the maximum that is permitted in the NCC zone and it is not something that you can alter via proffer. Being in line with the Comprehensive Plan is a big part of the Commission’s review in any rezoning. The land use map of the City does show this as low density residential. It does not comply with that portion of the Comprehensive Plan, but the Comprehensive Plan is more than the land use map. The housing chapter speaks very much about housing for underserved populations and staff finds the compliance with that section to be a fairly compelling matter. The applicant will likely make mention that a portion of this housing is intended for developmentally disabled individuals. It is important to note that there is no way for the City to guarantee that. They did attempt to proffer something along those lines, but City staff was uncomfortable with that proffer and the ability to enforce that because it would put us in the position of trying to determine who was adequately developmentally disabled for the purpose of the proffer. Regardless of having language about guaranteeing 5 developmentally disabled individuals, staff finds that low income housing is something that we are sorely lacking in this community. The site is on one of our public transit lines and two blocks from another transit line. It is close to the downtown Belmont area and the Downtown area with walkable distances to both. Given those factors, staff finds the housing chapter to be a compelling City interest and recommends that the application be approved. There has been a lot of concern about the NCC zoning and in reviewing this we have to look at the regulations underneath the actual name of the zone. R3 zoning has been talked about as a potential medium ground, which allows up to 87 dwelling units per acre by special use, which is a more intense zoning when it comes to multifamily residential. There are three uses being opened up on the property as the rezoning is drafted, which are multifamily residential, educational facilities, and daycare facilities. The Commission should focus on that along with the dimensional requirements and how they fit in with the existing building and adjacent properties. COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS Commissioner Lahendro: What are the possible unintended consequences? If the church sold its property to an outside developer, what could happen to the church building itself by-right? Mr. Haluska: It is limited to those three uses. The existing use is a house of worship and typically when church buildings are sold it is a difficult real estate transaction and it usually results with another congregation coming in. However, it does open the door to a daycare or educational facility. No commercial uses are permitted and this proffer extends to the entire property. The house of worship could continue to operate, but if it were to change hands and the uses were to change, the total number of units would still be limited. Applicant – Kim Crater: Rachel’s Haven is a ministry of the Charlottesville District of the United Methodist Church. I am a member of the vision team, which is the group leading this project. Some of the members on the vision team are clergy, but most of us are not. All of us are volunteers who feel that God has put it on our hearts to pay attention to the needs of those with developmental disabilities. We want to create another housing option for people with developmental disabilities so that they can live as safely, meaningfully, and as independently as possible, something different from group homes and vastly different from institutions. People with developmental disabilities are diverse in their abilities and needs and group homes are not the best answer for every person. We would like to build a 15 unit apartment building adjoining Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church where people with developmental disabilities can live in their own apartments with support alongside other people in the building who don’t have developmental disabilities. Our current plan is that 4-6 of the 15 apartments will be set aside for those with developmental disabilities. We intend to offer these apartments as low income apartments because this population is typically below 40% AMI. We are in the process of exploring a partnership with a nonprofit that provides low income housing for people with disabilities. This partnership would enable us to apply for low income housing tax credits. If we receive them, we intend to offer all of the apartments as affordable units, but since we cannot guarantee at this point we will receive them, we are only proffering 4 affordable units at this time. Please know that it is our intention and hope that 100% of the units will be affordable. Our vision is to have a culture in the apartment building that is supportive of all residents who live there, whether they have a developmental disability or not. We intend to foster a sense of community where neighbors know, value, and help each other. One neighbor helps the other figure out who to call to dispute a credit card charge, the other neighbor carries the groceries in. With the church attached to the apartment building, we see even more potential for true community. We feel this Belmont location is perfect for our supportive community, as Belmont is close to service providers, walkable, on public transit, and an easy walk to Downtown. Our residents with developmental disabilities will be able to be part of Charlottesville life instead of sequestered away as in years past. Belmont is one of the few neighborhoods that would rise up in defense of their low income neighbors with disabilities who are recently evicted from Belmont apartments. At least a few people in Belmont still have concerns about Rachel’s Haven especially that commercial activities may be allowed on the property, should the 6 church ever close its doors. Our project is somewhat unusual, so no zoning designation fits it perfectly. In our application for NCC, we proffer all non-residential commercial activity except for daycare and educational uses. No commercial activity remains. It has all been eliminated because our goal is to serve God by serving people with developmental disabilities. Affordable housing and housing for underserved populations are both large needs in our community and increasing both of these types of housing are goals in the Comprehensive Plan. Meeting any goal, whether it is affordable housing or weight loss, requires difficult decisions. We have tried to make it as easy as possible to choose in favor of our gift of Rachel’s Haven. We have done everything we can do address the neighborhood’s concerns and take the frightening aspects out of NCC. After you consider our proffers, if there are any remaining concerns please ask yourself if those concerns are large enough to trump the needs of our low income neighbors and people with developmental disabilities. Andy Thomas, Architect: You’ve heard how this project is being planned because there is a large need in our community for independent housing for people that are developmentally disabled. I am honored to be included as a helper on this project. The vision team is a group of volunteers who continually demonstrate how committed they are to helping this population and their families find a home. The project site is the Hinton Avenue Church. The team wants to add the residential use by renovating and adding to the existing education wing of the building. The architectural concept adds to the residential character of this context. Some of the plan features include a building addition that will provide a continuation and enhancement of the existing pedestrian experience but with residential building features, including a separate entrance and a separate identity from the church. A residential scaled courtyard, a landscaped and screened parking area, and a building that mediates between the scale of the church and the surrounding neighborhood are also included. The project is to be pedestrian oriented. While the parking concept follows the City’s zoning code standards for church and resident parking, it is likely that many of the residents will not be high users of single occupancy vehicles. The Hinton Ave church site is well-placed for transportation, jobs, and services. It is important to note that the church plans to be a part of and continue to serve the community as it has done historically. The requested rezoning to NCC zone best accomplishes the goals of this project because it provides a mixed-use of the multifamily housing and the church uses and a setback envelope that best mirrors the existing church building and context. The team wants to further tailor the NCC zone in this case to meet the needs of the project, but not open up the zoning to uses they don’t envision or desire. That is why the vision team has offered some proffers that will amend the provisions of the NCC zone. An explanation of some of these proffers includes a provision for limited residential density no more than 15 dwelling units and provides for affordable housing by providing a minimum of 4 residential units. In addition to the church, education and residential uses, the team originally proffered the allowance of a very limited amount of commercial use to serve the ancillary needs to the church and the residential uses. Even with this very limited amount of commercial use, during several open meetings we hosted from the neighborhood we heard concern expressed by neighbors that any commercial use is unwanted. The church wanted to be responsive to its neighbors and now includes a revised proffer that removes the commercial use. Proffer 6 and 7 further restrict the new building envelope including a maximum height of 38’ and includes a minimum 6’ and maximum 10’ setback from the primary street. These revisions are in line with the residential scale concept for the project and support the contextual design vision. The housing chapter of the Comprehensive Plan sets goals that include maintaining and improving housing stock for residents of all income levels. It seeks to accommodate the housing needs of low income households, seniors, and those with disabilities, and it supports those with challenges that would otherwise prevent independent living. The main goal of this project is to provide independent living for those with developmental disabilities puts it squarely in line with these goals. The NCC zone is modified to exclude commercial uses and is a good match for the church and residential mixed use for this site. This zone makes a good model for institutional properties seeking to incorporate some residential space. I encourage you to consider the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and approve the rezoning of this property. Hinton Avenue church is asking to be allowed to donate some of its property and services to this dramatically underserved population. 7 COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS: Commissioner Stolzenberg: Do the potential residents normally have drivers’ licenses and cars? Ms. Crater: For the most part, people with developmental disabilities often do not. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Do City regulations require you to have parking for them regardless? Ms. Crater: That is my understanding. Commissioner Stolzenberg: When applying for low income housing tax credits, are you going for 4% or 9% competitive process? Ms. Crater: The 9% competitive process. Ms. Creasy: Regarding the parking, it is not based on the kind of people who may be in the dwellings. It is specific for land use. It doesn’t get into the types of individuals that may reside at a location. PUBLIC HEARING Stuart Taylor: Resides at 710 Hinton Avenue. As part of the Belmont-Carlton Neighborhood Association, we will be speaking on many different topics and tonight I will speak on traffic. I’ve been in Belmont since 2006 and we moved into town to enjoy what is there. We are talking about a building that is going to go on the two narrowest streets in the neighborhood, Rialto being the narrowest of all. When you drive down that street you have a choice to stop at the stop sign and wait for the road to clear or take your life into your hands and play a game of chicken. There needs to be traffic proffers all the way around this building and from that perspective, the planning has not been completed and will lead to significant problems. We don’t want this to be another Stonefield Commons and with the scooters, bikes, and traffic in the area you are setting yourself up for a bad situation. It appears that there will be a bus stop on Hinton and that is part of the traffic plan that we’d like to know about. Parking has also caused problems. If you go down there on a Friday or Saturday night, all of the Ubers and Lifts are circling the block trying to let their guests out in safe spot and there are usually traffic jams. As a result, the Garrett residential area gets all of the overflow parking. When these cars are stuck out like they do on Rialto, emergency vehicles can’t traffic those streets. From a traffic perspective there is more planning to be done and I challenge the Commission to try to solve some of those issues. Kimber Hawkey: Resides at 709 Belmont Avenue. This NCC rezoning application comes after a long 15 year history in Belmont of constant manipulation and distortion of the NCC designation. Catering to developers rather than neighbors’ quality of life in direct violation of how the NCC code is written is the developers rezoning game we are witnessing tonight. Our Comprehensive Plan clearly designates this land as R-1 and this application smacks of illegal spot zoning to suit the purposes of the applicant. As Kathy Galvin stated, our existing regulatory regimen is honored more in breech than in observance, evidenced by the unsustainable number of rezoning and SUP requests. In 2009 over neighbor protests, the City flipped the affordable house at 814 Hinton to NCC and declared it to be the logical endpoint. It then took 7 years to open and they violated all legally binding proffers without fines or action by the City. When will this abuse of the NCC and proffers stop? For years, people of Belmont have seen their dreams of a quiet home life subjugated by the vision of developers who have frequently been bad neighbors. For example, La Taza had 130 police interventions in one year and that is just the tip of the iceberg. 8 The vision of the applicant does not take precedence over ours. We moved into the neighborhood before the pavilion, restaurants, etc., all bringing their oppressive noise, traffic, and parking. We bought into an established neighborhood that was residential with a historic district denomination. We chose Belmont to live buffered from commercial zones and the noise of UVA and high density. Our hopes, dreams, and personal investment that we have should not be cast aside because the applicant has decided it needs NCC zoning to fit its application. Neighbors are confused and have questions about this application. There have been multiple last minute changes, a lack of transparency, proffers only coming when neighbors protested, changing of staff recommendations, and no disabled housing written into the application. What is the resident capacity? 15 units does not mean 15 people. The planned unit design would mean a minimum of 30 people and a maximum of 60 people if there were two per bedroom. The applicant has said that they cannot control the number of people who occupy each unit, which is not true. Will the City for once stand with Belmont and deny this faulty application until questions are answered and it is appropriate for the neighborhood. We have always been pro disabled housing and we insist that development be appropriate to fit the neighborhood in size and scope. Follow the laws set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and stand with us for a project that is appropriate in size and scope. Help stop oppressive problems with parking, traffic, lighting, noise, and loud HVAC systems, and protect our quality of life to protect the neighborhood. Charles Gendrof: Resides at 709 Belmont Avenue. We came to Belmont before it was a hotspot. We had our own dreams of renovating an old home and investing ourselves in a residential historic neighborhood. For years we have done most of the work ourselves. Many friends and families have moved out due to the increasing stress of noise, traffic, parking, etc. and we have stayed because of our dreams. This application is inappropriate due to its rezoning, size, and secondary effects, and the applicant continues to answer questions with a lack of transparency. Our last meeting was set up to clear up all questions, however we tried asking questions that they wouldn’t answer. We were told that we simply had to trust them and to take a leap of faith. Belmont has historically experienced inappropriate developments in the NCC with businesses regulating illegal proffers everyday so we cannot accept blind faith. This applicant may not appear to be a developer but they act as one, claiming that it is not financially viable unless they get the zoning they want. They can’t answer questions about the project until final rezoning, and they made multiple last minute changes to the application, the most troubling being the removal of any mention of mentally disabled housing in the application, as that was the entire goal of the project initially. These are faulty excuses and reveal a faulty process. We deserve clear answers and transparency before rezoning. We also discovered an apparent link between the applicant and 513 Rialto Hinton House, LLC. What are the intentions? Why did they fail to mention it in any meetings when it’s financially tied to them? They have been tied to this house since 2002, why hasn’t it been used as a pilot program for independent living for the mentally challenged already? It is possible to use this property plus a renovated education wing, which will be more appropriate in size as it has less impact on the neighborhood. Such a project would have no need for NCC rezoning. We do not reject affordable housing in the neighborhood, we embrace it. This type of housing is already in the neighborhood in Belmont. Rezoning to NCC is premature and unwanted at this time. Edward Rigg: I am the pastor at Ivy Creak United Methodist Church. It has been said that societies will be judged by how they treat the most vulnerable citizens and the intellectually disabled are some of our most vulnerable citizens. I have a man in my congregation that would benefit from a facility like Rachel’s Haven. I want to endorse and encourage the approval of this project. It is the right thing to do. We have seen churches that, because of their dwindling congregations, wind up with large facilities that are largely unused. This is a creative and beneficial use of this facility. The Commission has the authority to recommend zoning changes and you have the opportunity to what is right for our most vulnerable citizens. Carol Starling: Resides at 759 Belmont Avenue, which is directly behind the church. I oppose this rezoning because this is a problematic project that puts too much on the neighborhood that is already suffering. Light 9 pollution is one of many issues and there will surely be more outside lights, not to mention some from the apartments. Presently we have some outside lights at the church now that aren’t too bad but they are on all night long. It is a citywide problem and I can only hope that the church will find a way to accommodate the disabled with the 4-6 apartments in the existing building and possibly the house that was mentioned because there is enough room. Rachel’s Haven is a wonderful idea and it would be great to see more affordable housing, but the neighborhood has too much pressure on it right now with parking, traffic, etc. A plan for a 15 unit complex would impact what we have left of our beloved neighborhood. We leave need to leave the NCC where it is. Mark Kavit: The church says they need to move forward on this project even though it may be years before they have the money for the project and are ready to build, but the community needs to have faith that they will do the right thing. When real estate is involved everything needs to be in writing. There are still many unanswered questions. Why are almost all the units 2 bedroom units, which would increase density and parking? Why are there no written assurances that units will be affordable? Why wasn’t it disclosed that there was a house adjoining the property that appears to be owned by the church and could be used to increase density? How will that property fit into the project? The biggest concern the neighborhood has is about the NCC. They have been badgered to death with areas that have that zoning and were promised that it would not creep any further. The neighborhood is leery of proffers. On April 9 the Assistant City Attorney told the Commission that they do not enforce SUP and HOA violations. There are still numerous proffer violations taking place in this neighborhood. It seems like the community is not saying no, but they want to be sure that they get appropriate development that meets the church’s vision plan and does not become a revenue stream as an apartment complex. I hope the applicant will defer this matter until all of those questions can be answered. What is the rush? If the property is sold or they cannot complete the project, what will the next developer do with the project? Bob Kreps: Resides in the City but not in the Belmont neighborhood. We are parents of a young adult daughter with autism who lives with us and is a lifelong dependent. She is one of many of those with developmental disabilities who are represented in the population that the Hinton Avenue project is targeting to serve. I am also the leadership chair of the Charlottesville Region Autism Action Group, which is a volunteer parent-driven organization that represents scores of parents of individuals with developmental disabilities, self-advocated, and supportive providers. Our focus is on finding lifespan solutions to enable individuals with autism and other developmental disabilities to lead fulfilling lives in a safe and supportive environment, while maximizing their independence and contribution to society to the best of their ability. Parents like us are unified by the common concern over what will happen to our loved ones when we are gone. Over the past year affordable housing advocates have done an excellent job of raising awareness in the City. The unique needs of individuals with developmental disabilities was not at the forefront of the conversation. These individuals are in need of services in a supportive environment where they can lead fulfilling lives safely and be integrated with regular people in the community who do not have disabilities. The Hinton Avenue project represents a perfect solution to this challenge. If approved and replicated by other developer/provider partnerships, it can materially change the lives of so many individuals who have unique challenges through no fault of their own. Over 300 individuals in the Charlottesville and surrounding area are on the waitlist for state supported waiver services. In addition, there are those who have services that do not have adequate housing due to capacity and affordability issues. As parents, it is our job to position our children to survive in life to the best of their ability and we do the best we can until we can’t. What is going to happen when we are gone? The Hinton Avenue project is a breath of fresh air. It meets the Planning Commission goals in the Comprehensive Plan to create more affordable housing and housing for underserved populations. Developmental disabilities are one such underserved population. If the Commission and City are serious about meeting the goals, this project and hopefully others like it must be approved. There has been mention about the United Methodist Planning Team delivering on the promises and I have every confidence that they will follow through with their commitments. 10 Raman Pfaff: Resided at 733 Hinton Avenue. Everyone here agrees that good and affordable housing is good and useful to have here, but as soon as you put the word commercial in anything here it becomes problematic. Noise continues to be an increasing concern and every day it seems louder. Some neighbors have started calling the police for noise concerns and just 3 days ago a band started up at Southern Crescent and their proffer says no amplified music at all. Traffic continues to be endless. I often come home and can’t get in my own driveway because someone is parked there. About 10 years ago the Flats were getting approved on Main Street and they had a gorgeous drawing that got approved by the BAR after a long discussion. The design showed an area with a lot of sunshine coming onto Main Street and a garden in the front area, but the developer decided not to do any of that and they built a giant brick monolith. We now have a dark gloom on Main Street permanently. The other proffer that others have mentioned was to have no amplified music whatsoever, but a band has played 4 times in the last two weeks. The City is currently investigating that, but it is unclear if they can legally do anything about it. I have been here 20 years and have seen a lot of things change in Belmont but we should work with the current zone in R-2 or R-3, or get a new classification for zones. Mary Anna Dunn: I understand very well the concerns about traffic and noise because they have been a concern for me ever since my son learned to walk. My son is now 22 years old and has autism. He can maintain a 3.0 average at Piedmont Community College. My son cannot drive and he is afraid to cross the street. My son cannot get through the activities of daily living without substantial support. My son wants friends that are like the people he sees. My son will never be able to drive. No one could ever be more concerned about noise and traffic than I am. As all parents, my biggest concern is the safety of my child and I have given decades of my life to advocating for my son’s needs. I advocate for a quiet, safe neighborhood. I could not want safety, quiet, and peace for my child any less than anyone here. I believe that is what we all want and that is what Belmont is capable of being, which is safe, affordable, walkable, and inclusive. Mike Dunn: The previous speaker and I are related. Everything that was spoken about our son is absolutely the truth and it is equally true that our son brings a lot of gifts into this world and he is an asset to any community he becomes a part of. My son can certainly do many things and there are a lot of things that he cannot do, but my wife and I walk the walk with him every single day. We drive him where he needs to go, look after his grooming, cook his meals, etc. When I am gone and my wife is gone, what will become of him then? That is why I am so excited about the Rachel’s Haven project. This is the kind of community my son and people like my son need. As members of the Planning Commission, you are all about numbers like how tall buildings are, how wide the setbacks are, and how many parking spaces there are. However, let’s talk about some other numbers. How many families like mine will permanently benefit from a project like this? How many families have people like me who will have peace of mind as they grow old? How many other communities like this will Rachel’s Haven serve as a model for going forward? How many communities will use Rachel’s Haven as a model for their own communities? With all due respect to those who have raised concerns about this, we need to consider this and go forward with this project. Vikki Bravo: I am here on behalf of IMPACT, our local interfaith organization of 27 congregations. On behalf of IMPACT and on behalf of people who have developmental disabilities who would get this chance, we support this project. Additionally, our community is having a housing crisis and an affordable housing crisis and this is an opportunity to address those too. Gary Bibb: Affordable housing starts with money and you can’t get cheaper than free. The land being provided for this project is free to the developer. The congregation at Hinton Avenue has gotten smaller, the church hasn’t gotten any younger, and it costs a fortune to keep up. The idea came to us to provide something good for the community and the ministry, and affordable housing is something that we need in the town. Regarding the Hinton House, it is totally independent of Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church in that it is only owned by 17 people 11 who used to go to Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church. It is affordable housing in itself because there are 3 tenants that pay about $500 per person, which is pretty good. Regarding amplified music, it hasn’t changed that much over the years, but you shouldn’t be battered by music. There is a lot of traffic going on, but it is the exact reason that your property has increased in value extraordinarily in the last 30-40 years. It started in 1990 when Inova was built. Lucius Bracey: Resides at 724 Northwood Avenue. I am a co-owner of 759 Belmont. Everyone seems to have a family story and I do too. I have a nephew who is disabled and has cerebral palsy and my wife and I would have been charged with looking for a place for him to live, had he not died before his mother. The tension seems to be between fear of the lack of enforceability of proffers and the possibility of commercial use on property that is surrounded by residences. On the other hand, the tension is on how to get the staff to work with one of the R zones with appropriate proffers and waivers to satisfy the project. That ought to be doable. It seems that it is worth making them try to do that to relieve the tension that is developing over this project. The land use plan, which is supposed to guide zoning, calls for low density residential use on this property. The land use plan that is under discussion has it remaining the same. The staff has too lightly dismissed the dictates of the land use plan. Staff, the Commission, and Mr. Thomas are smart enough to find a solution to relieve some of the tension and pressure on this matter and I hope that you will do so. The residents of this neighborhood have put sweat and financial equity into their properties and they deserve for the Commission to carry out the obligations to them without upsetting their security and comfort and what they have created for themselves and for the City. Please do not dismiss those obligations lightly. Elizabeth Emrey: I am the pastor of New Beginnings Christian Community in the Belmont area, as well a board member of IMPACT. I am standing with Hinton Avenue Methodist Church even though it is a competitor of ours and we salute what they are doing. There are 3,000 people in Charlottesville alone who are struggling to get affordable housing and someone has to work 3 jobs a week in order to afford a 2 bedroom apartment at minimum income. We desperately need affordable housing. As a pastor who has people with developmentally disabled conditions in my church, we need housing for them. Two members are now institutionalized because there is a no place for them to live here. They would come home if we had a place like Rachel’s Haven. They are natives of Charlottesville and they want to live here, but they cannot live here because there is nothing for them here. They cannot afford a place with their Social Security for the Disabled, which is about $720 per month. For goodness sake and for God’s sake, please support Rachel’s Haven. There are concerns among the property owners, but those concerns don’t affect the residents there. There is no one who is going to be living at Rachel’s Haven who is going to have a band or drinking or having parties at night. Only a few of them are going to have cars and most of them are going to live very quiet lives. We are blessed to have them and this will be part of our answer to affordable housing for our community. Please support Rachel’s Haven and Hinton Avenue’s vision to convert their church into a full ministry working for our community. Susan Minasian: The May 13th heading NBC29 News was “Belmont Neighbors Raise Concerns Over Church’s Proposed Housing Project. A Charlottesville church is facing some backlash from community members over a proposed housing project that would require rezoning a residential area.” I am here tonight as the pastor of Sojourners United Church of Christ that is also a neighbor of Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church and the Belmont neighborhood. I am here to state publically that we are in full support of this project. Rachel’s Haven will not create any problems with traffic or noise. In fact, it will be a gift and a moral solution for many concerns we have for our neighbors. We have members of our congregation who have developmental challenges. They already live in Belmont and do not contribute to any of the problems we have experienced. Online there is a statement provided by the Planning Commission that states that it should be done with the purpose of “guiding and accomplishing the coordinated and harmonious development of the territory which will in accordance with present and probable future needs and resources best promote the health, safety, morals, order, convenience, 12 prosperity and general welfare of the citizens.” The neighborhood connection states its vision in two goals, “to make Charlottesville a City where every neighborhood has the opportunities to succeed in realizing its full potential for contributing to a quality and community, to foster independent problem-solving and sharing of assets within and among neighbors, and to involve all community assets in expanding and sustaining safe and healthy neighborhoods.” The City Council’s vision promotes the following under quality housing opportunities for all: “Our neighborhoods retain a core historic fabric… for people for people of all income levels, racial backgrounds, life stages, and abilities.” If all of this is true and if these statements promote describing our community values, purpose, and intention are true, then I don’t see how you cannot affirm with gratitude Rachel’s Haven of Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church. In fact, perhaps we should all pay them for doing what the wider community has not been able to do in meeting our own goals for enhancing the life and welfare of all who live here. Eleanor Biasioli: I am a Charlottesville resident and joint owner of a rental property at 813 Belmont Avenue. If the applicant were 3, 5, or 7 blocks away from the NCC District, would they be looking for an NCC rezoning? Would the Planning Department be supportive of such a scenario or of others who bring forth requests to rezone to NCC? Diverting from the NCC zone definition creates precedence that will impact both Belmont and Fry’s Springs, the only two NCC zones in the City. The rezoning has been publicized as a plan to build housing for developmentally disabled adults, but the proffer only mentions that a minimum of 4 of the units be restricted to low income residents. Where is any mention of adults with developmental disabilities or any kind of disability? The church does have a worthy vision. At the neighborhood meeting last Thursday, one answer was given by a representative of the nonprofit they are talking with for possible partnership that was a shocking surprise. She revealed that when selecting tenants, the nonprofit does not ask about the nature of the disability and will not know the nature of the disability. What happened to the church’s vision of serving the developmentally disabled? The church representative did not know if the apartments would be owned by the nonprofit, the church, or both. It seems that they are at the initial stage of discussion and still have many substantial questions to be explored and answered with this nonprofit to make sure they deliver on their vision. The model that Rachel’s Haven is basing their vision on reserves about 1/3 of their 35 apartments for adults with autism spectrum disorder and other developmental disabilities. Part of their extensive application says that a copy of the IEP must be submitted. They know what the disability is. They screen their applicants and provide occasional assistance and supervision. Why is this nonprofit who they are having talks with not able to guarantee to secure the appropriate tenants? I am intimately aware of the worry and heartache that parents have if they have a child with disabilities. I have two nephews who live in supportive housing because of their disabilities. He lived with his parents until they were in their 80s when they needed assisted living. It is suggested that the church hold off until they get all these questions nailed down with the nonprofit to make sure we aren’t disappointed that it doesn’t turn out to be developmentally disable who are served. Frank Biasioli: I am a Charlottesville resident and own property in the Belmont neighborhood. So far tonight we haven’t heard of anyone who opposes the vision of the Hinton Avenue Methodist Church. The concerns are more with what happens with an NCC designation. It is a manipulation of NCC because the project in reality calls for residential zoning. The fact that we don’t have residential zoning appropriate for it is a significant issue. If other churches are seeing a decline in membership and are looking for ways to utilize their properties for their visions, are you going to scatter Charlottesville with NCC properties? We need to step back the development of residential zoning types that enables this kind of project to go forward. We have relatives that are in need of this kind of housing and we are strongly supportive of it, but there are real problems with the NCC designation. For instance, Wendell Wood is challenging a proffer because of how the NCC was manipulated. It seems bazaar that you can have a project like this that seems valuable but if you try to go to a residential designation you have to have a 20’ setback all the way around it. That kind of thing eliminates the ability to effectively develop such a project. We need to stop looking at NCC designation and take a step back to call City planning and zoning to task this. If we 13 look at the future we are likely to have more opportunities here and we don’t want to scatter NCC designations throughout the City. You are at risk because people like Wendell Wood could challenge the proffers made on the basis that they were made under duress because that’s how you got these NCC designation proffers in place. John Santoski: Resides at 2421 Sunset Road. I am the Executive Director of Arc of the Piedmont, an organization that works with people who has intellectual and developmental disabilities. We operate group homes, day programs, and other assorted programs in the area to support people with intellectual disabilities. This project, as proposed tonight, is about as close to good as we are going to get. It is the right thing to do and affordable housing is a real issue in the City. It does come down to a rezoning and the implications of that and it deals with the NCC designation when we promised the Belmont neighborhood it wouldn’t go beyond Southern Crescent. In the past the NCC designation hasn’t worked in the way it was envisioned because it has turned into restaurants rather than other commercial projects. The last time this project came up when I was sitting in your seats as a Planning Commissioner, there were a lot of issues with it because it didn’t proffer out the other uses that would be worrisome. With this being proffered out so that there is only daycare, educational and residential, combined with it being lower density in NCC than it would be with R-3, it is probably one of those things where you have to make the best guess that you can. We can’t predict everything that will happen in the future, but we try to do the right thing for housing and as Planning Commissioners. At this point in time, it’s probably as good as it gets. If you defer the project so they can come up with something better or with another zoning designation, it might kill the project. This is a chance for Charlottesville to move in a different direction. If you as Planning Commissioners really believe in what you have been talking about with affordable housing and housing for extremely low income people as a part of this, this is the right thing to do. You won’t get a better plan than what you see tonight unless you send them back to the drawing board and get zoning changes to accommodate it better. Nina Cortada Winkler: I am a member of Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church and live in the Northfield area of Albemarle County. I joined this church a few years ago at almost exactly the moment we decided as a congregation to embrace this kind of a future for ourselves. We speak a lot about what we call “extravagant generosity” and we feel that as Christians, that is what God has asked us to do. The long term leaders of this church looked at this idea and said they were going to be extravagantly generous and offer our property for this wonderful thing. It also meant a lot to our pastor because Rachel’s Haven is named after his late wife who was deeply committed to working with developmentally disabled people. If not here, where else are you going to put this kind of housing in Charlottesville? If not now, when are you going to do it? Where are you going to get the money? We think the money can be raised once you give your approval and we cannot go forward with fundraising until we know the City is behind us. Amy Gardner: Resides at 753 Belmont Avenue. I can’t speak for all of my neighbors, but most of us are in support of the concept of what the church is doing. No one is hardhearted enough to say that we don’t want these people in our neighborhood and the media has perhaps painted us with broad brushstrokes. Our concerns are about the unintended consequences. When going to hear the church members speak, they did a great job and they have a great idea. There are concerns about the financial model and where things may end up and the question is about where things may end up if it isn’t feasible. Who would the next developer be to buy that property? Who is the next Wendell Wood who comes before City Council and demands that the proffers are overturned? You have a challenge right now in the way that zoning is written because it seems that nothing fits this project, which is a great project. Instead of challenging you to make an abrupt decision now, I challenge you to write better zoning codes that enable this project to fit the neighborhood as they intend it to and we want it to. Robert Lewis: I am a pastor of Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church and I live at 1415 Melbourne Road across from Charlottesville High School. I appreciate all of the comments that have been registered tonight. We have been working on this for a long time and have been in conversation with the City for well over 3 years in terms of 14 how to approach the development issues. I am aware that everyone does think it is a great idea and the difficulty is in how to do this. There is also a degree of suspicion, paranoia, and conspiracy thinking about what will happen next. To that, all I can say is that the challenge is whether or not you will work with the people that you have, as opposed to worrying about the people who might come next. The issue for us in many of these questions and the reason we don’t have things nailed down is because as a United Methodist Church we own our building but we hold it in trust for the entire denomination. If our church were to close, that property would not be sold to a developer. It would revert to the Virginia Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, who I am very confident would seek to plant another church in that location. We have had extensive conversations that should Hinton Avenue ever cease to be, the United Methodist Church is not going to abandon Belmont. That isn’t the usual model that we are working with, but I would hope that perhaps if there are deficiencies and questions unanswered, it would be clear to you that we are not developers. This is our vision given by God to try and be the best stewards of the gift that we have in the time and space that we have. I hear the concern and share the concern that perhaps NCC doesn’t fit and we could enter some process before we begin to try and define a whole new zone, but we have been talking to City staff for 3 years and have been guided towards NCC for many reasons. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and perhaps I made some comments where I didn’t know what I was talking about, but this is a zoning hearing. It’s not about how exactly apartments will be funded or how people with disabilities will be distinguished. It is my understanding that those things come later as part of a site plan. We very much want to work with the neighbors but we have to take each thing at its time and tonight we are asking for permission to take the next step forward in our development. Brian Cameron: I am in support of Rachel’s Haven and this is a fiercely necessary project that would provide dignified housing for a severely underserved population. Many of the “what ifs” have been answered as best as they can this evening without us being clairvoyant. We are talking about a church here, not some out of state developer who we need to be hyper-skeptical of. Regarding many of the critics that have spoken this evening, the traffic concerns related to the proposal aren’t merited, given the information presented this evening that those people with developmental disabilities do not drive. If anything, if you are really such an advocate of traffic safety, why not get together as a neighborhood and follow the trend of mainstream urbanists by making a proposal to ban cars all together from Hinton Avenue. Charlottesville already has one pedestrian mall, why not have a second? The residents of Rachel’s Haven would love it. Those who bemoaned the present lack of funding for the project, yet also tout their knowledge of the development process apparently misunderstood how low income tax credits work, that they are more likely to get approved if the project already has the necessary zoning to fulfill that proposal. The possibility of 100% affordable units on this project is simply too good to pass up. Further, if the tax credit does not come through, why not get together as neighbors and match it to support this project? It is also personally offensive that many property owners who specifically mentioned becoming homeowners 20-25 years ago have seen the value of their properties, assets, and wealth skyrocket and now want to deny decent, dignified homes to their neighbors with developmental disabilities. It is appalling. Supporters of this project outnumber opponents 3:1 and that is being generous. Lena Seville: Resides in Belmont. I am the former president of the Belmont-Carlton Neighborhood Association and a member of the Charlottesville Low Income Housing Coalition, although I am speaking for myself tonight. I encourage you to approve this project. While the NCC zoning may not be perfect and there are so many problems with the R-3, it is not a reason to hold off. We all know that government happens slowly and we can’t wait years to possibly fix the R-3 to have some affordable housing. While I agree that it is a good goal and we should work on it, we shouldn’t wait. We need this project and I hope you approve it. Matthew Gillikin: Resides at 726 Orangedale Avenue. I would like the Commission to support this project. I’ve worked with people with developmental disabilities for the last 13 years and I am currently a speech therapist at UVA Hospital. I worked at the Virginia Institute of Autism for 3 years, worked at a group home in North Carolina, 15 and provided respite care for people with developmental disabilities. In getting to know parents and their families of people with developmental disabilities, I’ve learned that it takes institutions like the Planning Commission, the school board, hospitals, insurance providers, etc. to use their power to leverage change for these people. There is no parent of any child with a developmental disability who has a lot of time to work to change the rules, so when advocates for Rachel’s Place come along that want create something for your families and children that will enable your family to be better and do better in our neighborhoods, it is contingent upon groups like you to vote for it. Our zoning laws are not an exception in the sense that they don’t quite fit for these people. Our society doesn’t quite fit for these people. If you’ve ever spent any time with anyone with autism, you’ve spent time with one person with autism. They are all different and it doesn’t quite work the way you want it to. Those are the people who we need to prioritize over anyone else in our community. Daniela Pretzer: I am the Executive Director of The BridgeLine and live in Albemarle County. At the BridgeLine we serve adults with brain injuries, which might not be the same as developmental disabilities but often they have intellectual disabilities. I don’t know much about proffers and zoning, but I am an expert in what the need is for people with disabilities. We need more than 4 apartments for people who can live in that area. We have four different programs and one of them is a residential program. Our organization owns two homes on Belmont Avenue and a lot of people don’t even know we are there. There are no signs and we only ever had one resident with a car and we celebrated when he got his driver’s license because that was really amazing. It is not about acceptance, it’s about inclusion into the community. We cannot do this when they live out in the country somewhere. I love this project and encourage you to have more than 4 apartments for people with disabilities. Julia Williams: Resides at 751 Belmont Avenue. People are seeing a neighborhood that is concerned about NCC as being against the idea and the mission and there are also neighbors that who still support it. This is a problem that can be an opportunity for big change. We can leverage this where you do have support from many of the neighbors to do the right thing for future possibilities and implement it here. If the decision is to support NCC, can you also then support the neighborhood with explaining how you will make sure proffers are sustained and enforced? We really see a problem with this and it is a big barrier for this project. COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION Commissioner Dowell: How likely is it for a proffer to be overturned? Ms. Creasy: Typically, if a proffer meets the legal definition it remains enforceable, which is why we have legal counsel on both sides of an application speak to it. There is always the opportunity to argue and if there is a need for a proffer to change, an applicant would have to go through the process of a rezoning. Ultimately, the proffer is what is being provided by the applicant to address concerns that may exist with the project. That proffer then becomes part of the code for that parcel and it is enforced as a zoning regulation specific to that parcel. As long as it is something that is legal, it not necessarily something that is overturned. Commissioner Stolzenberg: In terms of the practical enforceability of proffers, is there a substantive difference between the proffer people are referencing at 814 Hinton about no amplified music, which is still legally enforceable, but we have struggled to practically enforce it? Ms. Creasy: Concerning the case on Hinton, activities that were of concern have been brought to our attention over the last few weeks. Prior to that, we hadn’t gotten official word on any sort of concern. Now that it has been raised, our zoning staff has been working through the enforcement process. For zoning, there is a due process where you talk with the individual so that everyone understands the rules. Then there is a period of time and a 16 notification letter with a violation that goes out. If there is noncompliance, there is an opportunity to take that case to court to be addressed. We are in the early stages of working through the concerns raised at 814 Hinton. Commissioner Stolzenberg: To be clear, proffer violations have to have a complaint come in to enforce it? Ms. Creasy: Typically. We have two zoning staff and don’t have a lot of opportunity to be proactive so we are typically complaint-based. When we know about something we are able to do that, so we do encourage people to let us know what they see and hear. It isn’t going to be a fast process, but we take those concerns through the process that is put in the code. Mr. Haluska: To elaborate on Mr. Stolzenberg’s first question, one of the issues that came up was at what point the proffers come into play. Six of the seven proffers that are before you tonight would be tackled at the site plan because it relates to the physical layout of the site. They can be drawn onto a plan that is then reviewed and becomes a part of what the applicant has to build. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Regarding the affordable housing proffer, are there any concerns about enforceability of that in the way that it is written? Mr. Haluska: Not from staff’s perspective. There isn’t any timeframe on it so there is a commitment to in perpetuity. Potentially there are questions about what could potentially happen down the road and if someone didn’t want to do the affordability anymore they would have to go back through the process. They would not be able to just not do it anymore. It would have to come from City Council with a new public hearing and a community meeting. Our Housing Program Coordinator does have a listing of those units and would be following up with documentation about that. Commissioner Solla-Yates: We have heard from the public multiple times about concerns regarding HVAC and that allowing more homes will allow more HVAC, which causes noise. Can you talk about that? Mr. Haluska: The noise ordinance regulations are a different section from zoning and don’t pertain to HVACs. It is a valid concern coming forward from the community. In the past it has been an item that often gets overlooked in the site plan process. We have noticed that as a staff and have recently made applicants tell us where they will be placed. Not accounting for those has been an issue in the past, more so with single-family houses, so right from the start we would address that in the site planning. If you start at the front end of the site plan process and ask the designers to consider it as opposed to worrying about it after they get site plan approval, you will have a better result. Occasionally there are maintenance issues with those systems and if there are complaints during the site development process the applicant can go back and work through it. There is also language in the noise ordinance about the amount of noise you can project in a residential area and this being surrounded by a residential area means it will be a pretty tight rule to follow. Commissioner Heaton: There have been discussions about the zoning designations and there are other cities that have more than Charlottesville does. What kind of timeline would there be for the process of adding or adapting zoning designations to be more flexible? Ms. Creasy: We have been put on hold for a lot of those items pending the RFP that is supposed to go forward to complete the Comprehensive Plan and working through the housing strategy and the zoning ordinance. Right now we are working with the tools that we currently have and when we do that, this was the potential for a solution to the request that was being made. There is potential for different opportunities from a zoning standpoint but it is 17 not a quick process because there is a lot of dialogue that needs to occur throughout the community. We are in new territory now and hopefully we can do things as timely as possibly but we couldn’t put a number on it. Commissioner Lahendro: The application before us is for 15 residential units, 4 of which being affordable housing by way of an NCC rezoning. Hopefully Hinton Avenue Methodist Church will be here for hundreds of years, but as Planning Commissioners it is our responsibility to think not only of the people in this room, but those who are not even born yet. We have to consider that this rezoning stays with this property and the property can change hands many times. The NCC rezoning is clumsy and if it was a block away from here I would be very skeptical about it. However, given the unique circumstances of this property, this is the best possible zoning for doing what they want to do and we have to trust the proffers. I am satisfied that the proffers are limiting the usage to what the church intends and I am impressed with the church for listening to the community and neighborhood and delaying until they could respond to the neighborhood as best as they can. This is a large assembly building that is in the middle of a residential neighborhood with single-family houses all around it so if this was a block away it would be very difficult to pass. This building is designed as a support structure to an assembly church and fits in well for this particular block, and it fits in well with what has been there since the church was constructed. The addition is appropriate in scale to the church and the density is low, which is appropriate for this location, so I am in support of this application. Mr. Palmer: What will the 15 units equate to in number of beds? Commissioner Lahendro: It will be 15 units with 2 bedrooms each. Mr. Palmer: Does it have to be 2 bedrooms? Ms. Creasy: It is just 15 units. Commissioner Stolzenberg: The applicant stated they were hoping to provide all 15 units as housing for people with disabilities. Can you elaborate on why that isn’t possible and if it would be possible in a LIHTC scenario? Ms. Crater: We never envisioned having all of these units for people with developmental disabilities. It will be limited to 4-6 for people with developmental disabilities. What we are hoping is that all the units are affordable units and that is what is resting on the LIHTC credits. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Is there something limiting you from having all of them being for those with developmental disabilities? Ms. Crater: It is not the preferred way to care for people with developmental disabilities. We want them integrated into normal life with the rest of us. Secondly, it is also required by funding sources that it be inclusive and that the ratio of people with developmental disabilities to those without is somewhere between 25%-50% and we are aiming for 1/3. Vice Chairman Mitchell: The only concern I have is Rialto being the only way in and out of this, but hopefully we can think through that when we work on the site plan. Perhaps we can give some thought to making it a one-way street at some point. Commissioner Lahendro moves 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, 18 convenience, general welfare, or good zoning practice. Seconded by Commissioner Solla-Yates. Motion is approved 6-0. Ms. Creasy: For informational purposes, there was not a Council quorum this evening so Council will be holding a public hearing on this item. It is anticipated to be July 1, which is the next Council meeting. If there is a change to that it will be noted online and if you are within 500’ you will get a mailing. There will also be signs up on the site and you can always call NDS to check and be sure. 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). Staff Report, Matt Alfele: As stated tonight, you are making a recommendation to City Council and holding a public hearing on a rezoning request that has no development plan or proffers. The rezoning request is to rezone the subject properties from R-2U, which is residential to University, to R-3, which is high density residential. Because there is no development plan or proffers, it may be helpful to provide a brief summary of the Standards of Review. The Commission should determine whether the proposed amendment conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the comprehensive plan. Staff finds that the proposed zoning would not comply with the City’s Comprehensive General Land Use Plan, but may contribute to other chapters of the 2013 Comprehensive Plan. Secondly, whether the proposed amendment will further the purposes of this chapter and the general welfare of the entire community is undetermined by staff. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning would most likely further the purposes of this chapter and the general welfare of the community. In determining whether there is a need and justification for the change, staff finds that there is no need or justification for the change. Lastly, when pertaining to a change in the zoning district classification of property, the effect of the proposed change, if any, on the property itself, on surrounding property, and on public services and facilities. In addition, the commission shall consider the appropriateness of the property for inclusion within the proposed zoning district, relating to the purposes set forth at the beginning of the proposed district classification. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning would have no impact on public services or facilities and would most likely meet the intent of the residential zoning district. COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS Commissioner Solla-Yates: There is a deed restriction ensuring that the Manor House be maintained in perpetuity. What does that mean for this property? Mr. Alfele: The deed restriction is done between private parties. The City has no involvement in that so if the deed restriction is violated the City would not step in. Vice Chairman Mitchell: What does that mean? Ms. Creasy: It would become a civil matter. 19 Commissioner Lahendro: What is the height difference between the two zones? Mr. Alfele: It is 35’ and 45’. Please consider that the comparison of uses are by-right. There is not an analysis based on what you could pursue through an SUP. The biggest difference is the density, educational facilities, and the health clinic, which is allowed in R-3 by-right and not allowed in R-2. A health clinic is basically a public clinic that serves the local community. Applicant- Charlie Armstrong, Southern Development: A few years ago, we bought 3 lots on Stadium Road that had been subdivided off of this property. A short while later, 2 more lots fronting on Maury were offered and we bought those. Manor House itself was then up for sale and we bought that as well. When we bought those first 3 lots we thought that was all we were looking at and planned to do a by-right development with 6 duplexes on 3 lots. When we bought 2 more lots that were not contiguous, we were planning on doing 4 more duplexes. After purchasing the Manor House we still had that plan until we took a step back and thought it might not be the right thing for this parcel. This led us to where we are now. We are suggesting this be rezoned without a plan because in order to get to a point where we have a plan that we could show you that would work, it would take a ball park figure of about $100,000 of conceptual architecture. Unless we know the City supports the general idea of increased density under an existing zoning designation that is already used in the City, it isn’t something that we are willing to put at risk. The context of this property has R-3 zoned land and apartments across Maury Avenue from it. It has University dorms across Stadium Road from it. Diagonally across it is Scott Stadium. Behind it is R­ 2U zoned property that is bordered by a few other neighborhood streets. Of those parcels in that square block, only two of them are owner-occupied and the other 20 have already been converted to student rentals. Most likely, we are looking at student housing on this property no matter what. By the acreage calculation, R-3 zoning would allow up to 33 units by-right, which is compared to the 10-12 under R-2U. The staff report indicates that if we rearranged lot lines in the R2-U zone we could get more duplex units, but we haven’t looked into that yet. The house is important because it is a Eugene Bradbury house and has a deed restriction on it that is permanent. It was placed there by the family who lived there two owners ago and it cannot be changed by us or the Commission or anyone else. It says the “historic Manor House building located on the conveyed property shall, in perpetuity, excluding natural disasters, fires or unforeseen calamities, be maintained in good repair.” We have already started taking action to maintain the house better than it has been in the past. R-3 is really a low-rise multifamily designation. Characterizing it as high density is not how we would describe it because it is more mid-density with the height and density limits. We don’t intend to go to an SUP because we don’t think the site could sustain higher density than what the zoning has by-right in R-3. The current Comprehensive Plan shows this as low density residential and the two iterations that exist in draft all show this property with higher intensity. Keeping students from overtaking existing neighborhoods like Fry’s Springs and Venable is critical. Hopefully the University is already taking steps in that direction and this kind of thing is perfect for student housing. The surrounding block has already largely been converted and being able to take some pressure off of the owner-occupied residential neighborhoods is important and every unit we can put close to the University for something like this can do that. Government moves slowly and we can’t wait to see what comes out of a Comprehensive Plan, which has been working for a long time and will likely take a while longer. We need to do something with this sooner and if we are serious about adding housing in places that should support it in the right locations, this is the right location. COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS Commissioner Stolzenberg: Is the Manor House likely to be more visible once this stuff is built? Mr. Armstrong: I would think so. If it’s going to remain and be part of some larger development it would be a centerpiece. In R-3 if you do multi-family there is a requirement for some amenities and that could be a place for 20 that. It could be a place for apartments as well. We haven’t planned that or done any architecture so we don’t know for sure, but we would want it to be more prominent. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Why didn’t you go for NCC for this instead of rezoning? Mr. Armstrong: We just never thought to look into it. NCC involves commercial and we don’t know if the neighborhood here would support that. Commissioner Lahendro: How long has Southern Development owned the house? Mr. Armstrong: A few months, sometime this year we closed on that. Commissioner Lahendro: It is in bad repair, almost in demolition by neglect, which is a big concern. Part of the porch roof on the back is off, it looks like a fire escape was ripped off, and shingles are lying on the ground. It is pleasing that Southern Development will be taking care of it. Commissioner Solla-Yates: You stated that this area can’t sustain an SUP or additional housing. Can you help me understand this thinking? Mr. Armstrong: 33 units on this property could be accommodated around the existing house in a sensible way. If we go denser than that we would need to rearrange the existing building on the property to make it work right and have access. In the watercolor way we’ve looked at it so far, it doesn’t seem like something that could work. If the architect comes up with something we may come back, but it is not a process that we planned for or intend on doing. Commissioner Solla-Yates: Does the deed restriction maintain the façade roof staying as is with no additions? Mr. Armstrong: There is an additional sentence that says that “architecturally consistent additions or modifications” could be done. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Is your plan to rent out the Manor House to students as well or whoever rents it? Mr. Armstrong: We haven’t gotten that far. It could be, but it could also be an amenity space for R-3. There is an argument that there shouldn’t be a lot of architecture taken up by amenity space in a location like this with the aquatic fitness center ¼ mile away. Mr. Palmer: This area is heavily utilized by students, faculty, and staff of the University. We haven’t had a chance to look at the numbers of how many live over there but we imagine that it is pretty dense with UVA folks. It is an interesting site with the R-3 across the street, but it is a neighborhood that seems to be trying to maintain some amount of its identity so it is a tricky site. Hearing the applicant speak reminded me of the Oakhurst Inn site at the corner of JPA where they were able to maintain historic house(s) there and add some density and it seems to be a nice development there. I don’t have an opinion on whether we need more housing there or not. PUBLIC HEARING None. COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION 21 Commissioner Lahendro: It is a possible transition site but it is also a very sensitive site with the historic building on it and the neighborhood buildings around it. I am not completely against an upgrading of some kind to allow more dwelling units, but it’s important to ensure that it will be done sensitively to the resources that are here. I cannot approve it just in theory to rezone the entire site. Commissioner Heaton: It is odd that we are being asked to rezone with very little information. Have you done this before? Is there a reason why you couldn’t have come with even a conceptual plan? Mr. Armstrong: The reason is to make sure the conceptual plan is something that could actually work and something that we can stand behind. There is a lot of architectural work to be done and we have had a plan for development for this property before the whole thing was assembled, which is the duplexes, and that works financially and it provides some housing. We have a lot of places zoned R-3 already and we know what the R-3 ordinance is. It allows a limited number of uses, it has buffer restrictions to adjacent lower density residential, it has setbacks established, which all seems to work for what we would do for a higher density situation. It doesn’t invent anything new or proffer anything out, it is known and that is why. Commissioner Stolzenberg: The Census publishes population by age for each block group. There are about 1,500 people in that block group and 90% of them are under the age of 35. This area seems to have gone over the edge of its student area now. When we get complaints from people who are worried about students encroaching in historically non-student residential areas, building more housing near UVA is how you fix that. The text of our existing Comprehensive Plan does support this even though our map doesn’t. The Transportation chapter says to “work with UVA officials to encourage students, faculty, and staff to live closer to the University.” The Housing chapter says to “encourage housing development where increased density is desirable and to strive to coordinate those areas with stronger access to employment opportunities, transit routes, and commercial services.” Not having any substance to the plan makes it difficult to decide. However, of all the areas in the City that need to have higher density by the principles set forth in our Comprehensive Plan and in our general goals, this seems pretty high on the list. I am supportive of the proposal even though I wish we could have seen more details, but we should add a Comprehensive Plan map amendment to it if it passes, as recommended by staff. Commissioner Dowell: How are we supposed to make a sound, viable decision about something that we don’t have sound, viable information about? Being close to the University, if we were going to have high density this may be the area to do it. However, as planners we have to be able to plan accordingly and if we don’t have information and materials to do such, how do you do that? Commissioner Heaton: If we rezoned this R-3, will the next thing we see from the developer probably be a by- right plan? Ms. Creasy: Potentially. If they do with a by-right development it may not be something that comes to the Commission. It just depends on what they are planning to do. Commissioner Heaton: So we may never see this again. Is that good planning? Commissioner Stolzenberg: It seems like we want the housing that comes with R-3, but there are other commercial uses that we don’t want. 22 Commissioner Dowell: It’s also important to have affordable housing and those duplexes are probably not affordable. Every unit that is built can’t be affordable, but at this point in the game units that are being built need to be affordable, especially when there isn’t a plan. We do need units in the City, but we need affordable units. Vice Chairman Mitchell: We are being asked to look at the Standards of Review. This falls into #2, which is the general welfare of the entire community. It supports the general welfare of the entire community because it allows us to concentrate the students in one part of the area and it addresses some of the concerns about students spilling into other areas like Fry’s Springs. If I did support it, it would be because of that piece of the Standards of Review. We can’t look at what is going to be there. We have to determine if it makes sense to make this modification based on the Standards of Review. Commissioner Solla-Yates: There is a lot of support for this in the Comprehensive Plan. It also complies with #1 in housing, transportation, and community facilities. Vice Chairman Mitchell: It doesn’t comply with the current land use map. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Right now it’s mixed because it conforms to the text but not the map. If we are going to make the change to the zoning map, we should change the Comprehensive Plan map to match what makes sense. In terms of #4, there aren’t going to be any negative effects with transportation but it will get us further away from the goal set by Council to have 15% of units be scored for affordable housing. From that perspective, the effects of the proposed change could be negative for #4. However, with #1 it mostly conforms except for the map, which we should change. It helps general welfare and there isn’t any clear need or justification, except that we badly need more housing in general. Commissioner Lahendro: Under #4, the effect of the change on the property itself, considering the historic building and the surrounding properties, is what I am leaning on in terms of knowing more about what is being proposed for the site. Mr. Armstrong: The affordable housing question is an important one in everything we are doing. The by-right use of duplexes will definitely not have affordable housing. They are not apartment units, they are attached houses so they will be among the less affordable kinds of housing if it is developed as it’s designed and intended per the zoning. To get more units in a multifamily style, which probably would be above the one FAR that triggers the City’s automatic affordable housing ordinance in R-3, gives lower cost units in an apartment setting. It gives students a chance to live closer to the University, which pulls them out of neighborhoods that have made housing less affordable. If you were doing a comprehensive rezoning of the City today, would you zone this R-2U? Commissioner Dowell: We are supposed to make a decision based on the current map. We also can’t ensure that students are moving into these units because we don’t have a plan. We aren’t necessarily opposed to the density, we are opposed to the unknown of the plan. People who want affordable units don’t only want to live in small apartments. There should be affordable units to fit the family size. Using that as leverage is not a compelling argument. Commissioner Solla-Yates: Our zoning offers very different building types with different heights across the street from one another and it makes no visual sense or practical sense, but that’s what we have. R-3 facing R-3 doesn’t bother me, but R-2 facing R-3 does because those are very different looks of buildings. I would not support the current zoning if it were proposed today. 23 Commissioner Stolzenberg: I hate that our current zoning is so broken that developers can use by-right development as a threat to do things because the default state is so terrible for all of us. Vice Chairman Mitchell: It seems like the Commission is predisposed to recommend approval of the application, but it also seems like the current zoning is giving the Commission heartburn. Mr. Stolzenberg has a proposal to address the zoning problem as well. Commissioner Stolzenberg: I’d like to make an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan map if we are going to support this so that the Comprehensive Plan, which should call for high density in this area, changes to note it. Ms. Robertson: How much time within the 100 days is left on the application? Mr. Alfele: The application was deemed complete May 30 so we have time. Ms. Robertson: In theory, if you wanted to defer until another meeting and if Mr. Stolzenberg were to ask for the agenda to be amended and you agreed to initiate consideration of a Comprehensive Plan amendment, those things could come together on an agenda. Vice Chairman Mitchell: Would that happen at the next meeting? Ms. Robertson: Yes. You would need to initiate a Comprehensive Plan amendment tonight but it could be advertised for a future meeting, at which this rezoning application would also be on the agenda. Commissioner Dowell: I’m not comfortable with that, especially when we are talking about amending our Comprehensive Plan. It sounds good in theory but in practicality knowing that we are already working on amending the Comprehensive Plan, the piecemeal method doesn’t work. Commissioner Heaton: We may be in a time where we have to be willing to do that extra work as Commissioners to serve our community. Otherwise the logjam wins. Commissioner Dowell: We shouldn’t do extra work on something that we don’t have any clue or idea what we are doing extra work for. We can defer it, but if we don’t have a proposal to examine we are just chasing our tails. Commissioner Stolzenberg moves to recommend approval of this application to rezone the subject properties from R-2U, to R-3, on the basis that the proposal would service the interests of the general public and good zoning practice. Seconded by Commissioner Solla-Yates Motion is approved 4-2. Commissioner Stolzenberg moves to modify tonight’s agenda to add an item to consider initiating a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment to make the mapped area relevant to this parcel high density residential. Seconded by Commissioner Solla-Yates. Motion is approved 5-1. Ms. Robertson: Now the Commission can talk about it and someone will need to make a motion on it. Commissioner Lahendro: Can we really change the zoning for this corner of the block without considering the rest of the block and the impacts? Commissioner Stolzenberg: Perhaps this whole block should be marked as high density, given that it’s already almost all student housing. It’s an area so close to grounds and we’re seeing so many students spill out so much 24 further so it makes sense to designate in the 2013 Comprehensive Plan that it become high density residential, which just means 15 units per acre. We wouldn’t do any rezoning now but people can come to us in the future if they want their property rezoned, ideally with plans. Commissioner Lahendro: It seems draconian to change the zoning of these people’s property without their engagement or participation. Ms. Robertson: It isn’t the zoning. It is the recommendation for where you see the development patterns in the future. Commissioner Heaton: I understand Mr. Lahendro’s concern but serving this community and being responsive is really important and we have to find ways to be responsive. Commissioner Lahendro: Are we being responsive to the community by doing it unilaterally without their participation? Mr. Alfele: Page 3 of the staff report provides a context for the land use designation for the area and surrounding area. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Did you have something in mind when you made the recommendation to amend whether it would be these parcels specifically or the block? Mr. Alfele: Staff was trying to point out that if it was rezoned, it would not conform to the Land Use Map. The Land Use Map would call for low density residential, which is below 15 and a certain type of dwelling units. High density is above 15 or apartments, townhomes, or a different type of dwelling unit. Staff’s recommendation was just to make sure that the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map would align to the zoning for the parcel. Currently the zoning aligns with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. If City Council were to rezone the parcel, the parcel would no longer conform. Ms. Robertson: In some places, applicants actually bring forward Comprehensive Plan amendments with their rezoning applications together. It is a little different than the comprehensive review that you do on a rolling 5 year basis. It’s something we haven’t used a lot before, but if we ever get through the process of getting a new Comprehensive Plan and updated zoning ordinance, it’s something we should consider from time to time. Vice Chairman Mitchell: To be clear, we are altering the Land Use Map just for the parcels that we just voted to rezone. Commissioner Heaton: We acknowledge that this isn’t the perfect way to do this but it is a way to move in the direction we want to move. Ms. Creasy: If that doesn’t change and the property were to be rezoned and if they wanted to move to another step that required some sort of land use analysis, the Comprehensive Plan Map and the zoning would be out of sync. Whatever you decide to do with the land use map, it would follow the proper process. Ms. Robertson: Once you meet the 100 day timeline, there is no shot clock on when City Council has to take it up, but they would likely be willing to schedule it on a date when both things come before them at the same time. 25 Commissioner Heaton: We are in odd territory, so we can either vote this down to leave it as is or do this odd thing and see if it serves the public. Commissioner Lahendro: Have we defined if this would just be for the parcels of this particular application or the whole block? Commissioner Stolzenberg: It makes sense to do it for the ones along Maury and back to the depth of this parcel. However, if we were planning this from scratch, the whole area seems like a great candidate for NCC. Commissioner Dowell: We are about to make a major change on properties that haven’t even requested that they wanted this change. Commissioner Lahendro: We should just do it for this particular application. Commissioner Stolzenberg moves to initiate a Comprehensive Plan future Land Use Map amendment to re- designate the parcels in question in the 209 Maury application to high density residential. Seconded by Commissioner Lahendro. Motion is approved 5-1. IV. COMMISSION’S ACTION ITEMS 1. ZM18-00003 – Flint Hill PUD Staff Report, Matt Alfele: This is a continuation of a discussion from the public hearing held at the May 14 meeting. At that meeting, seven people spoke. There were concerns that the development would create more traffic, that this portion of the City lacks infrastructure to support such a large development, the proposed townhomes won’t be affordable, the development could adversely impact the schools, sidewalks aren’t safe in the area, the Fry’s Springs Neighborhood Association is neutral on the proposal and would welcome any new neighbors, and that the development would be good for the area by adding additional housing. Planning Commission granted a deferral so the applicant could work on a few of the concerns. The applicant took that time to make clarifying changes but there were no real substantive changes to the rezoning request. There are some proffer changes and proffer #2 corresponds that the City would have no cost in the donation of proposed parkland. The applicant added another reference to a code section on affordability and that the ADU requirements shall be recorded as a deed restriction on each ADU lot. Section 34-12(g) was added to the proffer statement and says that “City Council may from time to time adopt regulations by resolution, for the administration of the provisions of this section. Pursuant to section 34-82(b)(1), the failure of any person to comply with such regulations shall constitute unlawful conduct in violation of this section.” The applicant updated the intersection of Flint and Keene Court, which was a scaling issue. They corrected it and added some dimensional lines that the City Traffic Engineer looked at and had no more concerns with. The applicant also added a supplemental page that showed details for wired backed silt fence and the limits for disturbance and tree protection, which ties into the critical slope application related to this. The applicant made some clarifying points to the critical slopes application, which were to show more clearly the limits of disturbance and adding a note that the limits of disturbance shall be staked by a licensed surveyor and that tree protection fencing shall be applied 1’ off of limits of disturbance with wire supported silt fence 3’ off of the limits of disturbance. Staff still has some concerns regarding the administration of affordable dwelling units from the PUD. The applicant has worked with engineering and legal department on the critical slope. During the pre-meeting you were given updated motions and conditions based on the critical slopes. Staff is in support of that in the rewording of those conditions. 26 COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS Commissioner Lahendro: One of the public comments mentioned the lack of environmental protection features both during and after construction. Is that something to be appropriately addressed here or would it be more appropriately addressed during the site plan review by City staff? Mr. Alfele: On the level of critical slope disturbance, staff is comfortable with the conditions placed that would protect some of the environmental concerns. It would need to be looked at closer at site plan for detailed information, but the bones of how they be protected is outlined in the critical slope. From a larger standpoint, those areas would not be developed because they are part of the open space and donated area. Commissioner Lahendro: They need to be protected during the construction. The Planning Commission aren’t the appropriate specialists to be able to determine the most appropriate kind of protection that is needed. Mr. Alfele: That was a concern that staff had as well, that the applicant would delineate the critical slope areas and not the wetlands area. The wetlands area is not delineated. Condition 1(B) would take care of that. Vice Chairman Mitchell: Are you comfortable that we are doing everything possible to mitigate any adverse effects to Moore’s Creek? Mr. Alfele: Yes. Staff is comfortable with the recommendations for the impact to Moore’s Creek. There isn’t a specific callout to Moore’s Creek, but by protecting the wetlands and the critical slopes in the conditions, it wouldn’t have an impact on Moore’s Creek. Vice Chairman Mitchell: Why is it better to have a super silt fence than a wire supported silt fence? Mr. Alfele: A super silt fence would be staked at a shorter interval so it won’t fall over or have debris going underneath it. A regular silt fence is the plastic with stakes about ever 5-6’ to stop a lot of runoff. This is all to prevent silt runoff into the waterways until the land is stabilized. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Is there some time after construction while the new vegetation is planted that it stays? Mr. Alfele: There are guidelines that the VSMP and storm water administrator says. We often run into the problem where the fence is not removed and the developers need to remove the silt fence. Vice Chairman Mitchell: In the original report staff mentioned that some of the building footprints could be reconfigured to limit the impact of steep slopes. Did the applicant opt not to alter the footprints? Mr. Alfele: Correct. Staff felt that those buildings could be moved closer to the street, but it doesn’t necessarily fall in the line with the building layout that the applicant wants to do. Commissioner Stolzenberg: There are conditions that talk about the upland mature wooded area. Is the idea with those conditions that leaving them in place will help absorb the runoff so it won’t get to the critical slopes? Mr. Alfele: It is pretty far from the critical slopes. It’s just an environmental feature that is being left and memorialized in the conditions. In their application, the applicant stated that they would preserve it and so it is stated as such in the conditions. Applicant – Charlie Armstrong, Southern Development: Thank you for a deferral so we could work on some of these items. We have worked extensively in the last month with multiple departments of City staff and we have arrived at something that we like. Regarding the slope waiver, staff has stated that it is acceptable now with the 27 new conditions and it is also acceptable to us. Regarding the super silt fence, it has multiple sandwiched layers of the filter fabric that keeps the silt from leaving the site. It is turned down and covered with soil for a longer distance so that any water that hits it cannot go under or around. It also has the wire and posts. COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS Vice Chairman Mitchell: How are we going to administer, enforce, and ensure compliance with the affordable housing component? Mr. Armstrong: By adding the code reference to the existing city code about administration that we could follow some already promulgated ordinance and guidelines that the City has. We added that it would be done as defined in 34-12(g), which is not entirely specific but it does have guidelines about how to administer some of it. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Do you know if Section 34-12(g) for the standard operating procedures that Stacy Pethia wrote up were adopted under that? Is that what it refers to? Ms. Robertson: Yes. Under the supervision of the department head, Ms. Pethia developed regulations that say how affordable dwelling units that are required by the zoning ordinance would be administered. There are requirements for periodic reporting and how to calculate periods of affordability, although in this proffer they are offering a term so that piece wouldn’t need to be calculated. Mr. Alfele: There are still concerns by staff and some of the concerns are that if the applicant gives the affordable units to a nonprofit they have satisfied their proffer. The City has concerns with grouping these affordable units if it were to go to something like Habitat. Commissioner Lahendro: Another concern was giving the parcels to a nonprofit that might satisfy the terms of the proffer but still the units may not be built for some time after that. Mr. Alfele: Correct. They are offering a proffer and how they could do it. If they built it they could have 1 for every 10 CO, but if they can’t do that then they have this way where they could give it to someone who could build it. It would then relieve them of any responsibility of having it done per every 10 COs. Commissioner Solla-Yates: What is the issue with a row of affordable homes versus interspersed? Mr. Alfele: Staff would prefer to see interspersed affordable units. There is a Comprehensive Plan goal that speaks about having them interspersed with market rate. Planning Commission could view that as having a row of affordable units within a development that is market rate as being interspersed, but staff prefers to see them not just all in one row. Ms. Robertson: The regulations that NDS developed under the ordinance reflects that preference. Commissioner Stolzenberg: It says that they “shall be dispersed throughout the project with no more than 25% of them located on any one floor of the building or any one section or development phase of the project, except in cases where the owner demonstrates that the requirements of a federal or state funded program necessitate alternate arrangements or if by reason of lot configuration or other circumstances of the development render such dispersal unachievable, undesirable, or impractical.” It would seem to violate that section. Ms. Roberson: We may need to clarify what is being administered under the ordinance in regulations that we have and what would be the requirement for something going to a nonprofit entity. 28 Commissioner Stolzenberg: There are other things that don’t conform between the SOPs and the PUD. Would the things in the proffer or the PUD take precedence over the SOPs? Ms. Roberson: Proffers become zoning regulations so you generally try to have two sets of regulations that are not in conflict with each other. It’s better if a proffer can clarify how it will work with the other regulations if it covers similar territory. Commissioner Solla-Yates: How would those thoughts be captured? Would it be in a motion or in an addendum? Ms. Robertson: You could use the suggested motion on the updated staff report and add something onto the end saying that the support for the application is qualified in that there are concerns about the clarity of the affordable housing proffer but if it is resolved before it gets to Council then that is the only qualification you have. The concern is with clarity and whether there would be conflicts between the proffer, as written, and the administrative policy that applies to mandatory affordable units. Commissioner Solla-Yates moves to recommend that City Council should approve ZM18-0003, including the critical slope waiver requested in P19-00013, subject to the following conditions that are necessary to mitigate the potential adverse impacts of development within the critical slope area: 1) In order to protect the sensitive on-site wetland features, and also to protect the waters of the adjacent Moore’s Creek and its stream buffer areas from the impacts of the proposed development: a) all storm water quantity and quality requirements for the Flint Hill PUD Development will be satisfied through use of facilities of such types, and generally in such locations, as are described and depicted within the storm water management concept submitted for Application # ZM18-0003; b) all storm water outfalls and associated energy dissipaters shall be located outside critical slope areas and wetlands; c) no critical slope area will be disturbed with borings for any sanitary sewer laterals; d. the on-site biofilter shall be designed and installed to offer opportunity for groundwater recharge, and the final storm water management plan for the Flint Hill PUD development shall indicate the design standard for groundwater recharge associated with the particular biofilter that is utilized; e) the mature upland wooded area of the development site will be permanently preserved; f) 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: i) use of super silt fence, as described or defined in City standards, to be detailed within the E&S Plan and SWPPP for the area within the PUD; ii) fixed, immoveable barriers shall be installed as tree protection measures, in accordance with the City’s standard tree protection detail, and the barriers shall be maintained in place throughout all periods of construction activities within the area Flint Hill PUD; this protection requirement shall apply to the protection of the root zones of existing trees within the mature upland wooded area; to existing 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. 2) This critical slope waiver is approved only for and in connection with the proposed Flint Hill PUD Development described in Application # ZM19-00003 and shall not apply to any other use or development proposed or conducted on the Subject Property. 3) Sec. 34-1120(b) of the City’s critical slope ordinance states that a landowner requesting waiver of critical slopes requirements must address how the proposed waiver will satisfy the purpose and intent of the critical slopes ordinance; within materials submitted in support of waiver Application #P19-00013 the Landowner has stated that it is willing to undertake measures to reinforce existing eroded areas in the vicinity of its proposed development (the upper reaches of Stream 2), as a partner with other stream-adjacent landowners, if feasible. Landowner shall confirm at the time of final site plan approval 29 whether or not any such work will be performed and: (i) if so, the Landowner shall describe in writing the extent of the work and the timing in which the working will be undertaken in relation to completion of construction activities within the PUD development, or (ii) if not, the Landowner shall summarize in writing its efforts to follow-up with landowners to develop a work plan, and shall describe any financial or other impediments render a joint effort infeasible. Landowner shall have no obligation for the off- site work, beyond the actions specified in clauses (i) and (ii) of this paragraph. This recommendation is 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. Although support for the application is qualified, there are concerns about clarity, affordable housing proffer language, and possible conflicts between the proffer as written and administrative policy that applies to affordable units. Seconded by Commissioner Dowell. Motion is approved 6-0. Commissioner Solla-Yates: Notes that we do need another Planning Commissioner representative for the RFP process. V. Adjournment 10:00 pm – Commissioner Dowell moves to adjourn until the second Tuesday in July 2019. Planning Commission Work Session June 25, 2019 5:00 - 7:00 p.m. NDS Conference Room Members Present: Chairman Lisa Green, Commissioners Jody Lahendro, Lyle Solla-Yates, Hosea Mitchell, Gary Heaton and Rory Stolzenberg Members Absent: Commissioner Taneia Dowell Staff Present: Missy Creasy, Alex Ikefuna, Lisa Robertson, Joey Winter, and Brennen Duncan Chairman Green called the meeting to order at 5:05 pm. Access Management Code Update Request Missy Creasy provided an overview of the materials in the packet and Commissioners began discussion on the request. Commissioner Mitchell asked if there was access management language in the Standards and Design Manual (SADM). Brennen Duncan, Traffic Engineer clarified that the current SADM does not but there is language in the draft SADM. He noted there is also language in the Fire Code that would assist with evaluating access. Commissioner Lahendro understood that if the zoning code remains in place that would govern rather than the SADM. It was clarified that he is correct. Chair Green asked if we needed to wait to strike the current code until after the SADM was updated. She also asked how changing this code would relate to good urban planning. Has that been reviewed? Ms. Creasy noted that review on the access issue specifically had not taken place yet. Lisa Robertson reminded everyone of the review that took place by the consultants to develop the SADM which took planning principles into account. Mr. Duncan stated that there are some remaining details to work out on the SADM but it is very close. He noted that the current SADM is VDOT based which is significantly suburban based. The new manual takes into account more urban principles. Chair Green asked if the comments on the draft SADM are property specific or holistic. Mr. Duncan noted that they are more general. Many were received from the Bike and Pedestrian Committee and CADRe. 1 Commissioner Stolzenberg asked if the code could provide staff more discretion. Ms. Robertson noted that would not be ideal. Having references to the SADM means that decisions would be made with the background of industry standards which is preferable. Chair Green asked the opinion of Legal on removing this zoning section and placing in the SADM. Ms. Robertson said she supports removal of the section but did note that the current landowner may not benefit from the removal regardless. Mr. Duncan clarified that he supports two access points for the Steigman property and that is shared by the Fire Marshal. Commissioner Stolzenberg asked if there was value in having the code reside in regulations outside the fire code. Mr. Duncan noted that vehicle trip generation criteria for analysis of access points makes more sense than the use of DUA. Ms. Robertson noted that Section 34-896(e) provides good guidance noting the use of sound engineering practices. Chair Green asked Mr. Steigman to speak. Trey Steigman introduced his team of Valerie Long, Steve Houchens, and Craig Kotarski. Mr. Steigman noted that there are at least 9 projects not in compliance with this code and they had fire approval. He provided background on the materials he submitted. He would like to find a way to make this work and would like to have it initiated now. Commissioner Lahendro asked what is the concern with the ordinance. Mr. Steigman noted that it restricts the number of units one can build on a site. He noted that entrances would need to be placed in areas that could have buildings. Commissioner Lahendro asked if projects with more than 50 units need access. Mr. Steigman pointed out projects in the community. Commissioner Solla-Yates asked about the cost difference for putting in a second entrance. Mr. Steigman noted that he was planning to place 80-90 units and he felt he could only do 49 units under the current code. 2 Chair Green asked why this had not been addressed before. Mr. Duncan noted that these projects were before his time as Traffic Engineer and there had not been someone in that role for a while and some in the past did not have engineering experience. Ms. Long reiterated that Brennen said that DUA is irrelevant to the access requirements. She noted the code should be removed and allow the fire code to address. That way the zoning ordinance would not need to be updated as changes are made. Mr. Duncan clarified that at the Beacon on 5th, there was a concern when a power line fell over the only access point. There was an emergency route and he noted that he looks at the size of the site as a large factor in access point requirements. Chair Green asked if the SADM outlines multimodal options. It does. Commissioner Heaton noted that he doesn’t see a compelling argument for this to stay in the code. Chair Green pointed out that we don’t have an updated SADM yet. Mr. Craig Kotarski, Timmons Engineering, pointed out the details in Section 34-896(b) and then reviewed each subsection of that code. He did note that this section of the code does not address how access applies to commercial properties. Chair Green asked for information on AASHTO asking if it is more suburban. Mr. Duncan noted that the NACTO standards are more urban and the SADM allows for using the standard which makes the most sense for a situation. Commissioner Stolzenberg was concerned that only a few areas allow for multifamily. Chair Green asked why we don’t continue as has been done. Ms. Robertson recommended that a change be made so that staff is not in a position to look the other way. Commissioner Lahendro noted that staff should be directed to review and provide analysis Mr. Duncan noted this is the code he uses at this point so without it, he is relying on other reviewer’s codes to point out access concerns. Ms. Robertson noted some potential updates to the code (using 34-896(a) and adding reference to SADM) could address concerns. The quickest way to address would be to initiate in July and move to hearing in August. 3 There was a brief discussion on potential updates to the code. Ms. Long noted that this solution could be a short and a long term solution. Ms. Robertson noted that staff can provide a draft of the code with the initiation materials. Ms. Long thanked the Planning Commission for having this conversation. She noted this was very productive. She suggested that it may be helpful to have public comment earlier in the meeting so items may be addressed if needed. Mr. Morgan Butler, SELC, thought the meeting was productive as well and supported consideration for the public to talk more in the discussion. Commissioner Heaton did note that not all topics are conducive to back and forth discussions. Commission Stolzenberg suggested maybe having public comment at the one hour point. Ms. Robertson reminded the Commission that they wanted to schedule time in the future to talk about bylaws and meeting process. Chair Green noted a good time for that meeting may be in October after a new chair has been selected. Adjournment: 6:25 pm. 4 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT REQUEST FOR INITIATION OF A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: July 9, 2019 Project Planner: Missy Creasy, AICP & Brennen Duncan, PE Date of Staff Report: June 26, 2019 Origin of Request: Property owner request to Planning Commission Applicable City Code Provisions: Sec. 34-41 Initiation Process Whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice require, the City Council may, by ordinance, amend, supplement, or change the city’s zoning district regulations, district boundaries, or zoning district classifications of property. A zoning text amendment may be initiated by: (1) Resolution of the City Council; or (2) Motion of the Planning Commission. (See City Code §34-41(a), which is based on Virginia Code §15.2­ 2286(a) (7)). Discussion At the May 2019 Planning Commission Meeting, Mr. Trey Steigman requested that the Commission consider the initiation of a Zoning Text Amendment to change access requirements in the zoning ordinance (City Code Section 34-896) currently requires at least two vehicular points of entry if a development contains 50 or more units). Mr. Steigman is undertaking a development that will have more than 50 dwelling units, but he believes that having to satisfy a requirement for two points of vehicular access is not reasonable and does not allow for flexibility in site design. The Commission scheduled to discuss this item at the June Work Session and to make a determination on the initiation following. At the June 25, 2019 Planning Commission Work Session, this item was discussed and the Commission directed Staff to add an initiation for a text amendment to the regular July meeting agenda. Standard of Review If initiated, 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 Page 1 of 2 (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. Appropriate Motions (1) For approval: the Planning Commission may decide to initiate a zoning text amendment, by making the following motion: “I move to initiate considerations of amendments to City Code Chapter 34 (Zoning Ordinance), Article VIII, Division 4, to change code requirements pertaining to Access. (2) Decline to initiate the process. (No motion is needed; if the Commission does not adopt a motion to initiate, then the proposal will not proceed) Attachments A. Materials from the June 25, 2019 Planning Commission Work Session: https://www.charlottesville.org/home/showdocument?id=65638 Page 2 of 2 Proposed Ordinance Sec. 34-896. - Access. (a) Each development shall provide for safe and convenient ingress from and egress to one (1) or more public roads. Each entrance onto any street for vehicular traffic to and from a development shall be designed to: reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets; minimize conflict and friction with vehicular traffic on the public street, and on-site; minimize conflict with pedestrian traffic; and provide continuous and unobstructed access for emergency purposes, such as police, fire and rescue vehicles. To these ends the City’s Traffic Engineer, in the review of a site plan, may specify the number, type, and location of access points to a public street, together with such measures as may be deemed appropriate to insure adequate functioning of such access points, and may require related facilities to be provided and constructed, such as travel lanes or driveways to serve adjoining properties. The design of entrances, driveways and travel lanes shall take into account standards and design specifications referenced within the City’s Standards and Design Manual as well as any other mandatory engineering and safety requirements. (b) (c) Where discharge waters of the one hundred-year storm could reasonably be anticipated to inundate, block, destroy or otherwise obstruct the principal means of access to a development, or a portion thereof: the principal means of access shall be designed and constructed so as to provide unobstructed access at time of flooding, subject to requirements of the flood hazard overlay district; and/or alternative vehicular access available to all dwellings and not subject to flooding shall be provided. (d) . (e) . (f) Developments containing dwellings must have (i) access on a public collector or arterial street, (ii) access to a collector or arterial street within two hundred (200) feet along a public street, or (iii) access to a street which meets minimum engineering and safety criteria for two-way vehicular travel with sidewalks. The provisions of this subparagraph shall not apply to developments for which a traffic study has been conducted and provided to the City Traffic Engineer and the City Traffic Engineer confirms that the results of the traffic study show that, based on traffic projections for the development the capacity of adjacent street(s) will not be increased beyond acceptable engineering and safety standards set forth within the City’s Standards and Design Manual. (9-15-03(3); 4-20-09) Edits from Current Ordinance Sec. 34-896. - Access. (a) Each development shall provide for safe and convenient ingress from and egress to one (1) or more public roads. Each entrance onto any street for vehicular traffic to and from a development shall be , designed to: reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets; minimize conflict and friction with vehicular traffic on the public street, and on-site; minimize conflict with pedestrian traffic; and provide continuous and unobstructed access for emergency purposes, such as police, fire and rescue vehicles. To these ends the City’s Traffic Engineerdirector or the commission, in the review of a site plan, may specify the number, type, and location and design of access points to a public street, together with such measures as may be deemed appropriate to insure adequate functioning of such access points, and may require related facilities to be provided and constructed, such as travel lanes or driveways to serve adjoining properties. The design of entrances, driveways and travel lanes shall take into account standards and design specifications referenced within the City’s Standards and Design Manual as well as any other mandatory engineering and safety requirements. (b) Each entrance onto any public road for vehicular traffic to and from a development shall be subject to approval of the director or commission. All such entrances shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements and specifications set forth within the most recent version of the City of Charlottesville Standards and Design Manual. For a development of fifty (50) or more dwelling units, reasonably direct vehicular access shall be provided from all residential units to two (2) public street connections. For other residential developments, the commission may require two (2) points of access to a public street where such access is deemed warranted due to the character of the residents of such development, including but not limited to: the elderly, handicapped and developmentally disabled. (c) Where discharge waters of the one hundred-year storm could reasonably be anticipated to inundate, block, destroy or otherwise obstruct the principal means of access to a residential development, or a portion thereof: the principal means of access shall be designed and constructed so as to provide unobstructed access at time of flooding, subject to requirements of the flood hazard overlay district; and/or alternative vehicular access available to all dwellings and not subject to flooding shall be provided. (d) The commission or director may require provision for, and/or construction of, travel lanes or driveways to serve adjoining properties. (e) On-site parking and circulation shall be designed and constructed in accordance with off-street parking and loading requirements, subject to city engineer approval in accordance with sound engineering practices, including but not limited to grade, drainage and paving specifications and subject to the director's determination that the vehicular circulation patterns provided are safe and convenient . (f) Developments containing mMultifamily dwellings developments having a density greater than 43 DUA must have (i) access on a public collector or arterial street, (ii) or have access to a collector or arterial street within two hundred (200) feet along a fifty-six-foot right-of-way developed to city street standardspublic street, or (iii) access to a street which meets minimum engineering and safety criteria for two-way vehicular travel with sidewalks. The provisions of this subparagraph shall not apply to developments for which a traffic study has been conducted and provided to the City Traffic Engineer and the City Traffic Engineer confirms that the results of the traffic study show that, based on traffic projections for the development the capacity of adjacent street(s) will not be increased beyond acceptable engineering and safety standards set forth within the City’s Standards and Design Manual. (9-15-03(3); 4-20-09) Current Ordinance Sec. 34-896. - Access. (a) Each development shall provide for safe and convenient ingress from and egress to one (1) or more public roads, designed to: reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets; minimize conflict and friction with vehicular traffic on the public street, and on-site; minimize conflict with pedestrian traffic; and provide continuous and unobstructed access for emergency purposes, such as police, fire and rescue vehicles. To these ends the director or the commission, in the review of a site plan, may specify the number, type, location and design of access points to a public street, together with such measures as may be deemed appropriate to insure adequate functioning of such access points. (b) Each entrance onto any public road for vehicular traffic to and from a development shall be subject to approval of the director or commission. All such entrances shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements and specifications set forth within the most recent version of the City of Charlottesville Standards and Design Manual. For a development of fifty (50) or more dwelling units, reasonably direct vehicular access shall be provided from all residential units to two (2) public street connections. For other residential developments, the commission may require two (2) points of access to a public street where such access is deemed warranted due to the character of the residents of such development, including but not limited to: the elderly, handicapped and developmentally disabled. (c) Where discharge waters of the one hundred-year storm could reasonably be anticipated to inundate, block, destroy or otherwise obstruct the principal means of access to a residential development, or a portion thereof: the principal means of access shall be designed and constructed so as to provide unobstructed access at time of flooding, subject to requirements of the flood hazard overlay district; and/or alternative vehicular access available to all dwellings and not subject to flooding shall be provided. (d) The commission or director may require provision for, and/or construction of, travel lanes or driveways to serve adjoining properties. (e) On-site parking and circulation shall be designed and constructed in accordance with off-street parking and loading requirements, subject to city engineer approval in accordance with sound engineering practices, including but not limited to grade, drainage and paving specifications and subject to the director's determination that the vehicular circulation patterns provided are safe and convenient. (f) Multifamily developments having a density greater than 43 DUA must have access on a public collector or arterial street, or have access to a collector or arterial street within two hundred (200) feet along a fifty-six-foot right-of-way developed to city street standards. (9-15-03(3); 4-20-09) CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPT. OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MEETING DATE: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 DEVELOPMENT NAME: Gallery Court Hotel APPLICATION NUMBER: P18-00120 Reason for Planning Commission Review: Preliminary site plan reflects the proposed development of a property that is the subject of an existing or proposed special permit Project Planner: Joey Winter Date of Staff Report: July 2, 2019 Applicant: Mr. Vipul Patel, INCAAM Hotels, Inc. Applicant’s Representative: Mr. Daniel Hyer, Line + Grade Civil Engineering Owner of Record: Mr. Natvarlal Patel Application Information Property Street Address: 140 Emmet Street North (“Subject Property”) Tax Map | Parcel Number: TM 8-4 | 080004000 Site Area (per GIS): 0.585 acres (25,483 ft2) Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Plan): Public or Semi-Public Zoning District: Urban Corridor Mixed Used District (URB) Overlay District(s): Entrance Corridor Overlay Page 1 of 8 P18-00120 Gallery Court Hotel Preliminary Site Plan Vicinity Map Context Map 1 Page 2 of 8 P18-00120 Gallery Court Hotel Preliminary Site Plan Context Map 2 – Zoning Classifications Magenta: URB, Light Yellow: R-1, Light Blue Cross-Hatch: Entrance Corridor Overlay Context Map 3 - General Land Use Plan, 2013 Comprehensive Plan Yellow: Low Density Residential, Purple: Mixed Use, Light Blue: Public or Semi-Public, Hatched Area: University of Virginia (Not Subject to City of Charlottesville municipal authority) Page 3 of 8 P18-00120 Gallery Court Hotel Preliminary Site Plan Background The owner of the property addressed 140 Emmet St North, is seeking to redevelop the property as a new boutique hotel to replace the previous hotel at this site (Excel Inn & Suites) that was lost by casualty (fire) on May 4, 2017. The property is identified on City Real Property Tax Map 8 as Parcel 4 and is zoned URB, EC (Urban Corridor Mixed Use District, with Entrance Corridor Overlay). The proposed use (“hotels/motels”) is allowed by-right within the URB zoning district classification. However, an SUP was required for the project due to the proposed building height (eight (8) stories, up to 80 feet) which exceeds the 60-foot maximum building height allowed in the URB District. The site is approximately 0.585 acres or 25,483 square feet. Applicant’s Request Daniel Hyer of Line + Grade Civil Engineering, as agent for INCAAM 140, LLC and Natvarlal Patel, is seeking Planning Commission approval for the Gallery Court Hotel Preliminary Site Plan. Per City Code Sec. 34-820(d)(2), the Planning Commission shall review this preliminary site plan because it reflects the proposed development of a property that is the subject of an existing or proposed special permit. A Special Use Permit for additional building height was granted by City Council on October 1, 2018. A preliminary site plan for the Gallery Court Hotel site was submitted to the City on June 26, 2018 and went through full staff review. The Gallery Court Hotel Preliminary Site Plan was deemed ready for approval by City staff on June 11, 2019. Standard of Review Site plan approval is a ministerial function of the Planning Commission in which no discretion is involved. If the preliminary site plan contains all required information then it must be granted approval. If the Planning Commission disapproves the preliminary site plan, it shall set forth in writing the specific reasons therefor. The reasons for disapproval shall identify deficiencies in the plan which cause the disapproval, by reference to specific ordinances, laws or regulations. If the plan is disapproved, the Planning Commission must also generally identify modifications or corrections that will permit approval of the plan. Site Plan Compliance Site plans are reviewed for compliance with City codes and standards. An overview of site plan requirements and the location of those items on the site plan are outlined below. Page 4 of 8 P18-00120 Gallery Court Hotel Preliminary Site Plan Site Plan Requirements A. Compliance with applicable zoning district regulation [City Code - Sec. 34-756 to 34-760] The property lies in the Urban Corridor Mixed Use District (“URB”). The project complies with all requirements of the URB zoning district. B. Compliance with the City’s Erosion and Sediment Control ordinance [City Code - Chapter 10] The Erosion and Sediment Control plan is found on SHEETS C1.1 – C1.5 of the Gallery Court hotel Preliminary Site Plan. C. Compliance with the City’s preliminary site plan requirements [City Code Sec. 34-827(d)] The preliminary site plan shall contain the following information: REQUIREMENT SHEET 1. General site plan information, including but not limited to project, C0.0 property, zoning, site, and traffic information 2. Existing condition and adjacent property information C1.0 3. Phasing plan N/A 4. Topography and grading C2.0 & X0.0 5. Existing landscape and trees C1.0 6. Name and location of all water features N/A 7. One hundred-year flood plain limits N/A 8. Existing and proposed streets and associated traffic information C2.0 9. Location and size of existing water and sewer infrastructure X0.0 10. Proposed layout for water and sanitary sewer facilities and storm drain C3.0 – C3.3 facilities 11. Location of other existing and proposed utilities and utility easements C3.0 – C3.3 12. Location of existing and proposed ingress to and egress from the property, C2.0 showing the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection 13. Location and dimensions of all existing and proposed improvements C2.0 14. All areas intended to be dedicated or reserved for public use N/A 15. Landscape plan L1.00 - L3.00 16. Where deemed appropriate by the director due to intensity of development: a. Estimated traffic generation figures for the site based upon current ITE C0.2 rates b. Estimated vehicles per day C0.2 Page 5 of 8 P18-00120 Gallery Court Hotel Preliminary Site Plan D. Additional information to be shown on the site plan as deemed necessary by the director or Commission in order to provide sufficient information for the director or Commission to adequately review the site plan. The Special Use Permit granted by City Council on October 1, 2018 includes the following conditions for the Gallery Court Hotel project: 1. The building to be constructed for the Project shall not exceed a height of eighty (80) feet. Any proposed final site plan(s) shall include building elevations with sufficient details to allow the City to verify compliance with this condition. SHEETS A201 – A202 2. The landowner shall provide a Ubike station within the Project, funded jointly by the landowner and the University of Virginia. Prior to submission of a proposed final site plan for the Project, the landowner shall make a request to the University of Virginia, seeking the University’s participation in a written funding agreement for the Ubike station. If the University of Virginia declines to enter into a binding written agreement to fund a Ubike station within the Project prior to the City’s approval of the final site plan for the Project, then the landowner shall be excused from performing the obligation of this condition. If the University of Virginia does enter into a written agreement with the landowner to fund a Ubike station, then a copy of the written agreement shall be submitted with the landowner’s final site plan application and the location of the Ubike station will be shown within the final site plan and approved by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator prior to final site plan approval. SHEET C2.0 3. Any proposed final site plan(s) for the Project shall show a six (6) foot wide curbside buffer along Emmet St North, to be constructed and planted as part of the Project. SHEET C2.0 4. Any proposed final site plan(s) for the Project shall show a seven (7) foot wide sidewalk along the length of the Subject Property’s frontage on Emmet St North, to be constructed by the landowner to City standards as part of its development of the Project. SHEET C2.0 5. The proposed final site plan for the Project shall show a future five (5) foot wide bicycle lane along the frontage of the Subject Property on Emmet Street, with dimensions and details coordinated with the planned public improvements for the Emmet Street Streetscape Project. SHEET C2.0 Page 6 of 8 P18-00120 Gallery Court Hotel Preliminary Site Plan 6. The Project will include stormwater management providing on-site water quality treatment by using a best management practice (BMP) approved by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) (proprietary or non-proprietary). The BMP chosen by the landowner shall be identified within any proposed final site plan (with reference to both this condition and to the DEQ’s list of approved BMPs), and within the proposed Stormwater Management Plan for the Project, and shall be approved by a City Engineer prior to site plan approval. SHEETS C4.0 – C4.2 7. The Project will be designed to minimize traffic congestion on Emmet Street North resulting from the entry and exit of motor vehicles into and from the Project’s parking garage, and shall take into account planned public improvements for the Emmet Street Streetscape Project. The Project design will incorporate recommendations of the City’s Traffic Engineer, as to the desired ingress/ egress patterns (the Traffic Engineer will give consideration to right turn in only, and right turn out only) consistent with the planned public improvements for the Emmet Street Streetscape Project. The City’s Traffic Engineer reviewed and approved the Gallery Court Hotel Preliminary Site Plan. 8. The Project will include devices that will detect oncoming pedestrian traffic and that will provide a warning to motor vehicles exiting the parking garage onto Emmet Street North of that oncoming pedestrian traffic. Any proposed final site plan shall depict and identify the device(s) (including the name and manufacturer of the device(s)) that will be installed to satisfy this condition. SHEET C2.0 9. Lighting installed on the rooftop of the Project shall meet the following specifications: (i) all lighting and light fixtures shall be full cut-off luminaires, and (ii) spillover light from luminaires onto public roads and onto adjacent property shall not exceed one-half (½) foot candle. SHEETS P1.0 – P1.1 10. Parking at the Subject Property shall be restricted to use for and in connection with the operation of business(es) within the Subject Property, and by patrons of those businesses. SHEET C0.2 Page 7 of 8 P18-00120 Gallery Court Hotel Preliminary Site Plan 11. The Project shall be designed so that services required for and in connection with the operation of business(es) within the Subject Property (such as deliveries, and trash removal) shall be conducted entirely within the interior of the Project. Vehicles providing such services shall not park on any sidewalk, or within the public right-of-way adjacent to the Subject Property (inclusive of motor vehicle travel lanes, bicycle lanes, curbside buffers, and sidewalks within and adjacent to Emmet Street North). SHEET C2.0 12. The Project design shall include features or elements that will reduce the apparent height of the southwest corner of the building (the “Tower”). SHEETS A201 – A202 PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED No public comment was received during the preliminary site plan review process. STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Gallery Court Hotel Preliminary Site Plan be approved. ATTACHMENTS 1) SP18-00007 - RESOLUTION GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR ADDITIONAL BUILDING HEIGHT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 140 EMMET STREET NORTH (“GALLERY COURT HOTEL”) 2) Gallery Court Hotel Preliminary Site Plan Page 8 of 8 SP18-00007 RESOLUTION GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A D D I T I O N A L B U I L D I N G H E I G H T FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 140 EMMET STREET NORTH (“GALLERY COURT HOTEL”) WHEREAS, pursuant to City Code § 34-757(2) landowner Incaam Hotels, LLC has applied for a special use permit (“Application”) for property having an address of 140 Emmet Street North, further identified on City Tax Map 8 as Parcel 4, and consisting of approximately 25,483 square feet in area (0.585 acre) (hereinafter, the "Subject Property"); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is zoned "URB" (Urban Corridor Mixed Use District), and Entrance Corridor Overlay District); and WHEREAS, the purpose of the requested special use permit is to allow construction of a commercial project, consisting of a hotel with structured parking, and related restaurant and retail uses, within a building constructed to a maximum height of eighty (80) feet ( “Project”), pursuant to the provisions of City Code §34-757(2), said Project being more particularly described within the materials accompanying City application number SP-1800007 (the “Proposed Development”); and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the this Application was held before the Planning Commission on September 11, 2018, following notice to the public and to adjacent property owners as required by law, and on that same date the Entrance Corridor Review Board reviewed the Application materials and staff’s analysis thereof, and found that the proposed Project would have some adverse impacts on the Entrance Corridor district, and recommended certain conditions which, if imposed, could mitigate those impacts; and WHEREAS, on September 11, 2018, based on the information and materials submitted w i t h i n t h e Application, the staff report prepared by Neighborhood Development Services, the factors set forth within City Code § 34-157, and the comments received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that the Special Use Permit application should be approved by City Council, subject to certain r e a s o n a b l e conditions; and WHEREAS, on October 1, 2018, a public hearing on this Application was held before the City Council, following notice to the public and to adjacent property owners as required by law; and WHEREAS, based on the representations, information, and materials included within Applicant's Application, and upon consideration of the information and analysis set forth within the Staff Report, the factors set forth in City Code §34-157, the recommendations of the Planning Commission and Entrance Corridor Review Board, and comments received at the public hearings, this Council finds that the building height proposed for the Project is appropriate for this location under suitable conditions and safeguards; SP18-00007 NO W , T H E RE FO R E , BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, THAT a Special Use Permit is hereby granted to authorize the construction of the Project on the Subject Property, subject to the following conditions: 1. The building to be constructed for the Project shall not exceed a height of eighty (80) feet. Any proposed final site plan(s) shall include building elevations with sufficient details to allow the City to verify compliance with this condition. 2. The landowner shall provide a Ubike station within the Project, funded jointly by the landowner and the University of Virginia. Prior to submission of a proposed final site plan for the Project, the landowner shall make a request to the University of Virginia, seeking the University’s participation in a written funding agreement for the Ubike station. If the University of Virginia declines to enter into a binding written agreement to fund a Ubike station within the Project prior to the City’s approval of the final site plan for the Project, then the landowner shall be excused from performing the obligation of this condition. If the University of Virginia does enter into a written agreement with the landowner to fund a Ubike station, then a copy of the written agreement shall be submitted with the landowner’s final site plan application and the location of the Ubike station will be shown within the final site plan and approved by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator prior to final site plan approval. 3. Any proposed final site plan(s) for the Project shall show a six (6) foot wide curbside buffer along Emmet St North, to be constructed and planted as part of the Project. 4. Any proposed final site plan(s) for the Project shall show a seven (7) foot wide sidewalk along the length of the Subject Property’s frontage on Emmet St North, to be constructed by the landowner to City standards as part of its development of the Project. 5. The proposed final site plan for the Project shall show a future five (5) foot wide bicycle lane along the frontage of the Subject Property on Emmet Street, with dimensions and details coordinated with the planned public improvements for the Emmet Street Streetscape Project. 6. The Project will include stormwater management providing on-site water quality treatment by using a best management practice (BMP) approved by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) (proprietary or non-proprietary). The BMP chosen by the landowner shall be identified within any proposed final site plan (with reference to both this condition and to the DEQ’s list of approved BMPs), and within the proposed Stormwater Management Plan for the Project, and shall be approved by a City Engineer prior to site plan approval. SP18-00007 7. The Project will be designed to minimize traffic congestion on Emmet Street North resulting from the entry and exit of motor vehicles into and from the Project’s parking garage, and shall take into account planned public improvements for the Emmet Street Streetscape Project. The Project design will incorporate recommendations of the City’s Traffic Engineer, as to the desired ingress/ egress patterns (the Traffic Engineer will give consideration to right turn in only, and right turn out only) consistent with the planned public improvements for the Emmet Street Streetscape Project. 8. The Project will include devices that will detect oncoming pedestrian traffic and that will provide a warning to motor vehicles exiting the parking garage onto Emmet Street North of that oncoming pedestrian traffic. Any proposed final site plan shall depict and identify the device(s) (including the name and manufacturer of the device(s)) that will be installed to satisfy this condition. 9. Lighting installed on the rooftop of the Project shall meet the following specifications: (i) all lighting and light fixtures shall be full cut-off luminaires, and (ii) spillover light from luminaires onto public roads and onto adjacent property shall not exceed one-half (½) foot candle. 10. Parking at the Subject Property shall be restricted to use for and in connection with the operation of business(es) within the Subject Property, and by patrons of those businesses. 11. The Project shall be designed so that services required for and in connection with the operation of business(es) within the Subject Property (such as deliveries, and trash removal) shall be conducted entirely within the interior of the Project. Vehicles providing such services shall not park on any sidewalk, or within the public right-of-way adjacent to the Subject Property (inclusive of motor vehicle travel lanes, bicycle lanes, curbside buffers, and sidewalks within and adjacent to Emmet Street North). 12. The Project design shall include features or elements that will reduce the apparent height of the southwest corner of the building (the “Tower”). Approved by Council October 1, 2018 Brian Wheeler Interim Clerk of Council © 2018 - LINE+GRADE, LLC GALLERY COURT HOTEL PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA SCOPE OF WORK: THE PROPOSED WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT GENERALLY CONSISTS OF THE ERECTION OF A NEW BUILDING AND THE ASSOCIATED MINOR SITE, ROAD, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS. PROJECT INFORMATION: UTILITY OWNERS: OWNER: INCAAM 140, LLC ELECTRIC: DOMINION VIRGINIA POWER 140 EMMET ST N CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 COMM: COMCAST, CENTURYLINK, FIBERLIGHT, CONTACT: VIPUL PATEL LEVEL 3, QWEST PHONE: 434.825.2345 WATER: CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE ENGINEER: LINE + GRADE | CIVIL ENGINEERS 113 4TH STREET NE STORM SEWER: CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 CONTACT: DANIEL C. HYER, PE SANITARY SEWER: CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE PHONE: 434.262.0169 GAS: CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE SURVEYOR: PARKER DESIGN GROUP 2122 CAROLINA AVE SW ROANOKE, VA 24014 CONTACT: ROY CHAMBERS ADDT'L INFORMATION: PHONE: 540.387.1153 Ext. 106 MISS UTILITY TICKET NO.: A815102165-00A PARCEL INFO: PARCEL #: 080004000 12 DIGIT HUC CODE: 0208-0204-0401 ADDRESS: 140 EMMET ST N SPECIAL USE PERMIT: SP18-00007 ZONED: URBAN CORRIDOR (URB) WITH ENTRANCE CORRIDOR (EC) OVERLAY LEGAL AREA: 0.585 AC LAND AREAS: GALLERY COURT HOTEL PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA TITLE SHEET SHEET INDEX Sheet Number Sheet Title STANDARD C0.0 Title Sheet ABBREVIATIONS C0.1 General Notes C0.2 General Notes ABAN ABANDON ID INSIDE DIAMETER R&D REMOVE AND DISPOSE C1.0 Demolition Plan AC ACRES LA LANDSCAPED AREA R&R REMOVE AND RESET ADJ ADJUST LF LINEAR FEET R&S REMOVE AND STACK C1.1 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Phase 1 APPROX ASPH APPROXIMATE ASPHALT LOD LT LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE LEFT SB SF SOUTHBOUND SQUARE FEET CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE APPROVAL DATE C1.2 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Phase 2 C1.3 Erosion and Sediment Control Narrative  BASELINE MAX MAXIMUM SSD STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE BLDG BUILDING MIN MINIMUM STA STATION C1.4 Erosion and Sediment Control Details BM BENCHMARK ME MATCH EXISTING SW SIDEWALK C1.5 Erosion and Sediment Control Details VA STATE GRID SOUTH VA STATE GRID SOUTH ℄ CENTERLINE NIC NOT IN CONTRACT TEMP TEMPORARY Temporary Traffic Control Plan C1.6 CF CUBIC FEET N.T.S. NOT TO SCALE TRANS TRANSITION CG CURB AND GUTTER NB NORTHBOUND TYP TYPICAL C2.0 Site Plan CONC CONCRETE OC ON CENTER WB WESTBOUND N N C2.1 Specific Wall Details CONST CONSTRUCTION OD OUTSIDE DIAMETER WSEL WATER SURFACE ELEVATION C2.2 Site Sections and Details DI DROP INLET PRKG PARKING X TREE Y X" CALIPER TREE WITH Y' DND DO NOT DISTURB PROJ PROJECT CANOPY RADIUS C2.3 Site Details EB EASTBOUND PROP PROPOSED Utility Plan C3.0 PVMT PAVEMENT EL ELEVATION C3.1 Utility Profiles EX EXISTING PM PAVEMENT MARKING FND FOUNDATION REM REMOVE C3.2 Utility Details GRVL GRAVEL ROW RIGHT-OF-WAY C3.3 Utility Details T ET S HC HANDICAP RT RIGHT Stormwater Management Plan PROJECT PROJECT C4.0 EMM C4.1 VRRM Spreadsheet ALIGNMENT/GRADING LOCATION LOCATION C4.2 Stormwater Management Computations and Details ABBREVIATIONS IVY RD L1.00 Layout and Materials Plan L2.00 Planting Plan BC BACK OF CURB PT POINT OF TANGENCY BR BOTTOM OF RAMP PVC POINT OF VERTICAL CURVATURE L3.00 Planting Notes, Details, Schedule, and Calculations BW BOTTOM OF WALL PVI POINT OF VERTICAL INTERSECTION P1.0 Photometrics Plan 05/29/2019 D OR Δ DELTA ANGLE PVT POINT OF VERTICAL TANGENCY DANIEL C. HYER R RADIUS P1.1 Photometrics Details Lic. No. 45596 EP EDGE OF PAVEMENT FL FLOWLINE TAN TANGENT DISTANCE A201 Elevation Plan INV INVERT TC TOP OF CURB A202 Elevation Plan L LENGTH THT THROAT UNI TR TOP OF RAMP X0.0 SURVEY PC POINT OF CURVATURE VER PCC POINT OF COMPOUND CURVATURE TW TOP OF WALL TOTAL 29 APPROVED DCH SITY PI POINT OF INTERSECTION STA STATION OFF OFFSET SUBMITTAL NO. AVE PNT POINT SUBMITTAL LOG 4 PRC POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE Submission Description Recipient Submittal Date PROJECT 1801200 1ST SUBMISSION CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE NEIGHBORHOOD 6/26/2018 EASEMENTS 1 ACCOMPANYING SUP DEVELOPMENT SERVICES T H E W O R K O F L I N E + G R A D E CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE NEIGHBORHOOD 12/15/2018 ALL EASEMENTS (INCLUDING UTILITY EASEMENTS, PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENTS, ETC.) 2 2ND SUBMISSION DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CALLED OUT ON THE FINAL SITE PLAN SHALL BE RECORDED WITH A D.B. REFERENCE CALLED OUT AS PART OF THE FINAL AS-BUILT PLAN (PRIOR TO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ISSUANCE). CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE NEIGHBORHOOD 4/11/2019 3 3RD SUBMISSION VICINITY MAP LOCATION MAP DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SCALE: 1" = 3,000' SCALE: 1" = 500' 4 4TH SUBMISSION CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 05/29/2019 C0.0 © 2018 - LINE+GRADE, LLC GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES: UTILITIES: CONCRETE AND ASPHALT: 1. ALL CONSTRUCTION METHODS AND MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ROAD AND 1. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OR EXCAVATION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY OF LOCATING ANY AND ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES 1. ALL MATERIAL INSIDE FORMS SHALL BE CLEAN AND FREE OF ALL ROCKS AND OTHER LOOSE DEBRIS. SUB-BASE MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPACTED BY (PUBLIC OR PRIVATE) THAT MAY EXIST WITHIN OR CROSS THROUGH THE AREA OF CONSTRUCTION WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE SHOWN ON THE PLANS. MECHANICAL MEANS. BRIDGE STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS (VDOT RBS&S), VIRGINIA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK, THE RULES AND REGULATIONS WATER AND SANITARY SEWER CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS FOR THE PLAN APPROVING AUTHORITY AND ANY OTHER APPLICABLE PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CALL 'MISS UTILITY OF VIRGINIA' AT 1-800-552-7001. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE 2. CONCRETE SHALL NOT BE PLACED UNLESS THE AIR TEMPERATURE IS AT LEAST 40 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT (F) IN THE SHADE AND RISING. RESPONSIBLE FOR REPAIRING, AT HIS SOLE EXPENSE, ANY EXISTING UTILITY DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION. FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL ORDINANCES, CODES, AND LAWS. 3. CONCRETE SHALL NOT BE PLACED UNTIL STEEL DOWELS HAVE BEEN INSTALLED IN EXISTING CONCRETE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF 2. THE PLAN DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE EXISTENCE, NONEXISTENCE, SIZE, TYPE, LOCATION, ALIGNMENT, OR DEPTH OF ANY OR ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES CHARLOTTESVILLE STANDARDS. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING ALL CONDITIONS, MATERIALS, DIMENSIONS LOCATIONS AND EXISTING ELEMENTS TO REMAIN IN OR OTHER FACILITIES. WHERE SURFACE FEATURES (MANHOLES, CATCH BASINS, VALVES, ETC.) ARE UNAVAILABLE OR INCONCLUSIVE. INFORMATION SHOWN THE FIELD BEFORE PROCEEDINGS WITH ANY WORK. IF CONDITIONS VARY FROM WHAT IS REPRESENTED IN THE DRAWINGS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAY BE FROM UTILITY OWNER'S RECORDS AND/OR ELECTRONIC LINE TRACING, THE RELIABILITY OF WHICH IS UNCERTAIN. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL 4. 1/2 " PREMOLDED EXPANSION JOINT MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED AT A MAXIMUM OF 30' INTERVALS ON NEW SIDEWALK, CURB, CURB & GUTTER, AT IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ENGINEER. PERFORM TEST EXCAVATIONS OR OTHER INVESTIGATION AS NECESSARY TO VERIFY LOCATION AND CLEARANCES. EACH END OF DRIVEWAY ENTRANCES, AT EACH END OF HANDICAP RAMPS, SOME POINT ON ENTRANCE WALKS AND STEPS ADJUSTMENTS, AND ALONG BUILDINGS AND WALLS WHERE NEW CONCRETE SIDEWALKS ARE PLACED AGAINST THEM. 3. EXISTING CONSTRUCTION SHOWN IN THESE DRAWINGS SHALL BE USED AS RELATIVE REFERENCES AND ARE TO BE VERIFIED IN THE FIELD BY THE 3. WHEN THE WORK CROSSES EXISTING UTILITIES, THE EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED AND PROTECTED FROM THE DAMAGE DUE TO CONTRACTOR IF DEEMED CRITICAL FOR PROPER EXECUTION OF THE WORK. THE WORK. ALL METHODS FOR SUPPORTING AND MAINTAINING THE EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE RESPECTIVE UTILITY COMPANY 5. ALL EXISTING CURBS, CURB & GUTTER, SIDEWALK AND STEPS TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE TAKEN OUT TO THE NEAREST JOINT. DEMOLITION AND AND/OR THE ENGINEER. CONTRACTOR SHALL EXERCISE CARE TO INSURE THAT THE GRADE AND ALIGNMENT OF EXISTING UTILITIES ARE MAINTAINED AND DISPOSAL COST TO BE INCLUDED IN OTHER UNIT BID ITEMS. NO SEPARATE PAYMENT WILL BE MADE FOR THIS WORK. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DUST CONTROL MEASURES. THAT NO JOINTS OR CONNECTIONS ARE DISPLACED. BACKFILL SHALL BE CAREFULLY PLACED AND COMPACTED TO PREVENT FUTURE DAMAGE OR 6. EXISTING ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT SHALL BE SAW CUT AND REMOVED AS PER THE SPECIFICATIONS. REMOVAL SHALL BE DONE IN SUCH A SETTLEMENT TO EXISTING UTILITIES. ANY UTILITIES REMOVED AS PART OF THE WORK, AND NOT INDICATED TO BE REMOVED OR ABANDONED, SHALL BE MANNER AS TO NOT TEAR, BULGE OR DISPLACE ADJACENT PAVEMENT. EDGES SHALL BE CLEAN AND VERTICAL, ALL CUTS SHALL BE PARALLEL OR 5. PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROTECTION FOR THE EXISTING BUILDINGS, BUILDING OCCUPANTS, VEHICLES AND PEDESTRIANS AT ALL TIMES IN ACCORDANCE RESTORED USING MATERIALS AND INSTALLATION EQUAL TO THE UTILITY'S STANDARDS. PERPENDICULAR TO THE DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC. WITH OSHA AND ALL APPLICABLE STATE AND LOCAL CODES. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY LANDOWNERS, TENANTS AND THE ENGINEER A MINIMUM OF 72 HOURS PRIOR TO THE INTERRUPTION OF ANY SERVICES. 7. DISPOSAL OF ALL EXCESS AND DEMOLITION MATERIAL IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. 6. MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT SHALL BE STORED IN APPROVED AREAS TO PREVENT IMPACTS ON VEHICLES AND PEDESTRIANS. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SERVICE INTERRUPTIONS SHALL BE KEPT TO A MINIMUM. FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR MEASURES TAKEN TO ENSURE VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY THROUGH THE ENTIRE DURATION OF THE WORK. SAFETY 5. CONTRACTOR TO MAKE ANY NECESSARY ADJUSTMENTS TO ALL UTILITY JUNCTION BOXES, VALVE BOXES, MANHOLES, CLEAN-OUTS, AND OTHER GRADE IS PARAMOUNT. RELATED ITEMS IN SIDEWALK, ROADWAY, AND/OR ADJACENT AREAS TO MATCH FINISHED GRADE. COSTS ARE TO BE INCLUDED UNDER THE VARIOUS UNIT 7. EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS SHALL BE STORED IN DESIGNATED AREAS AND SHALL NOT ENCUMBER THE OWNER'S OPERATIONS, SURROUNDING RIGHT BID ITEMS. NO SEPARATE PAYMENT WILL BE MADE. TOP OF SANITARY OF WAY, OR ADJOINING GROUNDS. 6. PER THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WATERWORKS REGULATIONS (PART II, ARTICLE 3, SECTION 12 VAC 5-590 THROUGH 630), ALL BUILDINGS THAT SEWER MANHOLE 8. ALL WORK AREAS SHALL BE CLEANED DAILY. HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF CONTAMINATING THE POTABLE WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (HOSPITALS, INDUSTRIAL SITES, BREWERIES, ETC.) SHALL HAVE A SURVEY BENCHMARK BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE INSTALLED WITHIN THE FACILITY. THIS DEVICE SHALL MEET SPECIFICATIONS OF THE VIRGINIA UNIFORM STATEWIDE N: 3902696.69 9. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTION OF BUILDINGS ADJACENT TO WORK AREAS. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL BUILDING CODE, SHALL BE TESTED IN REGULAR INTERVALS AS REQUIRED, AND TEST RESULTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE REGULATORY COMPLIANCE E: 11481172.29 COSTS OF DAMAGES RESULTING FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. ADMINISTRATOR IN THE DEPARTMENT OF UTILITIES. ELEV: 494.69 10. SECTION CUTS AND DETAIL CALLOUTS INDICATED IN THE DRAWINGS ARE TYPICAL FOR THE PROJECT. THEY ARE TO BE CONSIDERED TYPICAL FOR SIMILAR 7. ALL BUILDINGS THAT MAY PRODUCE WASTES CONTAINING MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED (100) PARTS PER MILLION OF FATS, OIL, OR GREASE SHALL INSTALL 29 A GREASE TRAP. THE GREASE TRAP SHALL MEET SPECIFICATIONS OF THE VIRGINIA UNIFORM STATEWIDE BUILDING CODE, MAINTAIN RECORDS OF CLEANING . S . R OUTE NORTH CONDITIONS AND HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN EVERYWHERE THEY APPLY. U REET AND MAINTENANCE, AND BE INSPECTED ON REGULAR INTERVALS BY THE REGULATORY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR IN THE DEPARTMENT OF UTILITIES. M M ET ST 11. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR JOB SITE SAFETY. E 8. CONTACT THE REGULATORY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR AT 970-3032 WITH ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE GREASE TRAP OR BACKFLOW PREVENTION N49 12. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATION OF ALL CONSTRUCTION. DEVICES. ° 38 '5 13. SYMBOLS IN THE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO SCALE. 13.9 3.47"E PARCEL INFO 54 14. ALL WORK SHALL BE LAID-OUT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF NEW WORK BASED ON MEASUREMENT OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION AND EXISTING EARTH WORK AND SITE CONDITIONS: 140 EMMET ST N, LOT 2A INCAAM 140, LLC CONSTRUCTION DESIGNATED TO REMAIN AS PART OF THE PROJECT. DO NOT START INSTALLATION OF WORK UNTIL LAY-OUT IS COMPLETE AND POTENTIAL 1. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON THE PLANS, ALL CUTS AND FILLS SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 3:1. PARCEL ID: 080004000 9' SURVEYED AREA: 0.574 AC 176.0EL BOUNDA CONFLICTS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AND ADDRESSED. RY 2. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE PLANS OR IN THE SPECIFICATIONS, ALL FILL MATERIALS SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 95% OF THEORETICAL MAXIMUM " E D.B. 300, PG. 439 43'4 1 PARC BENCHMARK AT OUTERMOST ZONING: URB N 15 15. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DAMAGE TO THE EXISTING BUILDINGS AND ADJACENT GROUNDS AND PROPERTY CAUSE BY DENSITY AS DETERMINED BY AASHTO T-99 METHOD A, WITHIN PLUS OR MINUS 2% OF OPTIMUM MOISTURE, FOR THE FULL WIDTH AND THE DEPTH OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER THE CARELESSNESS OR NEGLECT OF HIS WORKMEN. DAMAGE TO PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY NOT SUBJECT TO WORK UNDER THE CONTRACT SHALL BE FILL. TOP OF SANITARY OF PROPOSED BUILDING PRESENT USE: HOTEL REPAIRED TO THE FULL SATISFACTION OF THE OWNER AND ENGINEER, AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. SEWER MANHOLE (ABANDONED) 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ADD, CHANGE, OR RELOCATE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS AT THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE E&S 16. PROTECTION OF THE WORK: PROTECT EFFECTIVELY ALL MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT DURING THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION. REPLACE INSPECTOR TO THEIR SATISFACTION AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER. 1" = 10': 0 10 20 MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT DAMAGED, LOST OR STOLEN WITHOUT ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER. 4. ALL GRADING AND IMPROVEMENTS TO BE CONFINED TO THE PROJECT AREA UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. GENERAL SURVEY NOTES: N GALLERY COURT HOTEL PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 17. PROTECT EXISTING MATERIALS DURING INSTALLATION OF TEMPORARY PROTECTION AND CONSTRUCTION. DO NOT DEFACE OR REMOVE EXISTING 5. PROPOSED GRADES SHALL BE FIELD ADJUSTED TO CONFORM TO THE INTENT OF THE TYPICAL SECTIONS. A SMOOTH GRADE SHALL BE MAINTAINED FROM MATERIALS IF INTENDED TO STAY. ATTACHMENTS OF TEMPORARY PROTECTION TO EXISTING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER THE BASELINE TO THE PROPOSED EDGE OF PAVEMENT OR FACE OF CURB TO PRECLUDE THE FORMING OF FALSE GUTTERS AND/OR PONDING OF WATER ON 1. BASIS OF DATUM: GPS DERIVED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. ALL PAVED SURFACES. VIRGINIA SOUTH ZONE 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN A SMOOTH GRADE TO THE PROPOSED EDGE OF PAVEMENT OR FACE OF CURB TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINGE ON ALL PAVED VA 4502 - NAD83 18. OBTAIN ENGINEER REVIEW AND WRITTEN APPROVAL IN THE FORM OF A CONSTRUCTION CHANGE DIRECTIVE OR SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION BEFORE SURFACES. ANY AREAS WHERE WATER IS IMPOUNDED SHALL BE CORRECTED BY CONTRACTOR AT NO ADDITIONAL COST. POSITIVE DRAINAGE OF ALL MAKING CHANGES OR ADDITIONS TO CONSTRUCTION OR REMOVING MATERIALS THAT WERE INTENDED TO REMAIN. ROADWAY AREAS TO THE STORM DRAIN INLETS OR OTHER ACCEPTABLE DRAINAGE CHANNELS AS NOTED ON THE PLANS IS REQUIRED. 2. BENCHMARKS: (SEE IMAGES ABOVE) 19. NOTIFY ENGINEER OF VISIBLE CHANGES IN THE INTEGRITY OF MATERIALS OR COMPONENTS WHETHER DUE TO ENVIRONMENTAL CAUSES INCLUDING 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN EXISTING STREAMS, DITCHES, DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, CULVERT AND FLOWS AT ALL TIMES DURING THE WORK. BIOLOGICAL ATTACK, UV DEGRADATION, FREEZING OR THAWING OR DUE TO STRUCTURAL DEFECTS INCLUDING CRACKS, MOVEMENT OR DISTORTION. DO NOT PROCEED WITH WORK IN QUESTION UNTIL DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. CONTRACTOR SHALL PAY FOR ALL PERSONAL INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE WHICH MAY OCCUR AS A RESULT OF FAILING TO MAINTAIN ADEQUATE DRAINAGE. SUGGESTED CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING: 20. WHERE MISSING FEATURES ARE INDICATED TO BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED, PROVIDE FEATURES WHOSE DESIGNS ARE BASED ON ACCURATE 8. ALL PIPES, DI'S AND OTHER STRUCTURES SHALL BE INSPECTED BY THE ENGINEER BEFORE BEING BACKFILLED OR BURIED. THE ENGINEER MAY REQUIRE 1. PROTECT ADJACENT AREAS FROM DAMAGE DUE TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. DUPLICATIONS RATHER THAN ON CONJECTURAL DESIGNS, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER. CONTRACTOR, AT NO ADDITIONAL COST, TO UNCOVER AND RE-COVER SUCH STRUCTURES IF THE HAVE BEEN BACKFILLED OR BURIED WITHOUT SUCH 2. INSTALL PERIMETER CONTROL MEASURES AS INDICATED ON PLANS INCLUDING SAFETY FENCE, SILT FENCE, AND TREE PROTECTION. INSPECTION. CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 21. WHERE WORK REQUIRES EXISTING FEATURES TO BE REMOVED, CLEANED AND REUSED, PERFORM THESE OPERATIONS WITHOUT DAMAGE TO THE 3. CLEAR AND GRUB EXISTING GROUND COVER AND DEMOLISH EXISTING ITEMS MARKED FOR DEMOLITION. MATERIALS THEMSELVES, TO ADJACENT MATERIALS, OR TO THE SUBSTRATE. WHEN CLEANING, MATCH SAMPLES OF EXISTING MATERIALS THAT HAVE 9. ALL STORM CHANNELS, DRAINS, AND SEWER SYSTEMS SHALL BE CLEANED UPON COMPLETION OF THE PROPOSED WORK. SEDIMENT, CHEMICALS, AND/OR 4. GRADE SITE TO FINAL GRADES PER PLANS. GENERAL NOTES DEBRIS REMOVED FROM THESE SYSTEMS SHALL BE REMOVED AND DISPOSED OF PROPERLY. 5. FORM AND INSTALL CONCRETE WORK. BEEN CLEANED AND IDENTIFIED FOR ACCEPTABLE CLEANING LEVELS. AVOID OVER CLEANING TO PREVENT DAMAGE TO EXISTING MATERIALS DURING CLEANING. 6. STABILIZE ALL AREAS AND REPAIR ANY EROSION AND REMOVE ANY SEDIMENT. 22. TEMPORARY MATERIALS MAY BE NEW OR USED, BUT MUST BE ADEQUATE IN FOR REQUIRED USAGE, MUST NOT CREATE UNSAFE CONDITIONS AND MUST MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC: 7. 8. INSTALL REMAINING SITE FEATURES. DRESS AND OVERSEED ALL DISTURBED AREAS AS NECESSARY TO AFFECT PERMANENT VEGETATIVE COVER. NOT VIOLATE REQUIREMENTS OF APPLICABLE CODES AND STANDARDS. 1. TEMPORARY STREET CLOSURE PERMIT REQUIRED FOR CLOSURE OF SIDEWALKS, PARKING SPACES AND ROADWAYS AND IS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE 9. REMOVE PERIMETER CONTROL MEASURES. 23. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN ADEQUATE FIRE PROTECTION IN THE FORM OF FIRE EXTINGUISHER OR OTHER EFFECTIVE MEANS OF CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE TRAFFIC ENGINEER. EXTINGUISHING FIRE, READY FOR INSTANT USE, DISTRIBUTED AROUND THE PROJECT AND IN AND ABOUT TEMPORARY, INFLAMMABLE STRUCTURES 2. THE VIRGINIA WORK AREA PROTECTION MANUAL AND THE MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (MUTCD) SHALL GOVERN ALL TEMPORARY DURING CONSTRUCTION OF WORK. EXISTING FIRE HOSE CONNECTIONS SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE AT ALL TIMES BY FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL. TRAFFIC CONTROL OPERATIONS THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT. ADHERENCE TO APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE MANUAL IS REQUIRED MATERIAL SAND DEBRIS SHALL NOT BE STORED IN FRONT OF THE CONNECTION, THUS PREVENTING ACCESS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE OF THE CONTRACTOR EVEN THOUGH DETAILED REFERENCE TO ALL SUCH PROVISIONS MAY NOT BE CONTAINED IN THE PLANS. ACCESS PROCEDURES WITH THE FIRE MARSHALL. GENERAL NOTES 3. ALL EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL ENTRANCES SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT ALL TIMES, UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. 24. GASOLINE AND OTHER FLAMMABLE LIQUIDS SHALL BE STORED AND DISPENSED FROM UL LISTED SAFETY CONTAINERS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE NATIONAL BOARD OF FIRE UNDERWRITERS' RECOMMENDATIONS. 4. NO TEMPORARY PAVEMENT MARKING SHALL BE ALLOWED ON THE FINAL ASPHALT SURFACE COURSE. 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ALL LANES OF TRAVEL OPEN FROM 6:30 AM TO 9:00 AM AND 3:00 PM TO 5:00 PM UNLESS DEEMED UNNECESSARY BY 25. SUBMITTALS ARE NOT REQUIRED IF CONTRACTOR ELECTS TO USE THE PROPRIETARY PRODUCTS LISTED. SUBMITTALS WILL BE REQUIRED IF CONTRACTOR THE ENGINEER. SHORT PERIODS OF ONE WAY FLAGGING OPERATIONS MAY BE CONDUCTED OUTSIDE THE HOURS MENTIONED ABOVE. WISHES TO USE ALTERNATE PRODUCTS. ALL ALTERNATE PRODUCTS ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER AND OWNER. 6. ALL TRAFFIC SIGNALS SHALL BE ADJUSTED AS DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO ANY TRAFFIC CHANGES. 26. CONTRACTOR SHALL CALL MISS UTILITY AT 1-800-552-7001 BEFORE CONSTRUCTION COMMENCES. 7. WHEN WORK IN THE EXCAVATION AREA IS DISCONTINUED FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, AS AT NIGHT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BACKFILL THE CUT AREAS 27. TREE AND PLANT ROOTS OR BRANCHES THAT MAY INTERFERE WITH THE WORK SHALL BE TRIMMED OR CUT ONLY WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE OWNER ADJACENT TO THE BUSTING PAVEMENT WITH A 'FILLET OF MATERIAL'. THE FILLET SHALL BE COMPOSED OF THE SAME MATERIAL (EXCAVATION, BORROW, AND ENGINEER. ANY TREES OR PLANTS WHICH ARE SHOWN TO REMAIN THAT DO NOT INTERFERE WITH THE WORK, BUT ARE DAMAGED BY CONTRACTOR BASE COURSE, ETC.) ALL COSTS FOR PLACING AND REMOVING THIS FILLET OF MATERIAL SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE PRICE BID FOR OTHER BID ITEMS OF WORK ON THIS PROJECT, AND NO ADDITIONAL CHARGE WILL BE ALLOWED. OR HIS SUB-CONTRACTORS, SHALL BE REPLACED BY CONTRACTOR AT NO ADDITIONAL COST. 8. EXISTING SURFACE, AGGREGATE BASE AND SUBBASE MATERIAL WHICH WILL BE DEMOLISHED OR OBLITERATED DURING CONSTRUCTION AND WHICH IS SUITABLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC AS DETERMINED BY THE ENGINEER, SHALL BE SALVAGED AND UTILIZED FOR MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC PRIOR TO WORK AREA PROTECTION AND MAINTENANCE: THE USE OF COMMERCIAL MATERIAL. WHEN NOT SPECIFIED AS A SEPARATE PAY ITEM, THE REMOVAL AND SALVAGING OF EXISTING SURFACES AND AGGREGATE BASE AND SUBBASE MATERIAL WILL BE MEASURED AND PAID FOR AS REGULAR EXCAVATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 303 OF THE VDOT 1. CLEARING AND GRUBBING SHALL BE CONFINED TO THOSE AREAS NEEDED FOR CONSTRUCTION, AND AS SHOWN IN THE DRAWINGS. ROAD AND BRIDGE SPECIFICATIONS. 2. DISTURBED AREAS BEYOND THE ROADWAY CURB AND WHERE INDICATED ON THE PLANS SHALL RECEIVE TOPSOIL AS NECESSARY AND AS DIRECTED. 9. CONSTRUCT ALL INTERSECTIONS AND DRIVEWAYS UNDER TRAFFIC. SEEDING MIXTURE SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE VIRGINIA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK SECTION 3.32 10. IF USED, TEMPORARY TRAFFIC BARRIER SERVICE SHALL BE INSTALLED AND REMOVED SO AS NOT TO PRESENT ANY BLUNT END OR HAZARD TO THE 3. CONTRACTOR IS PERMITTED TO WORK IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND ANY TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT EASEMENT SHOWN ON THE PLANS. MOTORING PUBLIC. HOWEVER, CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY PROPERTY OWNER(S) FORTY-EIGHT (48) HOURS PRIOR TO WORKING ON ANY PRIVATE PROPERTY TO COORDINATE 11. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY TRANSIT PROVIDERS A MINIMUM OF TWO WEEKS PRIOR TO ANY IMPACT OR DISRUPTION TO REGULAR SERVICE OR STOPS. ACCESS AND TO DETERMINE A STORAGE AREA FOR MATERIALS IF NEEDED. COORDINATION OF ACCESS TO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND STORAGE OF MATERIALS THEREON SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE ENGINEER. CONTRACTOR'S FAILURE TO NOTIFY AND COORDINATE WITH PROPERTY OWNERS 12. ALL EXISTING PAVEMENT MARKINGS CONFLICTING WITH PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION PAVEMENT MARKINGS (IF USED) SHALL BE ERADICATED. AND/OR THE ENGINEER MAY RESULT IN DELAYS. NO ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION OR TIME FOR PERFORMANCE WILL BE GIVEN FOR ANY SUCH DELAYS. 13. INSTALLATION AND REMOVAL OF TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SECTION 6G.25 OF THE WORK AREA 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL, AT HIS EXPENSE, MAINTAIN THE WORK SITE IN A CLEAN AND ORDERLY APPEARANCE AT ALL TIMES. ALL DEBRIS AND SURPLUS PROTECTION MANUAL. MATERIAL COLLECTED SHALL BE DISPOSED OF OFF THE WORK SITE BY CONTRACTOR, AT HIS EXPENSE. 14. USE APPROPRIATE SIGNS TO SHIFT PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC AS NEEDED. 5. EXISTING LAWNS, TREES, SHRUBS, FENCES, UTILITIES, CULVERTS, WALLS, WALKS, DRIVEWAYS, POLES, SIGNS, RIGHT-OF-WAY MONUMENTS, MAILBOXES 15. CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSURE ENDS OF TEMPORARY CONCRETE BARRIER (IF USED) DO NOT OBSTRUCT INTERSECTION SIGHT LINES. AND THE LIKE SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM DAMAGE DURING THE WORK. ANY DAMAGE CAUSED TO SUCH ITEMS SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED BY CONTRACTOR AT NO ADDITIONAL COST. PROPERTY PINS DISTURBED BY CONTRACTOR THAT ARE NOT SHOWN ON THE PLANS TO BE DISTURBED SHALL BE 05/29/2019 6. RESTORED BY LICENSED SURVEYOR AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. MEASURES TO CONTROL EROSION AND SEDIMENT SHALL BE PROVIDED PURSUANT TO AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL FIRE PREVENTION: DANIEL C. HYER Lic. No. 45596 REGULATIONS. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND/OR APPROVAL OF THE PLANS SHALL IN NO WAY RELIEVE THE 1. SMOKING SHALL ONLY BE ALLOWED IN DESIGNATED SPACES WITH PROPER RECEPTACLES. "NO SMOKING" SIGNS SHALL BE POSTED AT EACH BUILDING SITE CONTRACTOR OR HIS AGENT OF ANY LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY WHICH MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE CODE OF VIRGINIA OR ANY ORDINANCE ENACTED BY THE AND WITHIN EACH BUILDING DURING CONSTRUCTION PER VIRGINIA STATEWIDE FIRE PREVENTION CODE. SMOKING WILL ONLY BE ALLOWED OUTSIDE THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE NECESSARY DIVERSION DITCHES, DIKES, OR TEMPORARY CULVERTS REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCTION SAFETY FENCE. PREVENT MUD AND DEBRIS FROM BEING WASHED ONTO THE STREETS OR ADJACENT PROPERTY. CONTRACTOR'S VEHICLES SHALL BE KEPT CLEAN TO 2. OVERHEAD WIRING OR OTHER OVERHEAD OBSTRUCTIONS SHALL NOT BE LOWER THAN 13 FEET 6 INCHES OVER A PUBLIC STREET PER THE VIRGINIA PREVENT MUD OR DUST FROM BEING DEPOSITED ON STREETS. NO AREA SHALL BE LEFT DENUDED FOR MORE THAN SEVEN (7) CALENDAR DAYS. STATEWIDE FIRE PREVENTION CODE. 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL CLEAN UP, RESTORE, SEED AND MAINTAIN ALL DISTURBED AREAS IMMEDIATELY UPON COMPLETION OF WORK. TOPSOIL SEED, 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THAT BUILDING STREET NUMBERS ARE PLAINLY VISIBLE FROM THE FRONTAGE STREET AT ALL TIMES DURING CONSTRUCTION APPROVED DCH FERTILIZER AND MULCH SHALL BE PLACED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE STANDARDS ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS. A PERMANENT FOR EMERGENCY RESPONDERS, PER VIRGINIA STATEWIDE FIRE PREVENTION CODE. STAND OF GRASS ADEQUATE TO PREVENT EROSION SHALL BE ESTABLISHED PRIOR TO FINAL ACCEPTANCE. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS SUBMITTAL NO. 4 SHALL BE REMOVED WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE PROJECT IS STABILIZED. (MS-18) 4. AN APPROVED WATER SUPPLY FOR FIRE PROTECTION SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE AS SOON AS COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS ARRIVE ON SITE. WASTE AND COMBUSTIBLE DEBRIS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE BUILDING AT THE END OF EACH DAY AND DISPOSED OF IN ACCORDANCE WITH VIRGINIA STATEWIDE PROJECT 1801200 8. FOR FURTHER REQUIREMENTS AND DETAILS OF TREE PRESERVATION, PLANTING, EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL, REFER TO THE VIRGINIA EROSION FIRE PREVENTION CODE. AND SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK. 5. OPERATIONS INVOLVING THE USE OF CUTTING AND WELDING SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 35 OF THE VIRGINIA STATEWIDE FIRE T H E W O R K O F 9. AN EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION (E.S.C.C.C) IS REQUIRED FOR ALL LAND DISTURBANCE ACTIVITIES. PREVENTION CODE. L I N E + G R A D E 10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROPERLY INSTALL AND MAINTAIN EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS FOR THE LIFE OF THE PROJECT; AND ROUTINELY CHECK 6. FIRE EXTINGUISHERS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH NOT LESS THAN ONE APPROVED PORTABLE FIRE EXTINGUISHER AT EACH STAIRWAY ON ALL FLOOR LEVELS CONTROL DEVICES BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER STORM EVENTS. WHERE COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS HAVE ACCUMULATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE VIRGINIA STATEWIDE FIRE PREVENTION CODE. 7. VEHICULAR ACCESS FOR FIRE FIGHTING SHALL BE PROVIDED AT ALL CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION SITES AND TO WITHIN 100 FEET OF TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONS. VEHICULAR ACCESS SHALL BE CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING FIRE APPARATUS AND VEHICLE LOADING UNDER ALL WEATHER CONDITIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE VIRGINIA STATEWIDE FIRE PREVENTION CODE. C0.1 © 2018 - LINE+GRADE, LLC RIVANNA WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY (RWSA) LOT COVERAGE: GENERAL WATER & SANITARY SEWER NOTES: TOTAL SURVEYED LOT AREA: PRE-DEVELOPMENT IMPERVIOUS AREA: 24,983 SF (0.57 AC) 24,666 SF (0.57 AC) PERCENT OF LOT: 98.73% 1. ALL MATERIALS AND METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LATEST VERSION OF THE GENERAL WATER AND SEWER DESIGN AND PRE-DEVELOPMENT PERVIOUS AREA: 317 SF (0.01 AC) CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS - VERSION 1.0, ADOPTED IN DECEMBER 2015, EXCEPT AS MODIFIED BELOW OR MODIFIED IN SPECIAL NOTES. PERCENT OF LOT: 1.27% 2. RWSA SHALL APPROVE ALL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION. A PRECONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE SHALL BE HELD POST-DEVELOPMENT IMPERVIOUS AREA: 23,622 SF (0.54 AC) WITH RWSA PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY WORK. PERCENT OF LOT: 94.55% 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR NOTIFYING MISS UTILITY (1-800-552-7001). POST-DEVELOPMENT PERVIOUS AREA: 1,361 SF (0.03 AC) PERCENT OF LOT: 5.45% 4. RWSA ENGINEER (VICTORIA FORT AT (434) 977-2970 EXT. 205) SHALL BE NOTIFIED THREE BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. 5. ALL WORK IS SUBJECT TO INSPECTION BY RWSA STAFF. NO TIE-INS TO THE EXISTING SYSTEM SHALL BE MADE WITHOUT COORDINATION WITH AND THE PRESENCE OF RWSA STAFF. NO WORK SHALL BE CONDUCTED ON RWSA FACILITIES ON WEEKENDS OR HOLIDAYS WITHOUT SPECIAL WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM RWSA. 6. FOR SANITARY SEWER LINE CONSTRUCTION: RWSA MAY REQUIRE BYPASS PUMPING FOR TIE-INS TO THE EXISTING SYSTEM. ALL DOGHOUSE MANHOLES MUST BE PRESSURE-TESTED BEFORE A CONNECTION IS MADE TO THE SYSTEM. 7. THE LOCATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS IS FROM DATA AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF DESIGN AND IS NOT NECESSARILY COMPLETE OR ACCURATE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VERIFICATION OF THE LOCATION, SIZE AND DEPTH OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES, BOTH SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE PLANS AND FIELD CONDITIONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL USE DUE DILIGENCE TO PROTECT ALL UTILITIES AND STRUCTURES FROM DAMAGE AT ALL TIMES, WHETHER SHOWN ON THE PLANS OR NOT. DAMAGE TO ANY EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE REPAIRED BY THE CONTRACTOR TO THE ORIGINAL CONDITION AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER. 8. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED IN THE RWSA EASEMENT WITHOUT SPECIAL WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM RWSA. NO GRADING SHALL BE PERMITTED IN THE RWSA EASEMENT UNLESS PERMITTED OTHERWISE BY RWSA IN WRITING. 9. NO BLASTING SHALL BE PERMITTED WITHIN 100 FEET OF RWSA FACILITIES WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION AND RWSA APPROVAL OF THE BLASTING PLAN. GROUND MONITORING DURING BLASTING AND A PRE-BLAST SURVEY MAY BE REQUIRED. FOR BLASTING WITHIN 100 FEET OF ANY OPERATIVE RWSA SEWERLINES, BYPASS PUMPING AND/OR PRE- AND POST-CCTV MAY BE REQUIRED. RWSA MAY ALSO REQUIRE CERTIFICATION FROM A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER STATING THAT THE PROPOSED BLASTING WILL NOT DAMAGE ANY RWSA FACILITIES. DAMAGE TO ANY UTILITIES DUE TO BLASTING SHALL BE REPAIRED BY THE CONTRACTOR TO THE ORIGINAL CONDITION AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER. 10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBSERVE MINIMUM SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS FOR UTILITY CROSSINGS. WHEN A CROSSING IS MADE UNDER AN EXISTING FACILITY, ADEQUATE STRUCTURAL SUPPORT SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR THE EXISTING PIPE. THE AREA OF THE CROSSING SHALL BE BACKFILLED WITH COMPACTED 57 STONE TO THE SPRINGLINE OF THE EXISTING PIPE. 11. NEW WATER MAIN INSTALLATIONS SHALL BE PRESSURE TESTED, CHLORINATED, FLUSHED AND HAVE WATER SAMPLES APPROVED PRIOR TO MAKING ANY PERMANENT CONNECTION TO THE PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM. APPROVED METHODS OF FILLING AND FLUSHING NEW WATER MAINS WILL BE REQUIRED TO PREVENT ANY CONTAMINATION OF THE PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM. 12. ALL EASEMENTS FOR NEW RWSA FACILITIES SHALL BE RECORDED PRIOR TO PLACING THE NEW FACILITIES INTO SERVICE. 13. NO PERMANENT STRUCTURAL FACILITIES WILL BE PERMITTED IN THE RWSA EASEMENT. THIS INCLUDES BUILDING OVERHANGS, RETAINING WALLS, FOOTERS FOR ANY STRUCTURE, DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, ETC. 14. TREES ARE NOT PERMITTED IN THE RWSA EASEMENT. GALLERY COURT HOTEL PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA GENERAL NOTES 05/29/2019 DANIEL C. HYER Lic. No. 45596 NOTE: AVAILABLE FIRE FLOW TO BE CALCULATED WHEN TEST INFORMATION IS RECEIVED. APPROVED DCH SUBMITTAL NO. 4 PROJECT 1801200 T H E W O R K O F L I N E + G R A D E C0.2 © 2018 - LINE+GRADE, LLC e r n sew PIPE " s a AIN ex. 8 Rector and Visitors of UVA I T Y GAS M EX. GAS SERVICE RM . 6 " C (CAPPED BY FIRE DEPT.) Parcel ID: 080009000 EX P STO Book: 2018:3768 Zoning: URB Present Use: Under Construction CAP AND ABANDON EX. GAS 15" RC Subject to proposed Ivy Corridor Plan SERVICE LINE AT MAIN PRIOR TO ANY OTHER DEMOLITION WORK DI WL ORTH SSMH #5 A #29 " RWS ROUT E N TOP=495.00 EX. 16 U.S. E E T INV. IN=484.75 E STR TH T60' ROW WID INV. OUT=484.60 R TH OFO STMH #3 E M M REMOVE EXISTING PROTECT BRIDGE ABUTMENT D D I R E ED N O CTLY IRECTED T WATER METER AND N S TALLEANS TO B EE SCH1E.E6.T GRATE TOP=494.59 BE I R I .S A LK DEMOLISH CONNECTION R TO E. PEDEST ROSSING SIDEW INV.=491.79 RR IE C PIPE BACK TO VALVE AT MAIN BA BRIDG E FOR M CURB CP STOR R OAD RAIL ODWIN B RIDG 15" R REMOVE EXISTING SANITARY ALK SIDEW O MANHOLE AND CONNECTION THE G SIDEWALK CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE DEMOLITION OF CLOSED E STMH #4 M PIP WATER MAIN WITH CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE REMOVE AND STORE EXISTING TO R GRATE TOP=494.77 CP S AND RWSA. SEE SHEET C3.0 FOR ADDITIONAL CAT BUS STOP SIGN 15" R INV.=491.62 NOTES AND DETAILS RELOCATE POWER POLE. (30" x 18") CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE WITH ABANDON SANITARY SEWER DEMOLISH AND REMOVE DOMINION AND C&O RAILROAD WALL PIPE DOWNSTREAM OF LIMITS SANITARY SEWER PIPE AND REMOVE EXISTING OF PROPOSED WORK STRUCTURES UPSTREAM OF SAWCUT EXISTING RETAINING WALLS PROPOSED LIMITS OF WORK PAVEMENT 365 LF PROTECT EXISTING RETAINING WALL AND POWER POLE SSMH #1 WALL EXISTING FIRE LINE TO BE WALL REMOVE EXISTING TOP=494.69 DEMOLISHED BACK TO VALVE AT MAIN CURB ENTRANCE INV. IN (LATERAL)=492.66 6 .09' EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT TO BE W E R PIPE 4 3 ' 4 1" E 17 BENCHMARK AT INV. OUT=490.93 RELOCATED. SEE DEMOLITION NOTE 3. SE N 15 PAVED AREA P VC SAN. TOP OF SANITARY REMOVE EXISTING SIDEWALK 8" SEWER MANHOLE ALONG EMMET STREET (1272 SF) 46.3' TER PLAN DISCONNECT POWER SUPPLY. ALK CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE SIDEW WITH DOMINION EXISTING PLANTER TO SAWCUT EXISTING BE REMOVED (TYP) 21.7' SIDEWALK 5 LF A DI WL GATE IN SAFETY FENCE CES EXISTING LIGHT POLE DEMOLISH EXISTING CURB 5 SPA S TO BE REMOVED " R W ONCE BUILDING IS REMOVED, EX. 16 TER BUILDING PLAN STABILIZE EXISTING SLOPE IRF (AS REQUIRED, COORDINATE WITH C&O RAILROAD) 4.4' GALLERY COURT HOTEL PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN E ALK E W E R PIP SIDEW .S C SAN RAMP 8 " P V CE S LP 13TREE20 3 SPA E 18 8.29' SIDEWALK 3HOLLY5 " 39'43 17.3' CLOSED EXISTING PLANTER N 15 DO NOT DISTURB EXISTING PATH TO BE REMOVED C & O RAILROAD 16TREE25 (30" x 18") EXISTING ASPHALT TO REMAIN UNTIL 3.8' WIDTH UNKNOWN PERIMETER EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS ARE ESTABLISHED CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 3HOLLY4 DEMOLITION PLAN IN, AND THE FACT THAT THE BUILDING DANGEROUS STATE THE BUILDING WAS REMOVE ALL SITE DILAPIDATED. UNABLE TO GET SOME WAS DEEMED UNSAFE BY THE FIRE APPURTENANCES MARSHAL AT THE TIME OF THE (BUILDING BURNED BADLY AND 514 2 STORY STUCCO AND FRAME LOCATIONS BECAUSE OF THE SEE TREE PROTECTION NOTE TP SITY METAL CHAIN LINK PAVED AREA NIVER TO 513 AT U SAFETY FENCE L ED IANS B E I NSTAL T PEDESTR 6. RS TO IREC T C1. SURVEY.) 512 ARRIE CTION TO D . SEE SHEE UNABLE TO GET BUILDING INFO BECAUSE PED . B SE N AREA IS TOO DANGEROUS TO BE NEAR N TE R ECTIO AVE. I AT INTERS 3HOLLY4 LP CROS S 511 W 122.37' 510 6 SPACES 2TREE5 3TREE6 509 64.0' 5 SPACES 508 S 60 47'18" E 162.59' N 55 59'35" DEMOLITION NOTES: 507 RAMP 3HOLLY5 1. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE AND RWSA MUST INSPECT ALL 506 DEMOLITION AND CONNECTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH WATER 132 EMMET ST N MAIN. RECTOR AND VISITORS OF UVAREMOVE PLANTINGS 2. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE AND RWSA MUST BE NOTIFIED A PARCEL ID: 080005000 505 MINIMUM OF 3 BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO INSPECTIONS. DEED BOOK 1157, PAGE 795 3. CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT REMAINS ZONING: URB OPERATIONAL UNTIL PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT IS INSTALLED 504 PRESENT USE: VACANT 5 SPACES AND OPERATIONAL. 2HOLLY4 4MAG6 503 PLANTER 29.7' TREE PROTECTION NOTES: 502 APROXIMATE LIMITS OF 9.8' BUILDING BASEMENT 1. PLEASE NOTE, IN AREAS WHERE THE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS OR EXISTING CONDITIONS (I.E.: SIDEWALK, CURB, ETC.) 501 ENCROACH WITHIN THE TREE PROTECTION THE TREE PLANTER PLANTER CURB REMOVE PROTECTION HAS BEEN TRUNCATED AT A LOGICAL LOCATION. EXISTING CURB 28.3' 2. SPECIFIC PLANTINGS NOT CALLED OUT TO BE PROTECTED TP ARE BELOW THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SIZE NECESSITATING PROTECTION. DEMOLITION LEGEND 43.6' REMOVE ALL SITE APPURTENANCES 140 EMMET ST N, LOT 2A 05/29/2019 INCAAM 140, LLC DANIEL C. HYER PARCEL ID: 080004000 AREA OF GENERAL DEMOLITION/EXCAVATION Lic. No. 45596 SURVEYED AREA: 0.574 AC D.B. 300, PG. 439 CONCRETE REMOVAL ZONING: URB 5 SPACES PRESENT USE: HOTEL (ABANDONED) PROTECT EXISTING TREE LIMITS OF ASPHALT REMOVAL REMOVE SANITARY SEWER CHECK-VALVE/GRINDER PUMP. CONCRETE EXISTING FENCE CONTRACTOR TO ABANDON APPURTENANCE, LATERAL, APPROVED DCH AND LATERAL CONNECTION AT EXISTING MAIN IN ABANDON EXISTING WELL AND WELL LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE ACCORDANCE WITH STANDARD CITY PRACTICES. CONNECTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBMITTAL NO. 4 STANDARD CITY PRACTICES. 4BIRCH12 24ASH30 PLANTING REMOVAL PROJECT 1801200 S 29 05'00" W 181.47' T H E W O R K O F UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA GROUNDS 18ASH25 RECTOR AND VISITORS OF UVA L AT SANITARY APPURTENANCE PAVEMENT SAWCUT L I N E + G R A D E PARCEL ID: NONE N TOP = 494.56' ZONING: NONE SPECIFIED . SA (UNABLE TO OPEN) WELL WITH DWV RISER PRESENT USE: ATHLETIC FIELD EX METAL CHAIN LINK FENCE DEMOLITION PLAN C1.0 N 1 1" = 10' 10 20 © 2018 - LINE+GRADE, LLC e r n sew PIPE " s a AIN ex. 8 Rector and Visitors of UVA 495 I T Y GAS M RM "C Parcel ID: 080009000 EX. 6 P STO Book: 2018:3768 Zoning: URB Present Use: Under Construction 15" RC Subject to proposed Ivy Corridor Plan CONTRACTOR TO PLACE CURB INLET PROTECTION ON NEXT DOWNSTREAM INLET WL H SA DI 5 SSMH #5 T 49 W 6 29 O R TOP=495.00 EX. 16 " R 49 UTE # N U.S. R RO EE T INV. IN=484.75 S T INV. OUT=484.60 495 TH OFO ET WIDT H R EMM OW Y N O T 60' R R ECTL DIRECTED D I STMH #3 D E TALLEANS TO B EE SCH1E.E6.T GRATE TOP=494.59 I N S I BE R .S A LK R TO E. PEDEST ROSSING SIDEW INV.=491.79 RR IE C M PIPE BA BRIDG E FOR P STOR CURB R OAD RAIL ODWIN B RIDG R C ALK 15" SIDEW O THE G SIDEWALK STMH #4 495 CLOSED E TO R M PIP GRATE TOP=494.77 CP S INV.=491.62 15" R (30" x 18") WALL SAF SF 176.09' 4 3 '41" E BENCHMARK AT N 15 TOP OF SANITARY 495 49 SEWER MANHOLE 5 SAF SF WL 495 R W S A DI CURB GATE IN SAFETY FENCE " EX. 16 IRF EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN PHASE 1 GALLERY COURT HOTEL PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN E ALK E W E R PIP SIDEW . S " P V C SAN 8 LP 13TREE20 29' " E 188. SIDEWALK 39'43 CLOSED N 15 CE C & O RAILROAD 16TREE25 (30" x 18") EXISTING ASPHALT TO REMAIN UNTIL WIDTH UNKNOWN PERIMETER EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS ARE ESTABLISHED CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 514 SEE TREE PROTECTION NOTE TP SITY NIVER TO 513 AT U L ED IANS B E I NSTAL T PEDESTR 6. RS TO IREC T C1. 512 D . B ARRIE CTION TO D . SEE SHEE PE SE N N TE R ECTIO AVE. I AT INTERS LP CROS S 511 W 122.37' 510 2TREE5 3TREE6 509 SILT FENCE METAL CHAIN LINK SAFETY FENCE 508 S 60 47'18" E 162.59' N 55 59'35" CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE 507 506 132 EMMET ST N RECTOR AND VISITORS OF UVA 495 PARCEL ID: 080005000 505 DEED BOOK 1157, PAGE 795 ZONING: URB 504 PRESENT USE: VACANT 4MAG6 503 SAF 502 SF TREE PROTECTION NOTES: 501 1. PLEASE NOTE, IN AREAS WHERE THE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS OR EXISTING CONDITIONS (I.E.: SIDEWALK, CURB, ETC.) TP ENCROACH WITHIN THE TREE PROTECTION THE TREE PROTECTION HAS BEEN TRUNCATED AT A LOGICAL LOCATION. 2. SPECIFIC PLANTINGS NOT CALLED OUT TO BE PROTECTED DEWATERING DEVICE, ARE BELOW THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SIZE NECESSITATING AS REQUIRED. OUTFALL PROTECTION. TO SILT FENCE BREAK. SAF 05/29/2019 140 EMMET ST N, LOT 2A INCAAM 140, LLC DANIEL C. HYER PARCEL ID: 080004000 ESC LEGEND Lic. No. 45596 SURVEYED AREA: 0.574 AC D.B. 300, PG. 439 ZONING: URB SF SILT FENCE PRESENT USE: HOTEL (ABANDONED) SAF METAL CHAIN LINK SAFETY FENCE APPROVED DCH TP TREE PROTECTION SUBMITTAL NO. 4 4BIRCH12 4 24ASH30 49 LOD LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE PROJECT 1801200 S 29 05'00" W 181.47' T H E W O R K O F UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA GROUNDS 18ASH25 DIVERSION DIKE RECTOR AND VISITORS OF UVA SILT FENCE BREAK HIGH POINT SILT FENCE BREAK L I N E + G R A D E 494 SEE DETAIL5/C1.5 SEE DETAIL5/C1.5 DIVERSION DIKE PARCEL ID: NONE ZONING: NONE SPECIFIED 493 SF PRESENT USE: ATHLETIC 4FIELD 93 SAF SF SILT FENCE BREAK 492 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN PHASE 1 C1.1 N 1 1" = 10' 10 20 © 2018 - LINE+GRADE, LLC e r n sew PIPE " s a AIN ex. 8 Rector and Visitors of UVA I T Y GAS M RM "C Parcel ID: 080009000 EX. 6 P STO Book: 2018:3768 Zoning: URB Present Use: Under Construction PROP. 6" PVC SAN. LATERAL 15" RC Subject to proposed Ivy Corridor Plan DI WL ORTH SSMH #5 A #29 " RWS ROUT E N TOP=495.00 EX. 16 U.S. E E T INV. IN=484.75 T60' ROW WID STR TH INV. OUT=484.60 495 M E STMH #3 EM 49 5 GRATE TOP=494.59 A LK SIDEW E INV.=491.79 PERMANENT SEEDING ON ALL TO R M PIP NON-LANDSCAPED DISTURBED AREAS CURB CP S 15" R SIDEW ALK E STMH #4 TO R M PIP GRATE TOP=494.77 495 TW 501.90 CP S INV.=491.62 15" R 5.24 TC 49 WALL 176.09' 4 3 '41" E BENCHMARK AT 496 5.40 495 N 15 TOP OF SANITARY TC 49 495.36 SEWER MANHOLE UNISEX 495.40 495.46 PANTRY STORAGE 495.54 TW 501.90 495.46 502 DI WL A CURB 500.28 X. 16 " RWS 495.58 E IRF 495.54 495.55 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN PHASE 2 GALLERY COURT HOTEL PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN ALK CHARGING 503 E E W E R PIP SIDEW STATION . S " P V C SAN 8 504 VESTIBULE MECHANICAL/ LP 13TREE20 ELECTRICAL E 18 8.29' " 39'43 N 15 506 505 C & O RAILROAD 16TREE25 NOTE TO CONTRACTOR: WIDTH UNKNOWN CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL CRANE OPERATIONS IN VICINITY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA OF RAILROAD PROPERTY WITH C&O 507 RAILROAD REPRESENTATIVE. SEE TREE PROTECTION NOTE TP 508 MECHANICAL/ ELECTRICAL 509 LP CHARGING W 122.37' 510 STATION 2TREE5 3TREE6 511 S 60 47'18" E 162.59' N 55 59'35" 495 512 495.94 496.03 132 EMMET ST N RECTOR AND VISITORS OF UVA PARCEL ID: 080005000 PROTECT PERVIOUS PAVERS FROM SEDIMENT 513 DEED BOOK 1157, PAGE 795 UNTIL ENTIRE SITE IS STABILIZED TO THE 6" PVC UNDERDRAIN ZONING: URB SATISFACTION OF THE CITY E&S INSPECTOR. PRESENT USE: VACANT 514 4MAG6 TP SF TREE PROTECTION NOTES: 495 1. PLEASE NOTE, IN AREAS WHERE THE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS CONTRACTOR SHALL FLUSH ALL DRAIN OR EXISTING CONDITIONS (I.E.: SIDEWALK, CURB, ETC.) TW 497.05 ENCROACH WITHIN THE TREE PROTECTION THE TREE LINES AFTER FINAL STABILIZATION. 495.58 DECORATIVE STONE SHALL BE PLACED PROTECTION HAS BEEN TRUNCATED AT A LOGICAL LOCATION. AFTER FINAL STABILIZATION. 140 EMMET ST N, LOT 2A 2. SPECIFIC PLANTINGS NOT CALLED OUT TO BE PROTECTED 05/29/2019 INCAAM 140, LLC ARE BELOW THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SIZE NECESSITATING DANIEL C. HYER PARCEL ID: 080004000 PROTECTION. Lic. No. 45596 SURVEYED AREA: 0.574 AC D.B. 300, PG. 439 VESTIBULE ZONING: URB ESC LEGEND LOD PRESENT USE: HOTEL (ABANDONED) SF SILT FENCE 495.45 TRASH STORAGE APPROVED DCH SF LOD EC-2 MATTING SUBMITTAL NO. 495 4 TW 497.05 TW 497.05 498.61 4BIRCH12 24ASH30 PROJECT 1801200 TP TREE PROTECTION S 29 05'00" W 181.47' T H E W O R K O F UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA GROUNDS 495 499 18ASH25 4 49 498 RECTOR AND VISITORS OF UVA L I N E + G R A D E 497 WEIR ELEV: 494.19 LOD LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE PARCEL ID: NONE 496 494 494 495 ZONING: NONE SPECIFIED PRESENT USE: ATHLETIC FIELD 493 493 494.99 SF EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN PHASE 2 C1.2 N 1 1" = 10' 10 20 © 2018 - LINE+GRADE, LLC EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL NARRATIVE: MAINTAIN A CLEAN SITE FREE OF TRASH AND DEBRIS AND LIMIT SEDIMENT AND CONCENTRATED DISCHARGES DRAINING TO THE CHANNEL EMBANKMENTS. ADDITIONAL CONTROLS NOT SHOWN HERE MAY BE NECESSARY AT CERTAIN PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER OR CITY OF MAINTENANCE: CHARLOTTESVILLE E&S INSPECTOR. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE CLOSELY WITH THE RAILROAD COMPANY AND THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS WHEN INSTALLING THE PROPOSED RETAINING WALL ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE SITE, AND STABILIZE THIS AREA AS EARLY AS IS PRACTICAL. IN GENERAL, ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE CHECKED DAILY AND AFTER EACH RAINFALL EVENT GREATER THAN 0.25 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: INCHES. MEASURES SHOULD BE CLEANED AND REPAIRED ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING SCHEDULE AND THE VIRGINIA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL THIS PROJECT CONSISTS OF SITE AND UTILITY WORK TO SUPPORT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-STORY HOTEL, WHICH COVERS THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE HANDBOOK. THE FOLLOWING WILL BE CHECKED IN PARTICULAR: PROPERTY. THE DISTURBANCE AREA ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT IS ±32,011 SF (0.73 AC). IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT THE WORK WILL START IN THE FALL EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES: OF 2019 AND LAST 16-18 MONTHS. REFER TO THIS SHEET FOR A LIST OF PROPOSED EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES TO BE USED ON SITE. 1. THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES AND CONSTRUCTION ROAD STABILIZATION AREAS SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH WILL PREVENT TRACKING OR FLOW OF MUD ONTO PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY THROUGH PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH ADDITIONAL STONE AND/OR WASHING AND EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS: PERMANENT STABILIZATION: REWORKING OF EXISTING STONE. THE SITE CONSISTS OF AN EXISTING TWO STORY BUILDING WITH EXTENSIVE FIRE DAMAGE AND ASSOCIATED PAVED PARKING LOT EXTENDING TO THE THE SITE WILL BE STABILIZED THROUGH THE USE OF PERMANENT SEEDING, STONE AND RIPRAP, LANDSCAPING, AND PAVEMENT. SEEDING INFORMATION, PROPERTY BOUNDARIES. THE SITE IS VERY FLAT, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE OFFSITE WORK AREAS THAT WILL BE IMPACTED (SEE BELOW) SLOPES WITHIN DATES AND AMENDMENTS ARE INCLUDED ON THE PLANS. SOIL TESTING SHALL BE COMPLETED THE CONTRACTOR TO DETERMINE THE SUITABILITY OF 2. SEDIMENT DEPOSITS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM SILT FENCE AFTER EACH RAINFALL. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL DEPOSITS BE ALLOWED TO THE SITE RANGE FROM 0% TO 4%, WHILE OFFSITE SLOPES RANGE FROM 2% TO 50%. EXISTING SOILS AND THE NEED FOR ANY SOIL AMENDMENTS TO ENSURE THAT PERMANENT SEEDING WILL GROW EFFECTIVELY. ACCUMULATE ABOVE HALF THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE. DAMAGED OR UNDERCUT SILT FENCE SHALL BE REPAIRED IMMEDIATELY. SHOULD SILT FENCE BECOME INEFFECTIVE OR REACH THE END OF THE EXPECTED USEABLE LIFE, FABRIC SHALL BE REPLACED IMMEDIATELY. UPON SILT FENCE REMOVAL, ADJACENT AREAS: STORM WATER RUNOFF CONSIDERATIONS: DRESS ANY SEDIMENT DEPOSITS TO CONFORM WITH EXISTING GRADE AND SEED. THE PROPOSED PROJECT FRONTS EMMET STREET ALONG THE WEST EDGE OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS AN EXISTING ROAD WITH CURB AND GUTTER EDGE STORMWATER RUNOFF DURING CONSTRUCTION WILL BE DIRECTED THROUGH APPROPRIATE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS TO CLEAN WATER BEFORE 3. INLET PROTECTION SHALL BE CHECKED REGULARLY FOR SEDIMENT. IF EXCESSIVE SEDIMENT IS PRESENT, OR IF EXCESSIVE PONDING OCCURS AFTER TREATMENT. TO THE NORTH, THE SITE ABUTS A RIPRAP EMBANKMENT SUPPORTING A RAILROAD, WHICH IS PARTIALLY RETAINED BY EXISTING TIMBER WALLS DISCHARGING TO AN ADEQUATE OUTFALL PROTECTED FROM EROSION AND SEDIMENT AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. SEE SHEETS C4.0-C4.2 FOR THE PROPOSED RAINFALL, THE STONE SHALL BE PULLED AWAY AND CLEANED OR REPLACED. ON SITE. TO THE SOUTH AND EAST IS UNIVERSITY PROPERTY ZONED URB THAT CONTAINS A STORM SEWER OUTFALL CHANNEL, WHICH FEEDS AN UNNAMED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IN THE ULTIMATELY PROPOSED CONDITION. TRIBUTARY OF MEADOW CREEK. 4. STONE USED IN CULVERT INLET PROTECTION SHALL BE INSPECTED REGULARLY FOR CLOGGING AND REPLACED AS NEEDED TO MAINTAIN FULL MAINTENANCE: FUNCTIONALITY. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL SEDIMENT BE ALLOWED TO ACCUMULATE ABOVE ONE-HALF OF THE HEIGHT OF THE INLET OFF-SITE AREAS: ALL E&S MEASURES SHALL BE INSPECTED REGULARLY AS REQUIRED BY STATE STANDARDS AND MAINTAINED IN GOOD WORKING ORDER. REQUIRED REPAIRS PROTECTION. ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED AND UPSTREAM AREAS PERMANENTLY STABILIZED BEFORE THIS CONTROL IS REMOVED. DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT, DISTURBANCE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES IS ANTICIPATED. THE OFFSITE DISTURBANCE WILL BE LIMITED TO SHALL BE MADE IMMEDIATELY. SEE THE MAINTENANCE NARRATIVE ON THIS SHEET FOR SPECIFIC MAINTENANCE ITEMS AND INSPECTION TIMES. 5. CHECK DAMS SHALL BE INSPECTED REGULARLY TO ENSURE THE CENTER OF THE DAM IS LOWER THAN THE EDGES. SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED THE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. OFFSITE WORK WILL BE LIMITED TO SUBTLE GRADE ADJUSTMENTS, AND THE SURFACE WHEN IT REACHES ONE HALF THE HEIGHT OF THE DAM. TREATMENT WILL REMAIN UNCHANGED IN THE ULTIMATE CONDITION. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED FOR THESE AREAS (SEE SHEETS C1.1-C1.2). ANY AND ALL LANDSCAPING THAT IS REMOVED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES SHALL BE REPLACED IN KIND, AS SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPING PLANS. UNSUITABLE MATERIALS RESULTING FROM THE PROPOSED WORK SHALL BE HAULED FROM THE SITE AND DISPOSED OF AT AN EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES: 6. ANY SOIL WITHIN TREE PROTECTION AREAS THAT IS INADVERTENTLY COMPACTED SHALL BE AERATED WITH AN IRON BAR EVERY 18 INCHES TO A DEPTH OF 12 INCHES. PHYSICAL DAMAGE TO TREES SHALL BE REPAIRED AS OUTLINED IN THE VIRGINIA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK SECTION UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES LISTED BELOW, AND ANY OTHER EROSION CONTROL PRACTICES APPROVED DISPOSAL SITE PERMITTED SEPARATELY FROM THIS PROJECT. REQUIRED SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AND MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MINIMUM STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS OF THE LATEST EDITION OF 3.38. TREES THAT ARE STRESSED OR DAMAGED SHALL RECEIVE AN APPROPRIATE APPLICATION OF FERTILIZER TO AID RECOVERY. THE VIRGINIA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REGULATIONS AND VIRGINIA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK, OR CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE 7. ALL SEEDED AREAS WILL BE CHECKED REGULARLY TO SEE THAT A GOOD STAND IS MAINTAINED. AREAS SHOULD BE FERTILIZED AND RESEEDED AS SOILS: STANDARDS, WHICHEVER ARE MORE STRINGENT. SEE THE USDA SOILS DELINEATION MAP ON THIS SHEET. NEEDED. 8. ALL TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT MEASURES SHALL BE DISPOSED OF WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER FINAL SITE STABILIZATION IS ACHIEVED CRITICAL AREAS: SAFETY FENCE - 3.01 AND VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED. FINAL SITE STABILIZATION SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE OWNER AFTER THE INSPECTOR HAS DETERMINED THAT THE THE CRITICAL AREAS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED WORK CONSIST OF THE STEEP RAILWAY EMBANKMENT TO THE NORTH OF THE SITE, AND THE A PROTECTIVE BARRIER INSTALLED TO PREVENT ACCESS TO AN EROSION CONTROL MEASURE OR CONSTRUCTION SITE. SITE IS STABILIZED. EXISTING CHANNEL TO THE SOUTH AND EAST OF THE SITE. ALTHOUGH THE EXISTING CHANNEL SHALL NOT TO BE DISTURBED WITH THIS PROJECT, IT HAS BEEN KNOWN TO EXPERIENCE OCCASIONAL BANKFULL FLOW CONDITIONS; THEREFORE THE CONTRACTOR SHALL LIMIT DISTURBANCE AND HEAVY EQUIPMENT WORK ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICAL. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO TAKE EXTRA CARE TO TEMPORARY STONE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE - 3.02 A STABILIZED STONE PAD WITH A FILTER FABRIC UNDERLINER LOCATED AT POINTS OF VEHICULAR INGRESS AND EGRESS ON A CONSTRUCTION SITE. MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES: THE FOLLOWING SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE FOR THIS SILT FENCE - 3.05 USDA SOIL MAP A TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BARRIER CONSISTING OF A SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRIC STRETCHED ACROSS AND ATTACHED TO SUPPORTING POSTS AND ENTRENCHED. PROJECT AND SHALL APPLY TO ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES WITHIN PROJECT LIMITS. 1. CONSTRUCTION WILL BE SEQUENCED SO THAT TRENCHING AND EXCAVATION OPERATIONS CAN BEGIN AND END AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. 2. SOIL STOCKPILES WILL BE PROTECTED WITH APPROPRIATE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES. STOCKPILES REMAINING FOR MORE THAN 14 DAYS SHALL STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION - 3.07 BE TEMPORARILY SEEDED. A SEDIMENT FILTER OR AN EXCAVATED IMPOUNDING AREA AROUND A STORM DRAIN DROP INLET OR CURB INLET. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL USE APPROPRIATE CONSTRUCTION METHODS TO MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE ALONG MANAGED SLOPES AND EXISTING STEEP SLOPES WHERE EROSION HAZARD IS HIGH. TEMPORARY DIVERSION DIKE - 3.09 A TEMPORARY RIDGE OF COMPACTED SOIL CONSTRUCTED AT THE TOP OR BASE OF A SLOPING DISTURBED AREA. 4. ALL STORM SEWER INLETS THAT ARE MADE OPERABLE DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PROTECTED WITH INLET PROTECTION SO THAT SEDIMENT-LADEN WATER CANNOT ENTER THE CONVEYANCE SYSTEM. ROCK CHECK DAMS - 3.20 5. PREVIOUSLY GRASSED AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED AND STRAW MULCHED IMMEDIATELY AFTER TRENCHING OPERATION. GALLERY COURT HOTEL PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN SMALL TEMPORARY STONE DAMS CONSTRUCTED ACROSS A SWALE OR DRAINAGE DITCH. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NARRATIVE 6. ALL THE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INSPECTED 48 HOURS AFTER EVERY RAIN EVENT GREATER THAN 0.25 INCHES AND EVERY 5 DAYS EVEN IF A RAIN EVENT DOES NOT OCCUR. REQUIRED REPAIRS SHALL BE MADE AS NEEDED TO MAINTAIN DESIGNED STANDARD. TEMPORARY SEEDING - 3.31 THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A TEMPORARY VEGETATIVE COVER ON DISTURBED AREAS THAT WILL NOT BE BROUGHT TO FINAL GRADE FOR PERIODS OF 30 DAYS 7. PERMANENT VEGETATION SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED ESTABLISHED UNTIL A GROUND COVERED IS ACHIEVED THAT IS UNIFORM, MATURE ENOUGH TO TO ONE YEAR BY SEEDING WITH APPROPRIATE RAPIDLY-GROWING ANNUAL PLANTS. SURVIVE AND WILL INHIBIT EROSION. 8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES. PERMANENT SEEDING - 3.32 THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PERENNIAL VEGETATIVE COVER BY PLANTING SEED ON ROUGH-GRADED AREAS THAT WILL NOT BE BROUGHT TO FINAL GRADE FOR A YEAR OR MORE OR WHERE PERMANENT VEGETATIVE COVER IS NEEDED ON FINE-GRADED AREAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MINIMUM STANDARD COMPLIANCE: TECHNICAL BULLETIN NO. 4: NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT SITES. MS-1 HAVE TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT STABILIZATION BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE NARRATIVE? HAVE THE PROPOSED PRACTICES BEEN SHOWN ON MULCHING - 3.35 THE PLAN? YES CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA APPLICATION OF PLANT RESIDUES OR OTHER SUITABLE MATERIALS TO DISTURBED SURFACES TO PREVENT EROSION AND REDUCE OVERLAND FLOW SEED SPECIFICATION YES MULCHING YES GRAVEL YES VELOCITIES. FOSTERS PLANT GROWTH BY INCREASING AVAILABLE MOISTURE AND PROVIDING INSULATION AGAINST EXTREME HEAT OR COLD. SHOULD BE MS-2 HAS STABILIZATION OF SOIL STOCKPILES BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE NARRATIVE? YES. APPLIED TO ALL SEEDING OPERATION, OTHER PLANT MATERIALS WHICH DO NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE SOIL PROTECTION BY THEMSELVES, AND BARE AREAS WHICH CANNOT BE SODDED DUE TO THE SEASON BUT WHICH STILL NEED PROTECTION TO PREVENT SOIL LOSS. IS SEDIMENT TRAPPING MEASURES PROVIDED? YES. MS-3 HAS MAINTENANCE OF PERMANENT STABILIZATION BEEN ADDRESSED? YES. SOIL STABILIZATION BLANKETS AND MATTING - 3.36 MS-4 ARE SEDIMENT TRAPPING FACILITIES TO BE CONSTRUCTED AS A FIRST STEP IN LDA? YES. THE INSTALLATION OF A PROTECTIVE COVERING (BLANKET) OR A SOIL STABILIZATION MAT ON A PREPARED PLANTING AREA OF A STEEP SLOPE, CHANNEL, OR SHORELINE. MS-5 HAS STABILIZATION OF EARTHEN STRUCTURES BEEN ADDRESSED? YES. GENERAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES: TREE PRESERVATION & PROTECTION - 3.38 MS-6 ARE SEDIMENT BASINS REQUIRED WHERE NEEDED? NO. N/A. MS-7 HAS STABILIZATION OF CUT AND FILL SLOPES BEEN ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED? YES. PROTECTION OF DESIRABLE TREES FROM MECHANICAL AND OTHER INJURY DURING LAND DISTURBING AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. ES-1: UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, ALL VEGETATIVE AND STRUCTURAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES WILL BE CONSTRUCTED AND MS-8 ARE PAVED FLUMES, CHANNELS OR SLOPED DRAINS REQUIRED WHERE NECESSARY? NO. N/A. MAINTAINED ACCORDING TO MINIMUM STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS OF THE VIRGINIA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK AND MS-9 HAS STABILIZATION THROUGH SURFACE ROUGHENING OR OUTLET PROTECTION BEEN ADDRESSED? YES. VIRGINIA REGULATIONS VR 625-02-00 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REGULATIONS (4VAC50-30). MS-10 IS ADEQUATE INLET PROTECTION REQUIRED ON ALL OPERATIONAL STORM SEWER INLETS? YES. ES-2: THE PLAN-APPROVING AUTHORITY MUST BE NOTIFIED ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE, ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY, AND ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE FINAL INSPECTION. THE NAME OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND MS-11 HAS MAINTENANCE OF PERMANENT STABILIZATION BEEN ADDRESSED? YES. DISTURBER MUST BE PROVIDED TO THE PLAN-APPROVING AUTHORITY PRIOR TO ACTUAL ENGAGEMENT IN THE LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITY SHOWN ON MS-12 ARE IN STREAM CONSTRUCTION MEASURES REQUIRED SO THAT CHANNEL DAMAGE IS MINIMIZED? NO. N/A. THE APPROVED PLAN. IF THE NAME IS NOT PROVIDED PRIOR TO ENGAGING IN THE LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITY, THE PLAN'S APPROVAL WILL BE REVOKED. MS-13 ARE TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSINGS OF NON-ERODIBLE MATERIAL REQUIRED WHERE APPLICABLE? NO. N/A. ES-3: ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES ARE TO BE PLACED PRIOR TO OR AS SOON AS THE FIRST STEP IN CLEARING. MS-14 THIS REGULATION REQUIRES THAT ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO WORKING IN OR CROSSING LIVE WATERCOURSES BE FOLLOWED. NO. N/A. ES-4: A COPY OF THE APPROVED EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN SHALL BE MAINTAINED ON THE SITE AT ALL TIMES. MS-15 HAS RESTABILIZATION OF AREAS SUBJECT TO INSTREAM CONSTRUCTION BEEN ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED? NO. N/A ES-5: PRIOR TO COMMENCING LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES IN AREAS OTHER THAN INDICATED ON THESE PLANS (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO OFF SITE BORROW OR WASTED AREAS), THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT A SUPPLEMENTARY EROSION CONTROL PLAN TO THE OWNER FOR REVIEW AND MS-16 IS STABILIZATION OF UTILITY TRENCHES ADDRESSED? YES. APPROVAL BY THE PLAN APPROVING AUTHORITY. MS-17 IS THE TRANSPORT OF SOIL AND MUD ONTO PUBLIC ROADWAYS PROPERLY CONTROLLED? (I.E. CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES, WASH RACKS, ES-6: THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLATION OF ANY ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES NECESSARY TO PREVENT EROSION AND DAILY CLEANING OF ROADWAYS, TRANSPORT OF SEDIMENT TO A TRAPPING FACILITY) YES. SEDIMENTATION AS DETERMINED BY THE PLAN APPROVING AUTHORITY. MS-18 HAS THE REMOVAL OF TEMPORARY PRACTICES BEEN ADDRESSED? YES. ES-7: ALL DISTURBED AREAS ARE TO DRAIN TO APPROVED SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES AT ALL TIMES DURING LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES AND HAS MAINTENANCE OF PRACTICES BEEN ADDRESSED? (I.E. REPAIR OF STRUCTURES AND REMOVAL OF ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT) YES. DURING SITE DEVELOPMENT UNTIL FINAL STABILIZATION IS ACHIEVED, AFTER WHICH, UPON APPROVAL OF THE PLAN-APPROVING AUTHORITY, THE CONTROLS SHALL BE REMOVED. TRAPPED SEDIMENT AND THE DISTURBED SOIL AREAS RESULTING FROM THE REMOVAL OF TEMPORARY MEASURES MS-19 ARE PROPERTIES AND WATERWAYS DOWNSTREAM FROM DEVELOPMENT ADEQUATELY PROTECTED FROM EROSION AND SEDIMENT DEPOSITION SHALL BE PERMANENTLY STABILIZED TO PREVENT FURTHER EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION. DUE TO INCREASES IN PEAK STORM WATER RUNOFF? YES. ES-8: DURING DEWATERING OPERATIONS, WATER WILL BE PUMPED INTO AN APPROVED FILTERING DEVICE. ES-9: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AT LEAST EVERY 2 WEEKS AND IMMEDIATELY AFTER EACH RUNOFF-PRODUCING SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION: RAINFALL EVENT. ANY NECESSARY REPAIRS OR CLEANUP TO MAINTAIN THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE EROSION CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE MADE IMMEDIATELY. 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONDUCT A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH THE PLAN APPROVING AUTHORITY PRIOR TO ANY LAND DISTURBANCE OR E&S CONTROL INSTALLATIONS. ES-10: THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAILY REMOVAL OF SEDIMENT THAT HAS BEEN TRANSPORTED ONTO A PAVED OR PUBLIC ROAD SURFACE. 2. INSTALL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE, PERIMETER CONTROLS AND TREE PROTECTION PRIOR TO ANY DISTURBANCE. 3. INSTALL STORMWATER INLET PROTECTION AROUND EXISTING DRAINAGE STRUCTURES. ES-11: SEEDING OPERATIONS SHALL BE INITIATED WITHIN 7 DAYS AFTER REACHING FINAL GRADE OR UPON SUSPENSION OF GRADING OPERATIONS FOR AN ANTICIPATED DURATION OF GREATER THAN 14 DAYS OR UPON COMPLETION OF GRADING OPERATIONS FOR A SPECIFIC AREA. 4. ONCE INITIAL MEASURES ARE IN PLACE, REQUEST AN INSPECTION OF THE INITIAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES FROM THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE E&S INSPECTOR. CALL 24-HOURS IN ADVANCE OF INSPECTION. 05/29/2019 ES-12: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PREVENTING SURFACE AND AIR MOVEMENT OF DUST FROM EXPOSED SOILS WHICH MAY PRESENT DANIEL C. HYER HEALTH HAZARDS, TRAFFIC SAFETY PROBLEMS, OR HARM ANIMAL OR PLANT LIFE. 5. PROTECT PERMANENT VEGETATION FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT. Lic. No. 45596 ES-13: A VSMP IS REQUIRED FOR PROJECTS DISTURBING 2,500 SQUARE FEET OR GREATER IN A DESIGNATED CHESAPEAKE BAY PRESERVATION AREA (CBPA) 6. COMMENCE DEMOLITION NECESSARY TO PERFORM PROPOSED WORK ONLY (INCLUDING EXCAVATION WORK). OR ONE ACRE OR GREATER OUTSIDE THE CBPA. FOR MORE INFORMATION VISIT THE VIRGINIA STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PERMITTING 7. CONTRACTOR TO LEAVE EXISTING STABILIZED AREAS IN A NON-EROSIVE CONDITION UNTIL NECESSARY TO INSTALL PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. DISTURBED WEB PAGE AT: http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/StormwaterManagement.aspx AREAS NOT IMPROVED SHALL BE SEEDED WITHIN 14 DAYS OF DISTURBANCE. 8. CONSTRUCT STORM STRUCTURES, IF APPLICABLE, STARTING AT THE DOWNSTREAM TERMINUS OR TIE-IN. BACKFILL ALL EXCAVATIONS AND TRENCH AREAS. BMP INSPECTION MILESTONES: 9. COMMENCE CONSTRUCTION OF PROPOSED PAVING AND SITE ELEMENTS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ANY PROPOSED BMPS. APPROVED DCH PRIOR TO ALL CONSTRUCTION INSPECTIONS, CONTACT THE APPROPRIATE INSPECTOR IDENTIFIED DURING THE PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING. ADVANCED 10. FOR GRASSY AREAS: INSTALL PERMANENT SEEDING AND MULCH. STABILIZE ALL DISTURBED AREAS. NOTICE OF NO LESS THAN 24-HOURS REQUIRED BEFORE ALL INSPECTIONS. SUBMITTAL NO. 4 11. FOR GRAVEL AREAS: RESTORE GRAVEL AFTER TRENCHING AND EXCAVATION OPERATIONS ARE COMPLETE. 1. PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE BMP, A PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING SHALL BE HELD WITH THE CITY INSPECTOR. 13. REPAIR ANY EROSION AND REMOVE ANY SEDIMENT. PROJECT 1801200 2. COMMENCE EXCAVATION PER VA DCR SPEC. NO. 7. UPON COMPLETION OF EXCAVATION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REQUEST AN INSPECTION PRIOR TO INSTALLING FILTER LAYERS AND UNDERDRAIN. NOTE: CONTRACTOR TO PROTECT BMP FROM ALL INFLOW UNTIL CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED AND 15. DRESS AND OVER-SEED ALL DISTURBED AREAS AS NECESSARY TO AFFECT PERMANENT VEGETATIVE COVER. STABILIZE ALL REMAINING DISTURBED AREAS UPHILL AREAS ARE COMPLETELY STABILIZED. WITH TOPSOIL, SEED, AND MULCH ONCE WORK IS COMPLETE. T H E W O R K O F 16. BEGIN INSTALLATION OF ANY PROPOSED BMPS ONCE ALL CONTRIBUTING AREAS ARE STABILIZED AND FREE OF DEBRIS. REFER TO INSTALLATION CHECKLIST L I N E + G R A D E 3. INSTALL GEOTEXTILE LINER, UNDERDRAIN, STONE RESERVOIR, AND CHOKER LAYER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REQUEST AN INSPECTION PRIOR TO PLACING PERMEABLE PAVEMENT SECTION. AND INSPECTION MILESTONES FOR CONSTRUCTION MILESTONES. 4. INSTALL PERMEABLE PAVEMENT SECTION PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. UPON COMPLETION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REQUEST AN INSPECTION 17. AFTER FINAL SITE STABILIZATION AND APPROVAL FROM THE APPROPRIATE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL AUTHORITY, THE SILT FENCE, INLET PROTECTION AND OTHER STABILIZATION MEASURES SHALL BE REMOVED. 5. OF THE PAVERS PRIOR TO ANY PROTECTION MEASURES BEING REMOVED. UPON INSTALLATION OF ANY PRETREATEMENT DEVICES AND THE REMOVAL OF ALL E&S MEASURES, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SCHEDULE A FOLLOW-UP INSPECTION AND SCHEDULE AN AS-BUILT SURVEY. NOTE: E&S MEASURES SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL ALL AREAS HAVE BEEN STABILIZED. C1.3 © 2018 - LINE+GRADE, LLC TABLE 3.31-B (REVISED JUNE 2003) TEMPORARY SEEDING SPECIFICATIONS QUICK REFERENCE FOR ALL REGIONS APPLICATION SPECIES APPLICATION RATES 50/50 Mix of Annual Ryegrass Sept. 1 - Feb. 15 (Lolium multi-florum) & Cereal 50-100 (lbs/acre) (Winter) Rye (Secale creale) Feb. 16 - Apr. 30 Annual Ryegrass (lolium multi-florum) 60-100 (lbs/acre) May 1 - Aug. 31 German Millet 50 (lbs/acre) FERTILIZER & LIME Apply 10-10-10 Fertilizer at a rate of 450 lbs/acre (or 10 lbs. / 1,000 sq. ft.) GALLERY COURT HOTEL PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN Apply Pulverized Agricultural Limestone at a rate of 2 tons/acre (or 90 lbs. / 1,000 sq. ft.) EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS NOTE: 1. A soil test is necessary to determine the actual amount of lime required to adjust the soil pH of site. 2. Incorporate the lime and fertilizer into the top 4-6 inches of the soil by disking or by other means. 3. When applying Slowly Available Nitrogen, use rates available in Erosion & Sediment Control Technical Bulletin #4 2003 Nutrient Management for Development Sites at http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/water/Stormwater Management/Publications.aspx CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SILT FENCE TABLE 3.32-D CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 1 2 (REVISED JUNE 2003) PERMANENT SEEDING SPECIFICATIONS FOR PIEDMONT AREA LAND USE SPECIES APPLICATION RATES PER ACRE Tall Fescue1 95-100% Minimum Care Lawn Perennial Ryegrass 0-5% (Commercial or Residential) Kentucky Bluegrass1 0-5% Total: 175-200 lbs High-Maintenance Lawn Tall Fescue1 Total: 200-250 lbs. Tall Fescue1 128 lbs. Red Top Grass of Creeping Red Fescue 2 lbs. General Slope (3:1 or less) Seasonal Nurse Crop2 20 lbs. Total: 150 lbs. Tall Fescue1 108 lbs. Red Top Grass of Creeping Red Fescue 2 lbs. Low-Maintenance Slope Seasonal Nurse Crop2 20 lbs. (Steeper than 3:1) Crownvetch3 20 lbs. Total: 150 lbs. 1 - When selecting varieties of turfgrass, use the Virginia Crop Improvement Association (VCIA) recommended turfgrass variety list. Quality seed will bear a label indicating that they are approved by VCIA. A current turfgrass variety list is available at the local County Extension office or through VCIA at 804-746-4884 or at http://sudan.cses.vt.edu/html/Turf/turf/publications/publications2.html 2. - Use seasonal nurse crop in accordance with the seeding dates as stated below: February 16th - April ..................................... Annual Rye May 1st - August 15th ..................................... Foxtail Millet August 16th - October ...................................... Annual Rye November - February 15th .................................. Winter Rye 3 - Substitute Sericea lespedeza for Crownvetch east of Farmville, VA ( May through September use hulled seed, all other periods, use unhulled Sericea.) If Flatpea is used, increase rate to 30 lbs./acre. If Weeping Lovegrass is used, 05/29/2019 include in any slope or low maintenance mixture during warmer seeding periods, increase to 30 -40. DANIEL C. HYER Lic. No. 45596 FERTILIZER & LIME Apply 10-20-10 Fertilizer at a rate of 500 lbs/acre (or 12 lbs. / 1,000 sq. ft.) Apply Pulverized Agricultural Limestone at a rate of 2 tons/acre (or 90 lbs. / 1,000 sq. ft.) APPROVED DCH NOTE: SUBMITTAL NO. 4 - A soil test is necessary to determine the actual amount of lime required to adjust the soil pH of site. PROJECT 1801200 - Incorporate the lime and fertilizer into the top 4-6 inches of the soil by disking or by other means. - When applying Slowly Available Nitrogen, use rates available in Erosion & Sediment Control Technical Bulletin #4 T H E W O R K O F 2003 Nutrient Management for Development Sites at http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/water/Stormwater Management/Publications.aspx L I N E + G R A D E 3 CURB INLET PROTECTION (CINDER BLOCK) 4 TREE PROTECTION 5 SEEDING SCHEDULE C1.4 © 2018 - LINE+GRADE, LLC GALLERY COURT HOTEL PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS SAFETY FENCE SHALL BE METAL CHAIN LINK VESCH 3.09 DIVERSION DIKE VESCH 3.01 SAFETY FENCE 1 2 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA (PERSPECTIVE VIEW) FLOW 1' MIN. TOP WIDTH 3' MAX 05/29/2019 10' MAX DANIEL C. HYER SIL Lic. No. 45596 TF 1' EN CE EXISTING GRADE APPROVED DCH VDOT #1 COARSE AGGREGATE SUBMITTAL NO. 4 (FRONT ELEVATION) PROJECT 1801200 NOTE: SILT FENCE BREAK TO BE PLACED AT LOW POINT IN FENCE LINE T H E W O R K O F L I N E + G R A D E 3 VESCH 3.36-1 EC-2 ORIENTATION 4 VESCH 3.36-2 EC-2 INSTALLATION 5 SILT FENCE BREAK C1.5 © 2018 - LINE+GRADE, LLC GALLERY COURT HOTEL PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 05/29/2019 DANIEL C. HYER Lic. No. 45596 APPROVED DCH SUBMITTAL NO. 4 PROJECT 1801200 T H E W O R K O F L I N E + G R A D E 2 TTC-35.0 SIDEWALK CLOSURE AND BYPASS SIDEWALK OPERATION C1.6 © 2018 - LINE+GRADE, LLC PIPE AIN Rector and Visitors of UVA I T Y GAS M RM "C Parcel ID: 080009000 EX. 6 P STO Book: 2018:3768 Zoning: URB Present Use: Under Construction PROP. 6" PVC SAN. LATERAL 15" RC Subject to proposed Ivy Corridor Plan MATCH EX. CURB IN LINE AND GRADE DI WL ORTH A #29 " RWS MATCH EX. SIDEWALK IN EX. 16 EET N E ROUT U.S. LINE AND GRADE T SRTOWRWIDTH 495 E MM 60' STMH #3 E 49 5 GRATE TOP=494.59 A LK SIDEW INV.=491.79 M PIPE 6' BUFFER STRIP P STOR CURB R C ALK 15" SIDEW FUTURE BIKE LANE BY OTHERS E STMH #4 TO R M PIP GRATE TOP=494.77 495 TW 501.90 CP S INV.=491.62 15" R 5 PROPOSED ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER PAD AND GENERATOR VDOT CG-9D (ELECTRICAL CONNECTION TO BE COORDINATED WITH DOMINION) 7' SIDEWALK 5.24 TC 49 WALL PROPOSED RELOCATED FIRE HYDRANT 23.85 176.09' '41" E 3 4 3 BENCHMARK AT 496 CG-2 5.40 495 R9 ' N 15 TOP OF SANITARY TC 49 495.36 SEWER MANHOLE UNISEX RIGID RETAINING WALL SEE STRUCTURAL PLANS 495.40 PROPOSED CAFE R 9' SEME NT RELOCATED CAT CC E SS EA BUS STOP SIGN 495.46 I AN A LINE PE DESTR C TION FFE=495.55 PANTRY STORAGE 495.54 4' T R I TW 501.90 G RES 495.46 ILDIN 502 MATCH EX. CURB IN 5' B U WL A DI LINE AND GRADE CURB 500.28 " R W S EX. 16 495.58 IRF 495.54 495.55 GALLERY COURT HOTEL PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN ALK CHARGING 503 SIDEW FFE=495.55 (PRIMARY PED. VISUAL ALERT SYSTEM FOR CROSSING STATION ENTRANCE) KNOXBOX© PROPOSED HOTEL SIGN PEDESTRIANS TO BE MOUNTED TO GARAGE EXIT 504 VESTIBULE LOCATION (SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS) (SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR DETAILS) MECHANICAL/ LP 13TREE20 ELECTRICAL E 18 8.29' 2 " 39'43 N 15 MATCH EX. SIDEWALK IN 506 505 LINE AND GRADE C & O RAILROAD 16TREE25 WIDTH UNKNOWN CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA FRENCH DRAIN (SEE DETAIL) 507 508 ADA ROUTE SITE PLAN MECHANICAL/ ELECTRICAL LIMITS OF ADA LANDING 509 DISTURBANCE LP CHARGING W 122.37' 510 STATION 2TREE5 3TREE6 511 S 60 47'18" E 162.59' N 55 59'35" 495 PROPOSED 8 512 132 EMMET ST N 495.94 496.03 STORY HOTEL RECTOR AND VISITORS OF UVA PARCEL ID: 080005000 513 CG-2 AT-GRADE CURB AROUND OUTFALL PORTION OF ROOF DEED BOOK 1157, PAGE 795 6" PVC UNDERDRAIN PERIMETER OF PAVER FIELD LEADERS TO PERVIOUS PAVERS ZONING: URB (SEE ARCH. FOR ROOF PLAN) PRESENT USE: VACANT LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE 514 4MAG6 PROPOSED BIKE RACKS 495 FOR PROPOSED RETAINING WALL TW 497.05 DETAILS SEE SHEET C2.1 495.58 140 EMMET ST N, LOT 2A 05/29/2019 INCAAM 140, LLC DANIEL C. HYER PARCEL ID: 080004000 Lic. No. 45596 SURVEYED AREA: 0.574 AC D.B. 300, PG. 439 VESTIBULE ZONING: URB PRESENT USE: HOTEL (ABANDONED) 495.45 FFE=495.55 TRASH STORAGE APPROVED DCH SUBMITTAL NO. 495 4 TW 497.05 TW 497.05 498.61 4BIRCH12 24ASH30 PROJECT 1801200 S 29 05'00" W 181.47' T H E W O R K O F UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA GROUNDS 495 499 18ASH25 4 49 498 RECTOR AND VISITORS OF UVA L I N E + G R A D E 497 PARCEL ID: NONE WEIR ELEV: 494.19 1 496 494 494 495 ZONING: NONE SPECIFIED PRESENT USE: ATHLETIC FIELD 493 493 494.99 PROPOSED SITE PLAN C2.0 N 1 1" = 10' 10 20 © 2018 - LINE+GRADE, LLC 494.35 495.33 15" TOP ELEVATION 15" TOP ELEVATION 1 PER PLAN PER PLAN 497.05 497.05 A TW 497.05 BW 494.58 TW 497.05 24.55' 4.01' BW 495.59 1.25' CONCRETE WEIR WALL WEIR ELEVATION CAST AS GRADE BEAM 494.190 TW 497.05 BETWEEN WALLS NO. 5 REBAR @ 12" O.C. E.W. NO. 5 REBAR @ 12" O.C. E.W. 5° 495.46 .0 85 0.67' OUTDOOR FIREPIT 494.07 6.97' (SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR DETAILS) 3 ELEV. PER LANDSCAPE PLANS 94" 94" CONTRACTOR TO TERMINATE CONTRACTOR TO TERMINATE WATERPROOFING BELOW FINISHED GRADE WATERPROOFING BELOW FINISHED GRADE 495.61 B SLEEVE FOR STORMWATER BMP UNDERDRAIN 5° 3.99' WATERPROOFING WATERPROOFING .0 90 NO. 5 REBAR @ 12" O.C. E.W. NO. 5 REBAR @ 12" O.C. E.W. 6" CONTRACTOR TO 6" CONTRACTOR TO TW 497.05 MINIMIZE IMPACT MINIMIZE IMPACT 12 6" 12 6.15' 1 TO NATIVE SOIL 1 TO NATIVE SOIL 491.25 491.25 2 6" BMP UNDERDRAIN 18" 18" 45" 45" TW 497.05 495.55 6" 6" VDOT 21A VDOT 21A LEVELLING LEVELLING 12" 12" PAD PAD 495.69 NATIVE SOIL SUBGRADE NATIVE SOIL SUBGRADE COMAPCTED TO 95% COMAPCTED TO 95% STANDARD PROCTOR STANDARD PROCTOR (90% MODIFIED PROCTOR) (90% MODIFIED PROCTOR) SPECIFIC WALL DETAILS GALLERY COURT HOTEL RETAINING WALL PLAN RETAINING WALL SECTION RETAINING WALL SECTION PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 1 1 2 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA N 1" = 2' 2 4 1" = 1' 1 2 1" = 1' 1 2 24.55' 15" TOP ELEVATION PER PLAN NO. 5 REBAR @ 12" O.C. E.W. CONCRETE WIER WALL 1.25' 497.05 7.8' NO. 5 REBAR @ 12" O.C. E.W. VDOT 21A LEVELLING PAD 6" KEY 94" CONTRACTOR TO TERMINATE ELEVATION WATERPROOFING BELOW FINISHED GRADE A 1" = 2' 2 4 WATERPROOFING 6" CONTRACTOR TO MINIMIZE IMPACT 1.25' 6.06' 6.15' NO. 5 REBAR @ 12" O.C. E.W. TO NATIVE SOIL 1.25' 12 1 NO. 5 REBAR @ 12" O.C. E.W. PROPOSED BUILDING 05/29/2019 DANIEL C. HYER 491.25 Lic. No. 45596 18" 7.8' CONCRETE WIER WALL 45" APPROVED DCH 6" VDOT 21A LEVELLING 12" PAD SUBMITTAL NO. 4 SLEEVE FOR STORMWATER PROJECT 1801200 6" KEY BMP UNDERDRAIN NATIVE SOIL SUBGRADE T H E W O R K O F COMAPCTED TO 95% L I N E + G R A D E VDOT 21A LEVELLING PAD STANDARD PROCTOR (90% MODIFIED PROCTOR) B ELEVATION 1" = 2' 2 4 3 RETAINING WALL SECTION 1" = 1' 1 2 C2.1 © 2018 - LINE+GRADE, LLC +/- 28.8' +/- 2.5' APPROX. ELEV. = 514.5 0.8' VDOT CL. AI RIPRAP 2' CONSTR. CHAMFER EDGES EASEMENT ELEV. PER PLAN 3/4" CENTERLINE OF TRACK PROPERTY BOUNDARY (TRACK IS 4' 8" WIDE) 3/4" 2" DECORATIVE PROPOSED BUILDING 6" STONE MOUNT HANDRAIL TO 8" OUTSIDE OF RETAINING WALL NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC INSET A +/- 16' 2' TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT +/- 19' PERVIOUS PAVERS 1.25' PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED BUILDING CONCRETE WEIR SEE DETAIL 2/C4.2 (SEE INSET A) 1.5' FOR PERVIOUS INSET A VDOT CLASS AI RIPRAP PAVER SECTION 2.86' EXISTING GRADE EX. GRADE STEEL SLEEVE AROUND STORM PIPE PASSING THROUGH WALL PER DETAIL 2/C3.2 2' GALLERY COURT HOTEL PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC APPROX. ELEV. = 498.5 SOLID UNDERDRAIN @1% OUTSIDE OF STONE RESERVOIR APPROPRIATE WATERPROOFING 6" OF DECORATIVE STONE PER LANDSCAPE DETAIL OF BUILDING (BY OTHERS) SITE SECTIONS AND DETAILS PERFORATED UNDERDRAIN @ 1% FEATURE WALL PER STONE TO MATCH FFE = 495.55 PER BMP DETAILS LANDSCAPING PLANS RESERVOIR UNDER PAVERS COMPACTED SUBGRADE ONLY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA UNDER WALL FOOTINGS SITE SECTION 1 SITE SECTION 2 1 1" = 2' 2 4 2 1" = 2' 2 4 05/29/2019 DANIEL C. HYER Lic. No. 45596 APPROVED DCH SUBMITTAL NO. 4 PROJECT 1801200 T H E W O R K O F PP-1 CG-2 CG-9D L I N E + G R A D E 3 4 5 C2.2 © 2018 - LINE+GRADE, LLC SPACE 12"x12" 1' CENTERLINE GRID RESERVED PARKING R5" 2' 1" 5" PENALTY 24" $100-$500 FINE 12" TOW AWAY ZONE 5" VAN 0.5' 20" ACCESSIBLE 18 " VAN PLACARD R13" 8" 5' MIN. TO (WHERE APPLICABLE) R1 " FINISHED GRADE 10 HANDICAP PARKING SYMBOL HANDICAP PARKING SIGN 1.5' HANDICAP PARKING SIGN HANDICAP PARKING SIGNS COMPACT ADA PATH ADA PATH CAR 2' ONLY 4' PAVEMENT EDGE STANDARD 18' 18' SPACE 7' MIN. MOUNTING HEIGHT 4" STRIPING VAN SPACED 2' APART GALLERY COURT HOTEL PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN SEE 8' 5' 8' 8' 8' PLAN SINGLE HANDICAP SPACE ADJACENT SPACES OR VAN SPACE HANDICAP PARKING SPACE NOTES: 1. SPACES SHALL BE COMPLIANT WITH ADAAG 502.6 AND VUSBC 1106.8. 2. ALL HANDICAP PARKING PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE WHITE IN COLOR. HANDICAP PARKING SIGN NOTES: 3. SIGN SYMBOL SHALL BE INTERNATIONAL HANDICAP SYMBOL. 4. SIGN MATERIAL TO BE 0.065" ALUMINUM SHEET. CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 5. VAN PLACARD SHALL ONLY BE INSTALLED WHERE DESIGNATED ON PLANS. HANDICAP PARKING SPACE DETAILS COMPACT CAR ONLY SIGN 1 2 SITE DETAILS 05/29/2019 DANIEL C. HYER Lic. No. 45596 APPROVED DCH SUBMITTAL NO. 4 PROJECT 1801200 T H E W O R K O F SIDEWALK MONOLITHIC WITH CURB VDOT HR-1 HANDRAIL L I N E + G R A D E 3 4 C2.3 © 2018 - LINE+GRADE, LLC e r n sew PIPE " s a AIN ex. 8 Rector and Visitors of UVA I T Y GAS M RM "C 495 Parcel ID: 080009000 EX. 6 P STO CONNECT TO EX. SSMH #5 PROP. 6" SAN. SEWER LATERAL Book: 2018:3768 INV: 484.75 Zoning: URB Present Use: Under Construction 15" RC Subject to proposed Ivy Corridor Plan DI WL ORTH SSMH #5 A #29 " RWS ROUT E N TOP=495.00 EX. 16 U.S. E E T INV. IN=484.75 STR TH INV. OUT=484.60 495 E CONNECT TO EXISTING GAS MAIN M T60' ROW WID STMH #3 PROP. GAS LATERAL EM PROPOSED SEWER LATERAL TO CROSS UNDER EX. WATERLINE. COORDINATE GRATE TOP=494.59 INSTALLATION WITH RWSA. A LK SIDEW INV.=491.79 M PIPE P STOR CURB R C ALK 15" SIDEW SAN C/O-1 STMH #4 (2) 24"x6" TEES SEPARATED BY (1) 24" VALVE RIM: 495.09 E TO R M PIP GRATE TOP=494.77 (2) 6" VALVES ON FIRE SERVICE BRANCHES 495 CP S INV.=491.62 15" R PROPOSED ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER PAD AND GENERATOR 24"x6" TEE WATER SERVICE (ELECTRICAL CONNECTION TO BE (1) 24" VALVE CONNECTION COORDINATED WITH DOMINION) (1) 6" VALVE L CI W/ WALL . 16 " W/L EX 16"x24" REDUCER .24" DIP .09' PROP 176 '41" E 16"x24" REDUCER 4 3 BENCHMARK AT 496 495 N 15 TOP OF SANITARY 1" TYPE K COPPER SEWER MANHOLE UNISEX L CI W/ WATER SERVICE LINE . 16" (2) PROP. 4" EX STEEL BOLLARD 7' NT S EASEME FIRE HYDRANT AND VALVE T R IAN A CCES INE PROP. GAS PROPOSED CAFE S ION L METER 5' E PANTRY STORAGE 2' PED R I C T (2) 6" DIP FIRE SERVICE LINES REST B U I LDING 5' WL BUILDING MOUNTED FDC CAP PIPE END R W S A DI CURB AND POST INDICATOR VALVE 1" WATER METER " EX. 16 WITH 1" CORP STOP (TRAFFIC RATED LID) IRF GALLERY COURT HOTEL PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN E ALK CHARGING E W E R PIP SIDEW STATION . S " P V C SAN 8 VESTIBULE MECHANICAL/ LP 13TREE20 ELECTRICAL E 18 8.29' " 39'43 N 15 1" GAS SERVICE LINE C & O RAILROAD 16TREE25 WIDTH UNKNOWN CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 512 UTILITY PLAN MECHANICAL/ ELECTRICAL 511 LP CHARGING 510 W 122.37' STATION 2TREE5 3TREE6 509 S 60 47'18" E 162.59' N 55 59'35" 6 PROPOSED 8 49 STORY HOTEL 49 132 EMMET ST N 508 5 RECTOR AND VISITORS OF UVA PARCEL ID: 080005000 DEED BOOK 1157, PAGE 795 ZONING: URB PRESENT USE: VACANT 4MAG6 507 6" SCHED. 40 PVC UNDERDRAIN SELECT ROOF DRAINS TO DAYLIGHT AT PERVIOUS PAVERS 506 4" PVC FRENCH DRAIN PERVIOUS PAVER FIELD SYSTEM (SEE DETAIL) (SEE BMP DETAILS) 505 UTILITY NOTES: 140 EMMET ST N, LOT 2A 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WIHT RWSA AND ACSA FOR THE 05/29/2019 504 INCAAM 140, LLC CONNECTION TO THE EXISTING RWSA 16" WATERLINE. CONTRACTOR SHALL DANIEL C. HYER PARCEL ID: 080004000 USE DUE DILIGENCE TO PROTECT THE RWSA 16" WATERLINE DURING Lic. No. 45596 SURVEYED AREA: 0.574 AC CONSTRUCTION AND TAPPING. D.B. 300, PG. 439 FREESTANDING LANDSCAPING WALL 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL LOCATION, THE VESTIBULE ZONING: URB AND FIREPIT (SEE DETAILS) OUTSIDE DIAMETER, AND THE PIPE MATERIAL OF THE 16" WATERLINE PRIOR PRESENT USE: HOTEL (ABANDONED) TO ORDERING THE TAPPING SLEEVE. 503 DECORATIVE STONE 495 TRASH STORAGE 3. RWSA SHALL BE CONTACTED 3 BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THE TEST PIT (SEE LS PLANS) AND SHALL BE PRESENT DURING THE TEST PIT. THE TAPPING SLEEEVE SHALL APPROVED DCH TURN 4" PVC AROUND CORNER AND EXTEND TO DAYLIGHT BE APPROVED BY RWSA PRIOR TO BEING ORDERED. THE TAPPING SUBMITTAL NO. 4 502 INSTALL RODENT SCREEN ON PIPE END CONTACTOR SHALL BE APPROVED BY RWSA PRIOR TO THE TAP. 4BIRCH12 24ASH30 4. RWSA SHALL BE GIVEN NOTICE A MINIMUM OF 3 BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO PROJECT 1801200 501 4 S 29 05'00" W 181.47' INSTALLATION OF THE TAPPING SLEEVE. THE 16"x6" TAPPING SLEEVE AND T H E W O R K O F UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA GROUNDS 18ASH25 49 495 VALVE SHALL BE INSTALLED PLUMB. FOLLOWING THE PLACEMENT AND RECTOR AND VISITORS OF UVA MAJOR STORM RELIEF SPILLWAY TESTING OF THE 16"x6" TAPPING SLEEVE AND VALVE, A CONCRETE PAD AND L I N E + G R A D E PARCEL ID: NONE 494 VDOT CL. A1 RIPRAP 8" WIDE CONCRETE WEIR (SEE DETAIL) 494 495 THRUST BLOCK SHALL BE PLACED UNDER AND BEHIND THE TAPPING SLEEVE 4 9 ZONING: NONE SPECIFIED 3 AND ALLOWED TO SET PRIOR TO MAKING THE TAP. SPILLWAY ELEV.=494.19 493 49 PRESENT USE: ATHLETIC FIELD 4 UTILITY PLAN C3.0 N 1 1" = 10' 10 20 © 2018 - LINE+GRADE, LLC GALLERY COURT HOTEL PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN THIS SHEET INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. UTILITY PROFILES WILL BE INCLUDED WITH FINAL SITE PLAN DOCUMENTS. CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA UTILITY PROFILES 05/29/2019 DANIEL C. HYER Lic. No. 45596 APPROVED DCH SUBMITTAL NO. 4 PROJECT 1801200 T H E W O R K O F L I N E + G R A D E C3.1 © 2018 - LINE+GRADE, LLC GALLERY COURT HOTEL PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN WW 2.0 MANHOLE WW 3.0 STEEL CASING WW 5.0 LATERAL CONNECTION 1 2 3 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA UTILITY DETAILS 05/29/2019 DANIEL C. HYER Lic. No. 45596 APPROVED DCH SUBMITTAL NO. 4 PROJECT 1801200 T H E W O R K O F L I N E + G R A D E WW 2.8 NEW PIPE CONNECTION AT MANHOLE WW 5.1 CLEANOUT 4 5 C3.2 © 2018 - LINE+GRADE, LLC GALLERY COURT HOTEL PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN WW 7.0 MANHOLE ABANDONMENT WW 7.1 LATERAL ABANDONMENT AT MANHOLE WW 7.2 LATERAL ABANDONMENT AT MAIN 1 2 3 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA UTILITY DETAILS 05/29/2019 DANIEL C. HYER Lic. No. 45596 APPROVED DCH SUBMITTAL NO. 4 PROJECT 1801200 T H E W O R K O F L I N E + G R A D E W 6.0 METER BOX W 7.1 SERVICE LATERAL ABANDONMENT 4 5 C3.3 © 2018 - LINE+GRADE, LLC SS SS D D D D D EX. CURB INLET D EX. CURB INLET SS SS D D WV STUDY POINT B D WV STUDY POINT B D WATERSHED TO STUDY POINT B TOTAL AREA = ~200 AC CONTRIBUTING SITE AREA = 0.24 AC PERCENT CONTRIBUTING AREA = 0.1% EX. CURB AND GUTTER EX. CURB AND GUTTER D D 5 5 49 49 UNCONTROLLED SHEET AND CONCENTRATED FLOW TO STUDY POINT B AREA = 0.25 AC CN = 97 Tc = 6 MIN GALLERY COURT HOTEL PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 510 51 0 50 00 50 5 5 5 50 49 5 0 5 5 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SITE AREA TO STUDY POINT B AREA = 0.27 AC 49 49 49 CN = 96 5 Tc = 6 MIN CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 495 SITE AREA TO STUDY POINT A AREA = 0.46 AC ROOF AREA TO GRAVEL VAULT CN = 95 5 UNDER PERVIOUS PAVERS Tc = 6 MIN 49 AREA = 0.32 AC 5 CN = 98 49 Tc = 6 MIN 495 IRF IRF 0 49 STREAM BANKS STREAM BANKS 490 SHEET FLOW PATH TO STREAM 6 STUDY POINT A 49 STUDY POINT A UNCONTROLLED SHEET FLOW TO STUDY POINT A 6 49 AREA = 0.11 AC CN = 80 Tc = 6 MIN MAJOR DESIGN STORM OVERFLOW WEIR TO PERVIOUS PAVERS AREA = 0.05 AC 7 CN = 98 49 7 49 ADJ. CN1 = 94 ADJ. CN2 = 94 CARR'S HILL ATHLETIC ADJ. CN10 = 94 CARR'S HILL ATHLETIC Tc = 6 MIN FIELD FIELD 05/29/2019 N N PRE-REDEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE MAP POST-REDEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE MAP DANIEL C. HYER 1 1" = 30' 30 60 2 1" = 30' 30 60 Lic. No. 45596 STORMWATER NARRATIVE FLOOD PROTECTION - OUTFALL A: OUTFALL A CURRENTLY EXPERIENCES LOCALIZED FLOODING DURING THE 10-YEAR DESIGN STORM. IN ACCORDANCE WITH 9VAC25-870-66(C)2.B, THIS APPLICATION WATER QUALITY ELECTS TO RELEASE A POST-REDEVELOPMENT PEAK FLOW THAT IS LESS THAN THE PRE-REDEVELOPMENT PEAK FLOW (SEE THIS SHEET FOR PEAK FLOW IN ACCORDANCE WITH 9VAC25-870-63(A)2.B, THIS APPLICATION IS REQUIRED TO REDUCE THE TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOAD FROM THE ORIGINALLY DEVELOPED COMPARISONS). PER 9VAC25-870-66(C)2.B, NO FURTHER ANALYSIS OF DOWNSTREAM SYSTEMS IS REQUIRED. CONDITION BY 10%. AS A CONDITION REQUIRED BY THE APPROVED SPECIAL USE PERMIT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS APPLICATION, A BMP (PERVIOUS PAVERS) IS APPROVED DCH PROPOSED ON SITE TO PROVIDE THE MAJORITY OF THE PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL REQUIREMENT. PER 9VAC25-870-65(F), THIS APPLICATION ELECTS TO PROVIDE THE CHANNEL PROTECTION - OUTFALL B: SUBMITTAL NO. 4 REMAINDER OF PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL BY PURCHASING NUTRIENT CREDITS. A LETTER OF AVAILABILITY IS PROVIDED ON SHEET C4.1 FROM AN APPROVED PROVIDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH 9VAC25-870-66(B)1.A, THIS APPLICATION ELECTS TO MEET CHANNEL PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS BY CONVEYING THE POST-REDEVELOPMENT OF NUTRIENT CREDITS, PURSUANT TO 9VAC25-870-69. RECEIPT OF CREDIT PURCHASE SHALL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL. GIVEN THE ABOVE PEAK FLOW FROM THE 2-YEAR DESIGN STORM TO THE LIMITS OF ANALYSIS WITHOUT CAUSING EROSION OF THE SYSTEM. THE LIMITS OF ANALYSIS OCCURS WHERE PROJECT 1801200 AND THE DOCUMENTATION SHOWN ON SHEET C4.1, IT IS OUR OPINION THAT THE WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN 9VAC25-870-63 HAVE BEEN MET. RUNOFF FROM THE SITE DISCHARGES FROM THE EXISTING STORM SEWER SYSTEM AT STUDY POINT B. AT THIS POINT, CONTRIBUTING SITE AREA IS LESS THAN 1% OF THE TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA, THUS DEFINING THE LIMITS OF ANALYSIS. DUE TO THE FACT THAT CONVEYANCE SYSTEM (GUTTER PAN AND EXISTING STORM PIPES) IS T H E W O R K O F WATER QUANTITY CONCRETE TO THE LIMITS OF ANALYSIS, THE CONVEYANCE SYSTEM IS CONSIDERED TO BE PROTECTED FROM EROSION TO THE LIMITS OF ANALYSIS. L I N E + G R A D E CHANNEL PROTECTION - OUTFALL A IN ACCORDANCE WITH 9VAC25-870-66(B)1.B, THIS APPLICATION ELECTS TO MEET CHANNEL PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS BY RELEASING A 1-YEAR FLOOD PROTECTION - OUTFALL B: POST-REDEVELOPMENT PEAK FLOW THAT IS LESS THAN THE MAXIMUM FLOW CALCULATED USING THE ENERGY BALANCE EQUATION (SEE TABLE THIS SHEET). PER THE STORMWATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM TO OUTFALL B CURRENTLY EXPERIENCES LOCALIZED FLOODING DURING THE 10-YEAR DESIGN STORM. IN ACCORDANCE 9VAC25-870-66(B)4, NO FURTHER ANALYSIS OF DOWNSTREAM SYSTEMS IS REQUIRED WHEN USING ENERGY BALANCE. WITH 9VAC25-870-66(C)2.B, THIS APPLICATION ELECTS TO RELEASE A POST-REDEVELOPMENT PEAK FLOW THAT IS LESS THAN THE PRE-REDEVELOPMENT PEAK FLOW (SEE THIS SHEET FOR PEAK FLOW COMPARISONS). PER 9VAC25-870-66(C)2.B, NO FURTHER ANALYSIS OF DOWNSTREAM SYSTEMS IS REQUIRED. GIVEN THE ABOVE NARRATIVES AND SUPPORTING COMPUTATIONS ON THIS AND SUBSEQUENT SHEETS, IT IS OUR OPINION THAT THE STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS PROJECT HAVE BEEN MET. C4.0 © 2018 - LINE+GRADE, LLC WATER QUALITY SUMMARY 3 GALLERY COURT HOTEL PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN RUNOFF REDUCTION SUMMARY 4 VRRM SPREADSHEET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA LETTER OF AVAILABILITY TO VRRM SUMMARY SHEET BE PROVIDED WITH FINAL 1 05/29/2019 DANIEL C. HYER SITE PLAN SUBMISSION Lic. No. 45596 APPROVED DCH SUBMITTAL NO. 4 PROJECT 1801200 T H E W O R K O F L I N E + G R A D E 2 DRAINAGE AREA A TABULATION 5 LETTER OF PHOSPHORUS CREDIT AVAILABILITY C4.1 © 2018 - LINE+GRADE, LLC PERVIOUS PAVERS B 8.2. PERMEABLE PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE: C ELEV. = A THE FOLLOWING IS A TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE TO PROPERLY INSTALL PERMEABLE PAVEMENT, WHICH MAY NEED TO BE MODIFIED TO DEPENDING ON WHETHER POROUS ASPHALT (PA), PERVIOUS CONCRETE (PC) OR INTERLOCKING PAVER (IP) DESIGNS ARE EMPLOYED. Ø 6" PERFORATED SHEDULE D 40 PVC UNDERDRAIN STEP 1. CONSTRUCTION OF THE PERMEABLE PAVEMENT SHALL ONLY BEGIN AFTER THE ENTIRE CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA HAS BEEN STABILIZED. THE PROPOSED SITE SHOULD BE CHECKED FOR EXISTING UTILITIES PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION. DO NOT INSTALL THE SYSTEM ELEV. = E IN RAIN OR SNOW, AND DO NOT INSTALL FROZEN AGGREGATE MATERIALS. STEP 2. AS NOTED ABOVE, TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT (E&S) CONTROLS ARE NEEDED DURING INSTALLATION TO DIVERT STORMWATER F AWAY FROM THE PERMEABLE PAVEMENT AREA UNTIL IT IS COMPLETED. SPECIAL PROTECTION MEASURES SUCH AS EROSION CONTROL ELEV. = G FABRICS MAY BE NEEDED TO PROTECT VULNERABLE SIDE SLOPES FROM EROSION DURING THE EXCAVATION PROCESS. THE PROPOSED PERMEABLE PAVEMENT AREA MUST BE KEPT FREE FROM SEDIMENT DURING THE ENTIRE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS. CONSTRUCTION UNDISTURBED, MATERIALS THAT ARE CONTAMINATED BY SEDIMENTS MUST BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH CLEAN MATERIALS. UNCOMPACTED SOIL STEP 3. WHERE POSSIBLE, EXCAVATORS OR BACKHOES SHOULD WORK FROM THE SIDES TO EXCAVATE THE RESERVOIR LAYER TO ITS APPROPRIATE DESIGN DEPTH AND DIMENSIONS. FOR MICRO-SCALE AND SMALL-SCALE PAVEMENT APPLICATIONS, EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT SHOULD HAVE ARMS WITH ADEQUATE EXTENSION SO THEY DO NOT HAVE TO WORK INSIDE THE FOOTPRINT OF THE PERMEABLE PAVEMENT AREA (TO AVOID COMPACTION). CONTRACTORS CAN UTILIZE A CELL CONSTRUCTION APPROACH, WHEREBY THE PROPOSED PERMEABLE PAVEMENT AREA IS SPLIT INTO 500 TO 1000 SQ. FT. TEMPORARY CELLS WITH A 10 TO 15 FOOT EARTH BRIDGE IN BETWEEN, VA DEQ STORMWATER DESIGN SPECIFICATION NO. 7 PERMEABLE PAVEMENT VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1, 2013 PAGE 22 OF 33 SO THAT CELLS CAN BE EXCAVATED FROM THE SIDE. EXCAVATED MATERIAL SHOULD BE PLACED AWAY FROM THE OPEN EXCAVATION SO AS TO NOT JEOPARDIZE THE STABILITY OF THE SIDE WALLS. STEP 4. THE NATIVE SOILS ALONG THE BOTTOM AND SIDES OF THE PERMEABLE PAVEMENT SYSTEM SHOULD BE SCARIFIED OR TILLED TO A DEPTH OF 3 TO 4 INCHES PRIOR TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE FILTER LAYER OR FILTER FABRIC. IN LARGE SCALE PAVING APPLICATIONS WITH WEAK SOILS, THE SOIL SUBGRADE MAY NEED TO BE COMPACTED TO 95% OF THE STANDARD PROCTOR DENSITY TO ACHIEVE THE DESIRED LOAD-BEARING CAPACITY. (NOTE: THIS EFFECTIVELY ELIMINATES THE INFILTRATION FUNCTION OF THE INSTALLATION, AND IT MUST BE ADDRESSED DURING HYDROLOGIC DESIGN.) STEP 5. THE FILTER LAYER SHOULD BE INSTALLED ON THE BOTTOM OF THE RESERVOIR LAYER, AND WHERE WARRANTED, FILTER FABRIC CAN BE BMP SIZING COMPUTATIONS PERVIOUS PAVER SECTION STEP 6. PLACED ON THE SIDES. PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 2 INCHES OF AGGREGATE ABOVE AND BELOW THE UNDERDRAINS. THE UNDERDRAINS SHOULD SLOPE DOWN 1 2 1" = 2' 2 4 TOWARDS THE OUTLET AT A GRADE OF 0.5% OR STEEPER. THE UP-GRADIENT END OF UNDERDRAINS IN THE RESERVOIR LAYER SHOULD BE CAPPED. WHERE AN UNDERDRAIN PIPE IS CONNECTED TO A STRUCTURE, THERE SHALL BE NO PERFORATIONS WITHIN 1 FOOT OF THE STRUCTURE. ENSURE THAT THERE ARE NO PERFORATIONS IN CLEAN-OUTS AND OBSERVATION WELLS WITHIN 1 FOOT OF THE SURFACE. STEP 7. SPREAD 6-INCH LIFTS OF THE APPROPRIATE CLEAN, WASHED STONE AGGREGATE. PLACE AT LEAST 4 INCHES OF ADDITIONAL AGGREGATE ABOVE THE UNDERDRAIN, AND THEN COMPACT IT USING A VIBRATORY ROLLER IN STATIC MODE UNTIL THERE IS NO VISIBLE MOVEMENT OF THE AGGREGATE. DO NOT CRUSH THE AGGREGATE WITH THE ROLLER. STEP 8. INSTALL OVERDRAIN IF REQUIRED AND CONNECT INTO OUTLET CONVEYANCE SYSTEM. STEP 9. INSTALL THE DESIRED DEPTH OF THE BEDDING LAYER, DEPENDING ON THE TYPE OF PAVEMENT, AS FOLLOWS: 1. PERVIOUS CONCRETE: NO BEDDING LAYER IS USED. 2. POROUS ASPHALT: THE BEDDING LAYER FOR POROUS ASPHALT PAVEMENT CONSISTS OF 1 TO 2 INCHES OF CLEAN, WASHED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT COMPUTATIONS AND DETAILS ASTM D 448 NO.57 STONE. THE FILTER COURSE MUST BE LEVELED AND PRESSED (CHOKED) INTO THE RESERVOIR BASE WITH AT LEAST FOUR (4) PASSES OF A 10-TON STEEL DRUM STATIC ROLLER. 3. INTERLOCKING PAVERS: THE BEDDING LAYER FOR OPEN-JOINTED PAVEMENT BLOCKS SHOULD CONSIST OF 2 INCHES OF WASHED ASTM D 448 NO.8 STONE. GALLERY COURT HOTEL PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN STEP 10. PAVING MATERIALS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER OR INDUSTRY SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE PARTICULAR TYPE OF PAVEMENT. INSTALLATION OF INTERLOCKING PAVERS. THE BASIC INSTALLATION PROCESS IS DESCRIBED IN GREATER DETAIL BY SMITH (2006). THE BASIC INSTALLATION PROCESS IS DESCRIBED IN GREATER DETAIL BY SMITH (SMITH 2011). PERMEABLE PAVER JOB FOREMEN SHOULD SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE THE PICP INSTALLER TECHNICIAN COURSE TRAINING PROGRAM OFFERED BY THE INTERLOCKING CONCRETE PAVEMENT INSTITUTE. THE FOLLOWING INSTALLATION METHOD ALSO APPLIES TO CLAY PAVING UNITS. CONTACT MANUFACTURERS OF COMPOSITE UNITS FOR INSTALLATION SPECIFICATIONS. 1. MOISTEN, PLACE AND LEVEL THE NO. 2 STONE SUBBASE AND COMPACT IT IN MINIMUM 12 INCH THICK LIFTS WITH FOUR PASSES OF A 10-TON STEEL DRUM STATIC ROLLER UNTIL THERE IS NO VISIBLE MOVEMENT. THE FIRST TWO PASSES ARE IN VIBRATORY MODE WITH THE FINAL TWO PASSES IN STATIC MODE. THE FILTER AGGREGATE SHOULD BE MOIST TO FACILITATE MOVEMENT INTO THE RESERVOIR COURSE. VA DEQ STORMWATER DESIGN SPECIFICATION NO. 7 PERMEABLE PAVEMENT VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1, 2013 PAGE 24 OF 33 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 2. PLACE EDGE RESTRAINTS BEFORE THE BASE LAYER, BEDDING AND PAVERS ARE INSTALLED. PERMEABLE INTERLOCKING PAVEMENT SYSTEMS REQUIRE EDGE RESTRAINTS TO PREVENT VEHICLE LOADS FROM MOVING THE PAVERS. EDGE RESTRAINTS MAY BE STANDARD CONCRETE CURBS OR CURB AND GUTTERS., 3. MOISTEN, PLACE AND LEVEL THE NO. 57 BASE STONE IN A SINGLE LIFT (4 INCHES THICK). COMPACT IT INTO THE RESERVOIR COURSE BENEATH WITH AT LEAST FOUR (4) PASSES OF A 10-TON STEEL DRUM STATIC ROLLER UNTIL THERE IS NO VISIBLE MOVEMENT. THE FIRST TWO PASSES ARE IN VIBRATORY MODE, WITH THE FINAL TWO PASSES IN STATIC MODE. 4. PLACE AND SCREED THE BEDDING COURSE MATERIAL (TYPICALLY NO. 8 STONE, 2 INCHES THICK). 5. PAVERS MAY BE PLACED BY HAND OR WITH MECHANICAL INSTALLERS. 6. FILL GAPS AT THE EDGE OF THE PAVED AREAS WITH CUT PAVERS OR EDGE UNITS. WHEN CUT PAVERS ARE NEEDED, CUT THE PAVERS WITH A PAVER SPLITTER OR MASONRY SAW. CUT PAVERS NO SMALLER THAN ONE-THIRD (1/3) OF THE FULL UNIT SIZE IF SUBJECT TO TIRES. 7. FILL THE JOINTS AND OPENINGS WITH STONE. JOINT OPENINGS MUST BE FILLED WITH NO. 8, 8P OR 9 STONE PER THE PAVER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATION. SWEEP AND REMOVE EXCESS STONES FROM THE PAVER SURFACE. 8. COMPACT AND SEAT THE PAVERS INTO THE BEDDING COURSE WITH A MINIMUM LOW-AMPLITUDE 5,000 LBF, 75- TO 95 HZ PLATE COMPACTOR. DO NOT COMPACT WITHIN 6 FEET OF THE UNRESTRAINED EDGES OF THE PAVERS. 9. THOROUGHLY SWEEP THE SURFACE AFTER CONSTRUCTION TO REMOVE ALL EXCESS AGGREGATE. 10. INSPECT THE AREA FOR SETTLEMENT. ANY PAVING UNITS THAT SETTLE MUST BE RESET AND INSPECTED. 11. THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD RETURN TO THE SITE WITHIN 6 MONTHS TO TOP UP THE PAVER JOINTS WITH STONES. MAINTENANCE TASKS: 4 CN TABULATIONS 3 WEIR COMPUTATIONS AND CROSS SECTIONS IT IS DIFFICULT TO PRESCRIBE THE SPECIFIC TYPES OR FREQUENCY OF MAINTENANCE TASKS THAT ARE NEEDED TO MAINTAIN THE HYDROLOGIC FUNCTION OF PERMEABLE PAVEMENT SYSTEMS OVER TIME. MOST INSTALLATIONS WORK REASONABLY WELL YEAR AFTER YEAR WITH LITTLE OR NO MAINTENANCE, WHEREAS SOME HAVE PROBLEMS RIGHT FROM THE START. THE FOLLOWING TASKS MUST BE AVOIDED ON ALL PERMEABLE PAVEMENTS: · SANDING · RE-SEALING · RE-SURFACING · POWER WASHING · STORAGE OF SNOW PILES CONTAINING SAND · STORAGE OF MULCH OR SOIL MATERIALS · CONSTRUCTION STAGING ON UNPROTECTED PAVEMENT A PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE TASK FOR LARGE-SCALE APPLICATIONS INVOLVES REGENERATIVE AIR VACUUM SWEEPING ON A FREQUENCY CONSISTENT WITH THE USE AND LOADINGS ENCOUNTERED IN THE PARKING LOT. MANY CONSIDER AN ANNUAL, DRY-WEATHER SWEEPING IN THE SPRING MONTHS TO BE IMPORTANT. THE CONTRACT FOR SWEEPING SHOULD SPECIFY THAT A VACUUM SWEEPER BE USED THAT DOES NOT USE WATER SPRAY, SINCE SPRAYING MAY LEAD TO SUBSURFACE CLOGGING. VACUUM SETTINGS FOR LARGE-SCALE INTERLOCKING PAVER APPLICATIONS SHOULD BE CALIBRATED SO THEY DO NOT PICK UP THE STONES BETWEEN PAVEMENT BLOCKS. · FOR THE FIRST 6 MONTHS FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION, THE PRACTICE AND CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA SHOULD BE INSPECTED AT LEAST TWICE AFTER STORM EVENTS THAT EXCEED 1/2 INCH OF RAINFALL. CONDUCT ANY NEEDED REPAIRS OR STABILIZATION. FREQUENCY: AFTER INSTALLATION · MOW GRASS IN GRID PAVER APPLICATIONS. FREQUENCY: AT LEAST 1 TIME EVERY 1-2 MONTHS DURING THE GROWING SEASON · STABILIZE THE CDA TO PREVENT EROSION. FREQUENCY: AS NEEDED · REMOVE ANY SOIL OR SEDIMENT DEPOSITED ON PAVEMENT. FREQUENCY: AS NEEDED 05/29/2019 · REPLACE OR REPAIR ANY NECESSARY PAVEMENT SURFACE AREAS THAT ARE DEGENERATING OR SPALLING FREQUENCY: AS NEEDED · VACUUM PAVEMENT WITH A STANDARD STREET SWEEPER TO PREVENT CLOGGING. FREQUENCY: 2-4 TIMES PER YEAR (DEPENDING ON USE) DANIEL C. HYER Lic. No. 45596 · CONDUCT A MAINTENANCE INSPECTION. FREQUENCY: ANNUALLY · SPOT WEEDING OF GRASS APPLICATIONS. FREQUENCY: ANNUALLY · REMOVE ANY ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT IN PRE-TREATMENT CELLS AND INFLOW POINTS. FREQUENCY: ONCE EVERY 2 TO 3 YEARS · CONDUCT MAINTENANCE USING A REGENERATIVE STREET SWEEPER. FREQUENCY: ONCE EVERY 2 TO 3 YEARS · REPLACE ANY NECESSARY JOINT MATERIAL IF CLOGGED. FREQUENCY: ONCE EVERY 2 TO 3 YEARS APPROVED DCH SUBMITTAL NO. 4 PROJECT 1801200 T H E W O R K O F L I N E + G R A D E C4.2 -- --- ---- - - - - · ----- i....-- ------ --- --- - - - -c:::..._ ----- - - - - - --- ---------- ~ -- - - ----- I : \ ------ -- -- - ) -- -- --- ----- ----- -- -- -- -- I I I I ---- ----- waterstreet stud ic ------ -----~ --- - - t-- I _- - 1- - -:: .: :- -r-- I ---- landsca pe architectu re I c iv i l eng i nee rin 418 E Ma in Street 434 .29 5.8177 Charl ott esvi lle, VA 229< / ------1 ------ ------ .,£_£.•"I' --- - - - - - - ,..,---! / II I I II \ -- / ----------- , _ ~~ l'.t. £. 1 ~~, S1 " ------ _- - - - --- - / / / I I I I I I -- -- -- ------------ --- ---:.:-=--- --- -"' --- - - - - --- - - .:::i -- -- \ --- / I ---- - ---=--- ---::::---- -·--- / __./ --~ Li mits of disturbance --_-- -\~~-=-----_-_-_-_-_-~ :J: ___.. .------ ___.. ___.. -------__-""'_""'_""'_""'_""'..~ J ~T --- -- ---- ---- ~ ---::::=--- - - - --- Planting _Bufiei:- """'--"'----- -- - - \ - - - - - - - Pan o Fence Enclosure, see Arc . --- ___... ___... -- ------- -- ~---· ---- -- ---- -~~·c.----·· - · -- ------ I -- -- -- --- - - - - - Site furn iture by Owner --- -- ------- --- ~ NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOI' Notes ----- Pla nting bu ffer a nd sidewalk layout in this 1. area subject to change based upon fina l Monuruem~gn by others --~ _ _ - - - Planting Buffer -~ -- professional sea l desig n o f Emmet Street. 2. Street lightin g not provided w iibiR ttie _ - - - Plantin g Bed -~ E. RYANG project manager _ _ s=µ e-Gf tftis-pro@_~it'y'OfCharlottesvil l e r--- Connect to to pro)'.id.e~t ~etJi@h1i n g as a part of the / existing walk --- _ -Errrrile t Streetsca p e Projec t. / ~ J. FOX projec t team .. .• . . .' •.. . \ c .. . .. .. ... - ------- -- - -- -- ~ !> ~ \ " " \ I /:>;> . ' . - ---- I - - - --- f> \, -~ -- -- ------- - - --- -::::: - ::::: --- --- -- \ . '• \ ' --- --- I : ~ -- --....__,-- ~- ---- • 1.----- I - ---i I P ARK IN G ~..--. • J- ~--\ • I I I GA R AG E I I E NT RA NCE ... / v I D D • / / ,,.. ,,, / I / I I' I I I I I I I -- -- -- -- -- ··--~ / I I -- -- -- -- -- ...-- ___... ___... I I I '' [] NEW HOTEL BUILDING () flO -- -- -- I 0 I I I I I I I (\ I .... I • I I I I ' 4'-9" 0 -~ I THE GALLERY Bollard Light, typ . _ I I I ........,. I ' v 10'·2'' c COURT HOTEL projec t name Bicycle Parking (4 ) 1 ----... --7- I I INCAAM HOTELS I client I I 0... 140 EMMET STREET !'-~ I >- ,__ CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 I I project a d dress • I I I I I project number I I I I SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL # 3 I project phase ye~ Fie , e~Civil . -~ / Site furniture by owner APRIL 11, 2019 . I issue date ~ Ou t~r-Prep l ac e (Gas) ..::+-~--~H 1 z eatwa ll ~ I ~ Le ve l Spread er, See Civil. ~ < I ~ I l 06. 26.2018 SITE PLAN SUBMITIAL # 1 ~ I D S 0 ~ I , I I I \ \ . 2 12.15.20 18 SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #2 3 04.11 .20 19 SITE PLAN SU BMITTAL #3 ~ revisions ~- 6~ I )~-~ ~ ~-~-- - - ~ -.. ....____ ---------- -; - { ---_ I ~- __,...- WW rm rm z-w:w_ < I ~'--.._ 0 ~ ~- - - ----- _ _,,,, LAYOUT AND ~ - ~ ---\~-~-=- ~ ~ ='< (') -- MATERIALS IPLAN sheet title r;; L1.00 ~ u w 0 5 10 20 0 ~ 0, / o~ ~ sheet number -- -- --- I 1-- -- - :::::-::.- -<..:::" - - - - - - - - ---=:::::::: ------ I I - __ - - - - ----- - ------- ------------ - ------- - - - - - - !I ! I \_____________ _ - ) --- -- 1t-- I waterstreet stud ic -b- -- -- landscape architecture I c ivil eng i neer i n _J-- ~ r 418 E Ma in Street 434.295 .8177 Charlottesvi lle, VA 229< / ----------- \ ____-- " ~ ~ 'l --- ----- ----- J / / ,...........--i I I \ / ____--_-- S 'l " ---- / I I I I ·~ !'./\ ~ 'l ·- - e. - - - - ,,, / I I ~ --- ---- 1"' I I -- - --- - - - - _,,- \ --~ I ---- ~ / / \ - 44HT----'~-~-~-----------~ ---- ------ --- 44HT ------i-----~-_____,=-'----------------~ ~~ ---- -~ -- ---- _1.4.Hf- ~--_____,__ __ _~ -- _ - - --- 342 LM ------t--~ -- -- - - - 4UA---+-- - - - - -- -- - ---- --- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOI' 52 LM - --- - professional sea l --- ~~~-------~ ---- - --:::.~- -- - --- 2FG-----~ 212 LM E. RYANG project manager ----- -- ~ __......- 212TO ~ -- / / EXISTl_t::!.G 1REE TO REMAIN , TYP. 14 FG J. FOX project team / . . . ·. ~ ' • I> .--- --- . ,. --1--~ -- -- - ---_;; ------------ , PARKING \ \ GARAGE ENTRANCE D D • \\ - - -- - ---- - > l PO --+~/f----io~ - - -- 1--1 ' [] NEW HOTEL BUILDING 510 I I • 0 )> THE GALLERY c COURT HOTEL project name INCAAM HOTELS client 140 EMMET STREET !'-~ CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 project address • project number SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #3 project phase APRIL 11, 2019 issue date ~ EXIST G TREE TO EMAIN , TYP. 0 z 9-.·. ~~~~~~~~~~~=}- SUBGRADE PR IOR TO OUTER ROOTS INTO THE APPLICATION OF TOPSOIL ~ 2" DOUBLE-SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH ADJACENT SOIL. DO NOT § TODD, ~ - DECOMPACTED SO IL LEAVE CIRCLll~G ROOTS u SHALLENBERGER > -RIP WITH SING LE-TOOTH ~~_J__ll~PLANTIN G AGAINST THE l'OOT BALL. RIPPER OR OTHER L3 .00 SOIL SECTION MECHANICAL MEANS NATIVE BACKFILL SOIL AMENDED WITH 153 - PRIO R TO APPLICATION _,-- SUBGRADE DECOMPOS ED OF SOIL, SCARIFY FACE -~ 2 X ROOTBALL OF SUBGRADE ORGANIC COMPOST DIAMETER MIN IMUM NOT FOR COt'>JSTRUCTIOt'> - SUBGRADE professional seal PERENNIAL & GROUNDCOVER PLANTING - SECTION SCALE : l" = l '-0" 2 SCA LE : l /2" = l '-0" E. RYANG project manager PLANTING NOTES J. FOX l. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY PLANT MATERIAL QUANTITIES SO'vl/N ON PLAN W ITH TOTALS IN 9. BEDS TO CONTAIN SHRUBS, f'ERENNIALS, ORNAMENTAL GRASSES, OR PE,~ENNIALS SHALL BE project team PLANTING SCHEDULE. NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCH ITECT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO FINAL TILLED TO A DEPTH OF 12" AND THE SOIL CONDI TIONED BY ADDING 3" OF A U.S. COMPOSTING BIDDING. UNITS PRICES BE SUBM ITTED AS PART OF FINAL BID. COUNCIL APPROVED COMl0 0ST. 2. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE GUARANTEED FOR ONE (l) FULL YEAR AND SHALL BE IN A l 0. ALL PLANTING BED AREAS SHALL BE COVERED WITH A 3" MINIMUM LA YEF~ OF MEDIUM HEALTHY GROWING CONDITION. PLANT MATERIALS WHICH DO NOT FULFILL THIS GUARANTEE TEXTURED SHREDDED HARD'vl/OOD MULCH UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SHALL BE REPLACED AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. REPLACEMENT SHALL BE GUARANTEED THROUGHOUT THE ORIGINAL GUARANTEE PERIOD. PLANTS THAT DIE SHALL BE REPLACED 11. ALL SUBSTITUTIONS OF PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE REQUESTED IN WR ITING TO THE LANDSCAPE IMMEDIATELY. ARCHITECT AND APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE OWNER OR THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. 3. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WATER ING, WEEDING, PEST CONTROL, AND FERTILIZATION 12. ALL PLANTING OPERATIONS SHALL BE UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF AN EXPERIENCED OF ALL PLANT MATERIAL UNTIL, a.) UPON FINAL ACCEPTANCE IS ISSUED BY LANDSCAPE PLANTSMAN. ARCHITECT AND/OR OWNER, AND b.) THE CONTRACTOR PROVIDES OWNER WRITTEN NOTIFICATION OF ALL MAINTENANCE NEEDS OF ALL SCOPE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PLANTING 13. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO SELECT PLANT MATER IALS IN THE NURSERY. PLAN(S) CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT ASSUME IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS FULLY OPERATIONAL AT THE COMP LETION OF THE PLANTING 11\ISTALLATION. 14. FOR TREES BAL LED IN WIRE BASKETS, CUT AND REMOVE TOP AND SIDES OF BASKET AFTER INSTALLATION. 4. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING MISS UTILITY PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF ~ WEBBED STRAPPING, / ARBORTIE OR APPROVED CONSTRUCTION FOR LOCATION OF ALL UTILITY LINES. TREES SHALL BE LOCATED A MINIMUM OF 15. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT AND PLANTS AND MATERIALS THAT 2"x2"x6' MIN. HARDWOOD I EQU IV. ARE IN AN UNHEALTHY OR UNSIGHTLY CONDITION, AS WELL AS PLANTS A.ND MATERIALS THAT FIVE (5) FEET FROM SEWER/WATER CONNECTIONS. NOTIFY LAl\IDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF -USE 2 STAKES PER TREE II -LOOPED TO TRUNK CONFLICTS. DO NOT CONFORM TO A.A. N. STANDARDS. AND SET OUTSIDE ROOT -(2) PER TREE PACKAGE I -NAIL OR STAPLE TO STAKE 5. THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IS THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE AND SHALL BE THE APPROV ING 16. SOIL SHALL BE FREE OR ALL WEEDS AND ROCKS GREATER THAN l" IN DIAMETER. 3" DOUBLE SHREDDED ~ SET TOP OF ROOT HARDWOOD MULCH, II / CROWN 2" ABOVE AUTHORITY FOR IN FORMATION PROVIDED WITHIN THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. TAPER AT TRUNK. MULCH 17. PLANT SIZES, QUANTITIES, AND SPECIES WILL BE CHECKED BY MUNICIPALITY INSP EC TION FOR ADJACENT GRADE TO WITHIN 2" OF TRUNK II 6. ALL PLANT MATERIALS, TOPSOIL, MULCH, FERTILIZERS, SOIL AME'NDMENTS, PLANTING SUPPLIES, COMPLIANCE WITH PLANT SCHEDULE AS APPROVED BY THE MUN ICIPALITY. CONTRACTOR ~ SHAPE SOIL SURFACE TO IN PLANTING AREAS AND METHODS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO LA NDSCAPE ARCHITECTS APPROVAL. REJECTED SHALL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR DELAY IN ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY BY THE II / PROVIDE 3' DIAMETER REMOVE ALL WIRE & MATERIALS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE WITHOUT DELAY AT NO EXPENSE TO THE OWNER. MUNIC IPALITY RESULTING FROM UNAUTHOR IZED SUBSTITUTIONS OR DOWINSIZING. STRING FROM ROOTBALL II WATERING RING THE GALLERY AND ALL BUR LAP FROM FINIS H GRADE TOP 3'J OF ROOTBALL / - II 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL LAYOUT AND MARK LOCATION FOR ALL PLANT MATERIAL, AND IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN A ND SHALL REQUEST IN FIELD APPROVAL FROM LANDSCAPE 18. UPON COMPLETION OF LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION, THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE GENERAL CONTl,ACTOR WHO WILL VERIFY COMPLETENESS, INCLUDING THE COURT HOTEL project name RO UGHEN SIDES ~ ~ ARCHITECT. REPLACEMENT OF ALL DEAD PLANT MATERIAL, AND SCHEDULE A FINAL l ~"S PECTION FOR OF PLANTING HOLE ACCEPTANCE BY OWNER. t--- TREE PIT DEPTH EQUALS INCAAM HOTELS NATIVE BACKFILL SOIL ROOTBALL DEPTH 8. ALL PLANT MATERIALS AND PLANTING METHODS SHALL CONFORM TO A.A.N. STANDARDS. client AMENDED WITH 153 -MEASURE BEFORE 19. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE TREE STAKING AT THE END OF THE ONE YEl\R WARRANTEE 140 EMMET STREET l'J ORGANIC COMPOST " DIGGING TO AVOID PERIOD. CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 COMPACT SUBSOIL OVEREXCAVATION project address TO FORM PEDESTAL ~ITTJ:±:!Tr~fffi=l-- DRIVE STAKES 6" TO l '-0" TO PREVENT SETTLING INTO UNDISTURBED SOIL 3 X ROOTBALL BELOW ROOTBALL project number DIAMETER MINIMUM R.d I e TM Bike Rock , Su r fo ·:: e lvl ou r1t Do te 5/7 /20 10 Pr oduct Dro ·A·ing WW'N.la n dsccp e f orms.c orn Ph 800.52 1.2546 SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #3 TREE PLANTING SECTION project phase SCALE : l /2" = l '-0" i-=~~~=28=['1= 1[-~ APRIL 11, 2019 LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS PLANT SCHEDULE issue date 34-869 - TREE COVER REQUIREMENTS QTY. I SYMBiOL !scientific Name !common Name Isize !spacing I Root INotes I 10 Yr. Canopy !Total SF REQUIREMENT: TREES 2841 CANOPY COVER AT20 YEARS EQUALS 103 GROSS SITE AREA 5 10 I lex opaca 'Green leaf' American Holly 6'-7' AS SHOWN B&B off site SITE DATA: 1 PA Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 2 1/2" Cal. AS SHOWN B&B Strong central leader 1253 1253 CA STALUMINUM BODY 25,003 SQUARE FEET GROSS SITE AREA 4 UA, Ulm us americana 'Princeton' American Elm 2 1/2" Col. 25' o.c. B&B 397 1588 06.26.2018 SITE PLA.N SUBMITTAL # 1 TOT AL SITE AREA: 25,003 SQUARE FEET 2 12.15.2018 SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #2 TOTAL TREE CANOPY REQUIRED: 2,500 SQUARE FEET SHRUBS 3 04. 11.2019 SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #3 TOTAL TREE CANOPY AT 10 YEARS PROVIDED: 2,841 SQUARE FEET 16 FG Fothergill a gordenii 'Mount Airy' Dwarf Fothergilla 30" Ht. 48"0.C. 3Gol. GRADE revisions A A • 34-870 - STREETSCAPE TREES GROUNDCOVERS & PERENNIALS REQUIREMENT: 76 CA Carex amphilobo Creek Sedge I Ga l. 12"0.C. Cont. ~ 2[54] o.c. / ·- CAST Al UMINUt>', COV ER PLANTING f\lOTES, ~"==l======,9=[~=,1-~ 1 LARGE TREE PER 40 FEET OF ROAD FRONTAGE 132 HT Hemerocaiiis 'Tuscawilla Tigress' Daylily I Ga l. 12" Con t. Daylily 12" O.C. Con t. Emmet St. TOTAL TREES REQUIRED: 153 LINEAR FEi'T 4 LAR G E SHADE TREES 51 606 HF LM Hemeroca//is 'Fulva' Liriope mll5cari 'Big Blue' Lily Turf I Ga l. I Ga l. 12" O.C. Con t. DETAILS, SCIHEDULE, & CAL CU LA.TIO NS SECTION A-/>, TOTAL TREES PROVIDED: 4 LARGE SHADE TRE ES COl\'FIDE NTIAL DRAWINC INFORMA TI ON c o~,· TA I N ED HEREIN IS THE PROPERTY or LANDSCAPE FORMS, INC Draw ing: Rl 665- 0 1 lo \JTENDED USE IS LIMITED TO DESIGN PR OCESS IONALS SPEC IF"r!NG LAN IJSCA." 1: FO RMS. INC . PRODUCTS ANO BULBS BS. '.wen.sions are in ir:iches rrn rn ] f-' aten t N o.: Dti 13,b 46" Tf-:EI R DI RE CT CLIENTS _ DRAWING IS NO T TO BE COPIED OR DISCLOSO:D TO OTH ERS WITHOU T TH E CONS::NT or:- LANDSCAP[ FCfHAS, INC ©20 13 LANDSC AP E com.ts, INC_ ALL RIGHTS RES[R\iED sheet title 264 TO Tulipa 'Orange Emperor' Tu lip Bulb I nterpla nt evenly 5 BIKE RACK DETAIL SCALE: 1" = l '-0" L3.00 L3 .00 sheet number P1.0 P1.1 N.T.S. N.T.S. N.T.S. N.T.S. GENERAL NOTES: - � - • I". ""I 1 1. THIS PLAT WAS PRE.PARED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF TITLE REPORT AND IS SUBJECT THERETO. • 2 THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF ZONE "X-UNSHADED AS STORM SEWER SHOWN ON THE FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RA TE MAP PANEL NO. 51003C0267 D, SANITARYSEWER --- EFFECTIVE DA TE FEBRUARY 4, 2005. THIS DETERMINATION IS BASED ON SAID J MAP AND HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY ACTUAL FIELD ELEVATIONS. SSMH-1 STMH-1 TOP = 497.20' rI I TOP = 494.69' INVIN = 492.66' INVO = 490.93' TO SSMH-2 INVIN = 493.15' INVO = 493.00' TO STMH 2 .I ,· parker TOPOGRAPHY CERT/FICA TION: DESIGN GROUP SSMH-2 STMH-2 THIS PARTIAL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY WAS COMPLETED UNDER THE DIRECT AND RESPONSIBLE CHARGE OF ALAN CLEMONS, FROM AN ACTUAL GROUND SURVEY MADE TOP = 496.61' INVIN = 487. 90' FROM SSMH-1 TOP = 496.62' INVIN = 492.82' FROM STMH 7 I I 2122 Carolina Ave, SW Roanoke, YA 24014 UNDER MY SUPERVISION; THAT THE IMAGERY AND/OR ORIGINAL DATA WAS OBTAINED INVIN = UNABLE TO GET INFO INVO = 492. 72' TO STMH-3 lt)5 / Ph: 540-387-1 I 53 JANUARY 15, AND APRIL 16, 2018 AND THAT THIS PLAT, MAP OR DIGITAL GEOSPA TIAL INVO = UNABLE TO GET INFO Fax: 540-389-5767 DATA INCLUDING METADA TA MEETS THE MINIMUM ACCURACY STANDARDS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SSMH-3 STMH-3 TOP = 494.59' GRATE I 1915-B W. Cary Street Richmond, YA 23220 TOP = 469.89' BOTTOM OF STRUCTURE = 497.79' Phone: 804-358-2947 INVIN = 488.29' ' Fax: 804-359-9645 UTILITY NOTE: INVIN = 490.29' STMH-4 --4'r-•-.Jf , www.parkerdg.com I TOP = 494.17' GRATE THE UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON BY PARKER DESIGN CROUP ARE BASED ON FIELD LOCATION INVIN = 488.49' J i I Th..�e documents are rl,e property of Parker - 1,J::,: OF OBSERVED EVIDENCE OF UTILITIES, AND RECORDS AVAILABLE AT TIME OF SURVEY. INVO = 488.15' TO SSMH 2 BOTTOM OF STRUCTURE= 491.62' Design Group(PDG) and 1nay not be ft!f>r0<.l11ced or u�d without the express permission of PDG. REMARKING OF UTILITIES AND VER/FICA TION ARE SUGGESTED BEFORE ANY POSSIBLE Any reuse of Olese documents without EARTH WORK IS PERFORMED. SSMH-4 STMH-5 �utl,orir,ition of PDG will be at the sole risk of trle indi-.-idual or entity utilizi,1g said documents TOP = 496.1 7' TOP = 496.25' INVIN = 488.77' INVIN = 491.75' FROM STMH 4 LOCATION MAP BY CHARLOTTESVILLE G/S N O SCALE INVO = 489.57' TO SSMH 3 INVIN = 491.75' INVO = 490.75' TO DITCHLINE SSMH-5 TOP = 495.00' INVIN = 484.75' NOT CONNECTED TO US INVO = 484.60' NOT CONNECTED TO US LEGEND: • � MONUMENT FOUND BENCHMARK CU, UTILITY POLE -OHW- OVERHEAD WIRE ® SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE -SAN- UNDF:RGROUND SANITARY SEWER -X- FENCE: ¢ LIGHT POLF: e 8:, CLEANOUT ✓ TOP =495.5g,-- ......_ ......_ NO INVERT INFO -- 0 ::i:t: ::::s a:,� cc --- -- -- ..J Co -u z 1 - - I ...I w Cl) I <( r- (/) 0 ;:: 0::: (IS I <( E z I I ll.. .c - Cl) <( I <( I I -·- (/) Cl) I I N/F z <( 1/l I I .OAVED AREA PAVED AREA RECTOR AND VISITORS OF UVA PA.RCEL ID: 080005000 I N/F RF:CTOR AND VISITORS OF UVA I (IS PARCEL ID: 080006000 DEED BOOK 7757, PAGE 795 z I DF:F:D BOOK 1757, PAGF: 795 I .c 0 I I I I 0 I <( I 1/l .J SPAC 376 TO Pl OF I z I I I I 0 ·- � I ,.. <( UNIVERSITY A VE I (/) Q PLANTER {1883') PIN FOUND PIN I PIN _J_ {99.6') ----- FOUND I {50.4') ----- FOUND • SAN 495� WALK ----- SAN ° N 15 43'41" E 176.09'- SAN SSMH #2 - --- REVISIONS: U.S. ROUTE /29 - - - - - 495- - I - .496 EMMET STREETNORTH - - BENCHMARK: I � --- TOP OF SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE 60' WIDE -- / § '-------- ELEVATION = 494.69' --- / - I ---SAN-- AN � SSMH #5 '-------- - ------ I --------- ..._/ / SSMH #3 -495- -496-----._ OHW --- --OHW ____,""""":-- OHW --- -- OHW --._!__ I STMH #3 SIDEWALK SIDEWALK - - -4 6 - DESIGNED BY: 9 SIDF:WALK I DRAWN BY: MAC I / SSMH #4 I CHECKED BY: REC 1/l I I z )> I I I I I I DATE: � STMH #2 I APRIL 24, 2018 ; I SHEET TITLE: ; OPO/BOUNDARY ; I (J!f STMH #1 I 1"=20' SHEET NO. o· ' 20· 10' 20· 40 1'' = 20' THIS PLAT IS BASED O N A CURRENT FIELD SURVEY. N A TVARLAL M. PATEL (D.B. 419, GRAPHIC SCALE PG 169) IS THE OWNER OF RECORD. X0.0 W.O: 18-0009:01 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DATE OF MEETING: July 9, 2019 Project Planner: Matt Alfele, AICP Date of Staff Report: June 26, 2019 Development: 901 River Road (Tax Map 49 Parcel 98) Applicant: Ryan hanks, Go Store It River, LLC Applicant’s Representative(s): Justin Shimp, P.E., Shimp Engineering Current Property Owner: Go Store It River, LLC Applicable City Code Provisions: 34-800 – 34-827 (Site Plans) Zoning District: IC Industrial Corridor Reason for Planning Commission Review: Preliminary site plans associated with a property which has a Special Use Permit (SUP) are subject to review by the Planning Commission. Vicinity Map Page 1 of 6 2018 Aerial Zoning Map KEY - Yellow: R1-S, Light Orange: R-2, Orange: R-3, Pink: B-1, Red: B-2, Purple: CC, Grey: IC, Blue Stripe: EC. Page 2 of 6 Standard of Review Approval of a site plan is a ministerial function, as to which the Planning Commission has little or no discretion. When an applicant has submitted a site plan that complies with the requirements of the City’s Site Plan Ordinance, then approval of the plan must be granted. In the event the Planning Commission determines there are grounds upon which to deny approval of a site plan, the motion must clearly identify the deficiencies in the plan, that are the basis for the denial, by reference to specific City Code sections and requirements. Further, upon disapproval of a site plan, the Planning Commission must identify the modifications or corrections that would permit approval of the plan. Summary Justin Shimp, P.E. of Shimp Engineering, P.C., acting as agent for Go Store It River, LLC is requesting approval of a preliminary site plan to construct a mixed-use development with up to 55 residential dwelling units, 1,500sqft of retail space, and a 61,050sqft self-storage building at 901 River Road (TMP 49-98). City Council approved a Special use Permit (SP18-00010) with conditions on February 4, 2019. Site Plan Compliance Site plans are reviewed for compliance with City codes and standards. An overview of site plan requirements and the location of those items on the site plan are outlined below. Site Plan Requirements A. Compliance with applicable zoning district regulation IC Industrial Corridor (per Sections 34-440 - 34-480) The property is zoned IC Industrial Corridor. The project complies with all requirements of the IC Industrial Corridor District. B. Compliance with the City’s Erosion and Sediment Control ordinance, Chapter 10 The applicant’s erosion and sediment control plan will be submitted and reviewed during final site plan submission. The applicant will be required to comply with staff comments. C. Compliance with General Standard for site plans (Sections 34-800 - 34-827) 1. General site plan information, including but not limited to project, property, zoning, site, and traffic information: Found on Sheet C1. 2. Existing condition and adjacent property information: Found on Sheet C2. Page 3 of 6 3. Phasing plan: The project will be constructed in one phase per the SUP. 4. Topography and grading: Found on Sheet C5. 5. Existing landscape and trees: Found on Sheet C2. 6. The name and location of all water features: Found on Sheet C1 (Vicinity Map, Rivanna River. 7. One hundred-year flood plain limits: Found on Sheet C2. 8. Existing and proposed streets and associated traffic information: Found on Sheets C1 & C3. 9. Location and size of existing water and sewer infrastructure: Found on Sheet C4. 10. Proposed layout for water and sanitary sewer facilities and storm drain facilities: Found of Sheets C4, C5, & C9 through C15. 11. Location of other existing and proposed utilities and utility easements: Found on Sheet C4. 12. Location of existing and proposed ingress to and egress from the property, showing the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection: Found on Sheet C3. 13. Location and dimensions of all existing and proposed improvements: Found on Sheets C3 through C8. 14. All areas intended to be dedicated or reserved for public use: Found on Sheet C3 (Sidewalks and curb bump outs). 15. Landscape plan: Found on Sheets C6 & C7. 16. Where deemed appropriate by the director due to intensity of development: a. Estimated traffic generation figures for the site based upon current ITE rates: Found on Sheet C1 D. Additional information to be shown on the site plan as deemed necessary by the director or Commission in order to provide sufficient information for the director or Commission to adequately review the site plan. The Special Use Permit granted by City Council on February 4, 2019 includes the following conditions, which are provided on Sheet C3 of the preliminary site plan. 1. Any proposed final site plan for the Project, and all construction plans for the buildings within the Project, will be consistent with the representations and details presented by the landowner within the Application, including, without limitation: the SUP Conceptual plan for 901 River Road dated October 23, 2018 and the landowner’s presentation to Page 4 of 6 the Charlottesville City Council at its February 4, 2019 meeting. Reviewed during Preliminary, Final and CO process. 2. The residential density within the Subject Property shall not exceed twenty-five (25) dwelling units per acre, calculated with respect to the entire area (95,963 square feet) of the Subject Property. Found on Sheet C1. 3. Use of the Subject Property shall be limited to the specific uses referenced within the Application for this Special Use Permit; no other use(s) shall be established unless the landowner first obtains an amendment of this Special Use Permit authorizing the inclusion or substitution of other use(s). The buildings authorized for this Mixed Use Project are (i) one 4-story mixed-use building containing approximately 62,000 square feet of gross floor area containing more than 50 residential dwelling units and at least 1,500 square feet of ground floor space fronting on River Road devoted to retail and/or restaurant uses (“mixed-use building”) and up to 140 square feet of additional space for an accessory office or additional retail/ restaurant space; and (ii) one 4-story self- storage building containing approximately 61,000 square feet of gross floor area (“self- storage building”). Found on Sheet C1. 4. Amendment of this special use permit shall be required, prior to: (i) decrease of the gross floor area (GFA) devoted to retail and/or restaurant uses below 1,500 square feet; (ii) increase in the GFA of the accessory office within the mixed use building by more than three percent (3%), or (iii) change in the total GFA of the mixed-use building or the self-storage building by more than three percent (3%) of the GFA referenced in condition 3, above. Found on Sheet C1. 5. The Project shall be constructed as a single phase development. The self-storage building shall not be used or occupied prior to completion of the mixed-use building. Reviewed during Preliminary, Finial and CO process. 6. As part of the development of the Project, the landowner will construct sidewalk improvements along River Road and Belleview Avenue, to include connections to existing sidewalk networks on the following adjacent properties: Tax Map 49 Parcel 99 and Tax Map 49 Parcel 95. The landowner shall present plans for the sidewalk improvements to the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator, ADA Coordinator, and City Engineer for their review and approval, prior to official submission of any final site plan for the Project, and the approved plans for the sidewalk improvements will be included as part of any proposed final site plan(s) for the Project. The sidewalk improvements along Belleview Avenue will be designed in accordance with the City’s Streets That Work design guidelines, and will be constructed as a standard five-foot wide sidewalk which connects smoothly to existing sidewalks; further, the sidewalk improvements shall be designed and constructed to allow for on-street parking on the Page 5 of 6 south side of Belleview Avenue while maintaining two-way travel lanes. Found on Sheet C3. 7. As part of the development of the Project, the landowner will construct curb ramps on the north side of Belleview Avenue to facilitate access. The landowner shall present plans for the curb ramps to the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator and ADA Coordinator for review and approval, prior to official submission of any final site plan for the Project, and the approved plans for the curb ramps will be included as part of any proposed final site plan(s) for the Project. Found on Sheet C3. 8. The stormwater management plan for the Project will incorporate all construction and land disturbing activity within the area of the Subject Property, and it will provide on- site water quality treatment for the entire Project, using any best management practice(s) (“BMP”) approved by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (whether proprietary or nonproprietary), but not using any credit(s) for off-site treatment. The location and type of each BMP shall be depicted on any proposed final site plan(s) for the Project, in addition to being depicted and described within the approved final stormwater management plan for the Project. Found on Sheet C1 and C10 through C15. E. Compliance with Additional Standards for Specific Uses (Sections 34-930 - 34-938) A Dumpster is being proposed per Section 34-932. Found on Sheet C3. Public Comments Received Staff has not received any comment on the site plan during preliminary review. A Site Plan Conference was held with the public on December 5, 2018. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the preliminary site plan with any outstanding comments from the Comment Letter dated June 28, 2019 addressed prior to Final Site Plan approval. Attachments A. Preliminary Site Plan dated October 23, 2018 and a Revision date of May 13, 2019 B. Special Use Permit Resolution dated February 4, 2019 C. Comment Letter Dated June 28, 2019 Page 6 of 6 PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - PROJECT MANAGEMENT SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. FIRE MARSHAL'S NOTES 901 RIVER ROAD LEGEND TAX MAP 49, PARCEL 98 EXIST NEW DESCRIPTION CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1"=1000' OWNER/DEVELOPER ZONING LEGAL REFERENCE BENCHMARK ALTH OF WE VI ON RG SITE C OMM EW I NI A SOURCE OF BOUNDARY & TOPO I JUSTIN M. SHIMP E V Lic. No. R 45183 R R PR FFEO EE BUILDING HEIGHT O IN S NG S ION L E A BUILDING SETBACKS SHEET INDEX EXISTING USE C1 COVER SHEET COVER SHEET C2 EXISTING CONDITIONS & DEMOLITION PLAN C3 SITE PLAN PROPOSED USE C4 UTILITY PLAN FLOOD ZONE C5 GRADING PLAN C6 LANDSCAPE PLAN C7 LANDSCAPE DETAILS C8 LIGHTING PLAN WATER & SANITARY SERVICES C9 SITE DETAILS C10 PROFILES & DETAILS LAND USE SCHEDULE C11 EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL NARRATIVE C12 EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PH1 C13 EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PH2 C14 EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PH3 C15 EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS ELECTRIC / TELEPHONE / CABLE TV PARKING SCHEDULE 901 River Road NOTES PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 1. All excavation for underground pipe installation must comply with OSHA Standards for the Construction Industry (29 CFR Part 1926). 2. The location of existing utilities across or along the line of the proposed work are not necessarily shown on the plans and where shown based on "MISS UTILITY" markings and are only approximately correct. The contractor shall locate all underground lines and structures as necessary. 3. The contractor shall verify the locations of all boundaries, buildings, existing elevations, vegetation and other pertinent site elements. Contractor shall immediately report any discrepancies to the engineer of record. LAND DISTURBANCE 4. The contractor shall be responsible for notifying "MISS UTILITY" - 1-800-552-7001. 5. Any damage to existing utilities caused by the contractor or its subcontractors shall be the contractor's sole responsibility to repair. This expense is the contractor's responsibility. 6. All paving, drainage related materials and construction methods shall conform to current specifications and standards of the City of STORMWATER COMPLIANCE Charlottesville unless otherwise noted. 7. An erosion and sediment control plan is required with this site plan. 8. All slopes and disturbed areas are to be fertilized, seeded and mulched. The maximum allowable slope is 2:1. Where it is reasonably obtainable, lesser slopes of 3:1 or better are to be achieved. 9. Paved, rip-rap or stabilization mat lined ditch may be required when in the opinion of the Engineer it is deemed necessary in order CITY PERMITS to stabilize a drainage channel. 10. All traffic control signs shall conform to the 2011 Virginia Supplement to the 2009 Manual on Uniform Control Devices.. 11. Unless otherwise noted all concrete pipe shall be reinforced concrete pipe - Class III. 12. All material inside concrete forms shall be clean and free of all rocks and other loose debris. Sub-base material shall be compacted by mechanical means. Remove all standing water from area inside forms. 13. Concrete and asphalt shall not be placed unless the air temperature is at least 40 degrees in the shade and rising. Material shall SIGNS not be placed on frozen subgrade. 14. All existing curbs, curb and gutters and sidewalks to be removed shall be taken out to the nearest joint. 15. Existing asphalt pavement shall be saw cut and removed as per VDOT Road and Bridge Specifications 2016. Removal shall be EASEMENTS done in such a manner as to not tear, bulge or displace adjacent pavement. Edges shall be clean and vertical. All cuts shall be parallel or perpendicular to the direction of traffic. 16. The contractor shall exercise care to provide positive drainage to the storm inlets or other acceptable drainage paths in all locations. CRITICAL SLOPES 17. Contact information for any necessary inspections with City: E&S inspector, NDS- 970-3182 (for the E&S inspections) BMP MAINTENANCE Project Inspectors, NDS-970-3182 (for other construction items like sidewalk, pavement patches, road, storm sewer etc) LIGHTING Water and Sanitary Sewer-Public Works 970-3800 Street cut, Public Works 970-3800 Other public ROW issues-City Engineer 970-3182. 18. Any sidewalk and/or curb damage identified in the site vicinity due to project construction activities as determined by City inspector UTILITY MARKINGS shall be repaired at the contractor's expense. 19. A temporary street closure permit is required for closure of sidewalks, parking spaces and roadways and is subject to approval by the City Traffic Engineer. 20. Per the Virginia Department of Health Waterworks Regulation (Part II, Article 3, Section 12 VAC 5-590 ITE TRIP GENERATION through 630), all buildings that have the possibility of contaminating the potable water distribution system (hospitals, industrial sites, breweries, etc) shall have a backflow prevention device installed within the facility. This device shall meet specifications of the Virginia uniform Statewide Building Code, shall be tested in regular intervals as required, and test results shall be submitted to the Regulatory Compliance Administrator in the Department of Utilities. APPROVALS: 21. All buildings that may produce wastes containing more than one hundred (100) perts per million of fats, or grease shall install a grease trap. The grease trap shall meet specifications of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code, maintain records of cleaming and maintenance, and be inspected on regular intervals by the Regulatory Compliance Administrator in the Department of Utilities. 22. Please contact the Regulatory Compliance Administrator at 970-3032 with any questions regarding the DIRECTOR OF NEIGHBORHOOD DATE grease trap or backflow prevention devices. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SOILS LEGEND PR C OMM O ON S FFEO PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WE EXISTING CONDITIONS AND R Lic. No. R A DEMOLITION SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. E S ION L E V ALTH OF ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - PROJECT MANAGEMENT I 45183 NG VI 901 River Road IN JUSTIN M. SHIMP EE RG EW R I NI A CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - PROJECT MANAGEMENT SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. ASH UP ORAGE DOG W BIKE ST rm Bike te 24 Long 24 m E ROOM Longter PACKAG Bike Storage Spaces ALTH OF WE VI ON ICAL OFFICE MECHAN RG MAINT. C OMM EW I NI A ICAL ELECTR JUSTIN M. SHIMPV I Lic. No. R E 45183 R R PR FFEO EE O IN S NG S ION L E RISER A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN UP 901 River Road PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA SUP APPROVAL Conditions of Special Use Permit Approval February 4, 2019: UP UP PR C OMM O ON F FE O S PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WE R UTILITY PLAN Lic. No. A SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. V ALTH OF ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - PROJECT MANAGEMENT I S ION L E N R 45183 VI GI 901 River Road N JUSTIN M.ESHIMP EE RG EW R I NI A CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA UP UP PR C OMM O ON S FFEO PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WE R GRADING PLAN Lic. No. R A SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. E S ION L E V ALTH OF ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - PROJECT MANAGEMENT I 45183 NG VI 901 River Road IN JUSTIN M. SHIMP EE RG EW R I NI A CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA UP UP PR C OMM O ON S FFEO PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WE R LANDSCAPE PLAN Lic. No. R A SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. E S ION L E V ALTH OF ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - PROJECT MANAGEMENT I 45183 NG VI 901 River Road IN JUSTIN M. SHIMP EE RG EW R I NI A CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - PROJECT MANAGEMENT SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. HUNTCO WALL MOUNT-LOCK BAR BIKE RACK OR EQUIVALENT ONE RACK PER STORAGE UNIT ALTH OF WE VI ON RG C OMM EW I NI A JUSTIN M. SHIMPV I Lic. No. R E 45183 R R PR FFEO EE O IN S NG S ION L E A ASH DOG W LANDSCAPE DETAILS 901 River Road PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA SEE PLANS FOR EXACT LAYOUT. SPACE SET SHRUB PLUMB. TOP OF PLANTS AS SPECIFIED IN PLANT LIST ROOTBALL SHALL NOT BE MORE OR AS SHOWN. ADJUST SPACING AS THAN 1" ABOVE FINISHED GRADE NECESSARY OR AS DIRECTED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. REMOVE BURLAP FROM MULCH 2" DEEP TOP 1/3 OF ROOTBALL IMMEDIATELY AFTER PLANTING AND WATER 3" TALL WATERING THOROUGHLY. BERM PLANTING PIT. FINISHED GRADE PREPARED SOIL FOR SHRUBS 1/2 BALL VARIES DIA. MIN SOIL SURFACE ROUGHENED TO BIND NEW SOIL ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - PROJECT MANAGEMENT SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.9 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.8 2.0 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.2 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.7 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.5 2.8 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.4 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 2.0 2.5 2.8 3.1 3.4 4.1 3.1 2.9 2.6 2.2 1.7 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 2.3 3.0 3.7 4.5 4.9 5.9 4.7 4.0 3.3 2.6 1.8 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 ALTH OF 1.4 2.4 3.4 4.6 6.1 7.1 7.5 6.6 5.1 3.8 2.8 1.8 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 WE VI ON 0.0 0.0 0.0 RG C OMM EW 0.0 0.0 0.0 I NI A 1.3 2.5 3.6 5.2 7.2 8.6 8.5 7.9 5.9 4.1 2.8 1.8 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 A-1 JUSTIN M. SHIMPV I 1.3 2.5 3.7 5.4 7.5 9.0 8.7 8.3 6.0 4.3 2.9 1.8 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lic. No. R E 45183 0.0 0.0 0.0 R R PR FFEO 0.0 0.0 EE 7.5 5.8 4.2 3.0 2.0 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 6.9 8.0 8.3 O 0.0 1.5 2.7 3.7 IN 0.0 0.0 S NG S ION L E 0.0 0.0 A 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.1 2.1 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 2.7 3.6 4.6 5.7 6.2 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 4.5 5.3 4.4 4.1 3.7 3.1 2.2 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 2.8 3.5 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 4.2 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.0 2.3 1.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 2.8 3.2 3.5 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.8 3.1 3.1 3.1 2.9 2.4 1.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 2.7 3.0 3.1 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.8 3.1 3.1 3.1 2.9 2.4 1.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.8 3.0 3.1 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LIGHTING PLAN 3.4 3.3 3.0 2.4 1.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 2.8 3.2 3.4 3.5 3.7 4.2 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 5.3 4.3 4.1 3.7 3.1 2.3 1.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 2.8 3.5 3.9 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 7.0 5.9 5.0 4.0 3.2 2.2 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 2.7 3.6 4.5 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.9 8.5 7.5 5.8 4.3 3.1 2.1 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 2.7 3.7 5.1 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 8.5 6.3 4.5 3.1 1.9 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 1.3 2.6 3.7 5.4 7.5 9.1 0.1 0.1 A-2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.4 6.3 4.6 3.3 2.3 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.6 2.8 4.0 5.6 7.6 9.1 9.1 0.2 0.2 1.2 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 7.4 6.0 4.6 3.8 3.0 2.0 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 2.7 3.7 4.5 5.6 6.9 7.9 0.3 0.4 1.7 1.4 1.1 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 5.7 5.1 4.4 3.9 3.4 2.6 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.7 3.5 4.1 4.6 5.1 5.7 5.9 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.1 1.9 1.5 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 4.1 4.0 3.9 3.7 3.5 3.0 2.9 3.2 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.3 2.9 2.4 1.5 1.9 2.4 2.9 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.5 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.4 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.2 2.0 1.5 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.4 4.1 4.8 5.0 4.9 4.3 3.5 2.7 1.5 2.0 2.7 3.5 4.3 4.8 4.9 4.8 4.4 4.4 4.2 3.9 3.6 3.4 3.5 0.4 0.7 0.9 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 901 River Road 6.6 5.6 4.1 2.9 2.0 1.5 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 3.4 3.0 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.9 5.2 6.4 6.9 0.9 1.1 1.5 2.0 2.9 4.2 5.6 6.6 6.8 6.4 5.5 4.7 4.0 PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 0.4 0.6 B-2 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA B-1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 6.2 4.3 2.8 1.9 1.3 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 2.5 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.9 3.9 5.7 7.2 7.8 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.9 2.8 4.3 6.2 7.5 7.8 7.3 5.9 4.5 3.6 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.3 0.9 1.0 1.4 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.7 Schedule Manufactur Catalog Number Light Loss Symbol Label Quantity Description Lamp Filename Wattage er Number Lamps Factor 2 PHILIPS LED 1 1 GARDCO A 2 PHILIPS LED 1 1 GARDCO B STATISTICS Description Symbol Avg Max Min Max/Min Avg/Min Site Area 1.8 fc 9.1 fc 0.0 fc N/A N/A PR C OMM O ON FE SS PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WE SITE DETAILS FO R SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. ALTH OF ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - PROJECT MANAGEMENT RE IONAL E N Lic. No. 45183 VI GI V 901 River Road N I JUSTIN M. SHIMP EE RG R I NI A CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA EW PR C OMM O ON O FE F SS PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN R WE PROFILES & DETAILS Lic. No. SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. E IONAL E ALTH OF ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - PROJECT MANAGEMENT V R 45183 NG VI I 901 River Road IN JUSTIN M. SHIMP EE RG E R I NI A CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA W PROJECT DESCRIPTION, GENERAL NOTES, EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES, AND SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION PR C OMM O ON O FE F SS EROSION CONTROL PLAN FOR R WE EROSION & SEDIMENT Lic. No. CONTROL NARRATIVE SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. E IONAL E ALTH OF ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - PROJECT MANAGEMENT V R 45183 NG VI I 901 River Road IN JUSTIN M. SHIMP EE RG E R I NI A CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA W SOIL EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL SYMBOLS O PR C OMM ON FE O F SS WE EROSION CONTROL PLAN FOR R EROSION & SEDIMENT Lic. No. CONTROL PLAN PH1 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. E IONAL E ALTH OF ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - PROJECT MANAGEMENT R45183 V NG VI I IN JUSTIN M. SHIMP 901 River Road EE R RG E I NI A CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA W SOIL EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL SYMBOLS O PR C OMM ON FE O F SS WE EROSION CONTROL PLAN FOR R EROSION & SEDIMENT Lic. No. CONTROL PLAN PH2 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. E IONAL E ALTH OF ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - PROJECT MANAGEMENT R45183 V NG VI I IN JUSTIN M. SHIMP 901 River Road EE R RG E I NI A CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA W SOIL EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL SYMBOLS O PR C OMM ON FE O F SS WE EROSION CONTROL PLAN FOR R EROSION & SEDIMENT Lic. No. CONTROL PLAN PH3 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. E IONAL E ALTH OF ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - PROJECT MANAGEMENT R45183 V NG VI I IN JUSTIN M. SHIMP 901 River Road EE R RG E I NI A CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA W ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - PROJECT MANAGEMENT SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. ALTH OF WE VI W ON E RG I C OMM I NI A E V JUSTIN M. SHIMP R45183 Lic. No. R R PR O EE FE O F SS NG IN IONAL E TABLE 3.39-A ADHESIVES USED FOR DUST CONTROL Water Application Dilution Type of Rate Adhesive (Adhesive: Water) Nozzle Gallons/Acre EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS Anionic Asphalt Emulsion 7:1 Coarse Spray 1,200 Latex Emulsion 12.5:1 Fine Spray 235 Resin in Water 4:1 Fine Spray 300 Acrylic Emulsion (Non-Traffic) 7:1 Coarse Spray 450 Acrylic Emulsion (Traffic) 3.5:1 Coarse Spray 350 901 River Road CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA EROSION CONTROL PLAN FOR C I T Y O F CH A RL O T T E S VI L L E “A World Class City” Neighborhood Development Services 610 East Market Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 Telephone 434-970-3182 Fax 434-970-3359 www.charlottesville.org June 28, 2019 Shimp Engineering, P.C. Attn: Justin Shimp 912 East High Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: 901 River Road Preliminary Site Plan (TM 49 P 98) Justin, The above referenced preliminary site plan was submitted to our office on November 1, 2018 for an initial round of review and again on February 27, 2019 and May 15, 2019 for additional reviews. Please find below a list of revisions that must be addressed during Final Site Plan review. 1. Comments from Hugh Blake, Civil Engineer, are attached. 2. Comments from Jerry Allen, Traffic Engineer, are attached. 3. Comments from Amanda Poncy, Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator, are attached. 4. Comments from Roy Nester, Utilities Engineer, are attached. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact him at (434) 970-3636 or email alfelem@charlottesville.org. Sincerely, Matt Alfele, AICP City Planner Page 1 of 6 C: Shimp Engineering, P.C., Attn: Justin Shimp, P.E,. justin@shimp-engineering.com Go Store It River, LLC, Attn: Dan Gualtieri, dan@madisoncapgroup.com 5605 Carnegie Road Charlotte, NC 28209 Missy Creasy Hugh Blake Jerry Allen Roy Nester Amanda Poncy Page 2 of 6 City Staff have made a good faith effort to identify all deficiencies within the November 1, 2018. February 27, 2019, and May 15, 2019 submissions; however, in the event that there remains any other deficiency which, if left uncorrected, would violate local, state or federal law, regulations, or mandatory engineering and safety requirements, such other deficiency shall not be considered, treated or deemed as having been approved. These comments are based on the current submission; future submissions may generate additional comments. The following items need to be addressed in the revised site plan: Be advised that major changes to the site plan may result in new comments not reflected in this review Engineering Civil Engineer – Hugh Blake STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 1. The VRRM spreadsheet now shows a hydrodynamic separator as the water quality structure, Specification 14.a; however, the plan shows a Stormtech filter system, 14.b. Revise spreadsheet. 2. Revise VRRM spreadsheet to reflect land disturbance expected from the off-site grading easement. SHEET C3 3. The width of the parking spaces on Belleview Avenue are shown as 7 feet. The minimum width is 8 feet. Revise design accordingly. ROW may need to be dedicated. SHEET C4 4. REPEAT COMMENT: Show how the filters will function. The control structure, weir plate, is above the grade of the manhole with the filter cartridges. Review proposed design; it is not clear that the system will function as shown. 5. 24inch diameter pipes are now shown upstream of the 18 inch diameter pipe in the street. Revise upstream pipe size to less than or equal to the downstream diameter pipe (18 inches). SHEET C10 6. Detail 3 shows an HDPE pipe with one foot of cover. Will one foot of cover be sufficient to negate buoyancy effects from groundwater in the floodplain? What is the normal depth to groundwater here? Transportation Traffic Engineer – Brennen Duncan (Jeanie Alexander, EPR) 7. Install a “Right Turn Only” sign at the north exit. 8. Label streets on plan page. 9. Utilize RE-1 entrance per City Standards and Design Manual, Appendix A. Page 3 of 6 10. No need to install the curb ramp at the northeast corner of the property crossing River Rd. 11. Curb radius at entrances and on the corner of Belleview Ave and River Rd are required to be 25 feet per City Standard and Design Manual 204 (F) (3) (a). 12. The aisle on the south east side of the building, with no adjacent parking, must be 24 feet wide per City Code, Section 34-975 (h) (2). 13. On street parking must be 8 feet wide for a mixed-use area per City Code, Section 34-977 (a). 14. Parking areas shall be constructed with a slope no greater than 5 percent. The aisle on the south side of the structure is showing a slope of 10 percent. City Code, Section 34-981 (b). Transportation Bicycle and Pedestrian – Amanda Poncy 15. Please clarify the accessible route from the public sidewalk to the primary building entrances (Sec. 34-897) Department of Utilities Utilities Engineer – Roy Nester General: 16. (F) Please provide a detail for the street tree root barrier. Please specify size, depth, and make / model. 17. (F) On sheet C4, if the retaining wall adjacent to the storm run from F3 – F2 remains, please note that no part of the wall (footer, geogrid, tieback, etc) can extend into City ROW. Also, please note that the wall shall be designed such that the City can excavate a 6-foot wide trench centered on the storm line to a depth of 6-inches below the pipe invert (or structure invert) and this excavation will not affect wall stability / footer. This may require an extra-deep footer. 18. (F) On sheet C4, the new building is shown to be constructed adjacent to existing overhead lines along Belleview. Please confirm this is acceptable to the overhead utility line owners. If not, show any necessary pole relocation / undergrounding as a part of this site plan. 19. (F) Please show the location of proposed dry utilities for this project. This includes electric, telephone, cable, fiber optic, etc. Please make it clear which new lines will be installed above grade and which will be below grade. STORM: 20. (P) Repeat Comment: Please confirm that the existing CMP storm drain in River Road is functional and has an outlet. It is not acceptable to assume this pipe connects to an HDPE Page 4 of 6 line. The functionality of this line needs to be confirmed at this preliminary stage of development as it is a critical storm drain connection. 21. (P) On sheet C4 storm line F3 – F2 shall be 15-inch RCP minimum. 22. (F) On sheet C4, please remove the proposed retaining wall from the proposed utility easement for the storm line F3 – F2. We do not need a proposed obstruction where a relocated pipe is proposed. 23. (F) On sheet C4 for the private storm run between Y1 and C2, we do not recommend installing a bend in the line as shown. As this is a proposed private line, this is only a recommendation. 24. (F) On sheet C6 for the storm pipe between F1 – F2, please remove the tree that is within 10-feet of the pipe in the patio area. As this is not a street tree, a root barrier is not acceptable, just relocate / remove the tree (or relocate the storm 10-feet away). 25. (F) On sheet C10 for the storm profiles, please show continuous runs of pipe with a continuous profile, like the sanitary sewer profile. 26. (F) On sheet C10 for the storm profiles, please make sure all runs of pipe have the size / material / slope called out. 27. (F) On sheet C10 for the storm profile for F3-F2, please update the pipe size and material to be 15-inch RCP (and note the pipe class). Water: 28. (P) Repeat Comment: Please provide water demand calculations for each proposed water meter such that a properly sized meter can be installed. The AWWA fixture count method is the preferred method to calculate these flow rates. There were no demand calculations provided for the storage building but we do expect it to be a 5/8-inch meter. 29. (P) For the water demand calculations, please include the pressure adjustment factor as pressure in this area is 120+ PSI. Also, if the calculated maximum demand is within 20% of the maximum operating capacity for the meter, go ahead and go up one size. We expect the proposed meter to be a 2-inch meter (assuming the same demands) once the pressure factor and 20% factor are used. 30. (F) On sheet C4, is there any desire for the proposed retail / coffee shop to have its own water meter? If so, please show as such and provide demand calculations. 31. (F) On sheet C4 for the 5/8 water meter serving the storage building, please note this meter shall be served by a ¾-corp stop (tap) on the main and ¾-inch type K copper service line. There should not be a TS&V reference for this connection. 32. (F) On sheet C4 for the 5/8 water meter serving the storage building, please show the proposed meter box to scale. Sewer: Page 5 of 6 33. (P) Repeat Comment: On sheet C4, for the new sewer cleanout along River Road, please provide this as close to the ROW/property line as possible while remaining out of the concrete entrance. 34. (F) On sheet C4 for proposed manhole S3, please remove the drop MH label. This should be a standard manhole. 35. (F) On sheet C10 for the sanitary sewer profile, please remove the proposed drop in manhole S3. Please show this with the normal 0.2-feet of fall across the manhole. Per City standards, drops are only allowed where necessary, and there is nothing shown that would necessitate the drop. 36. (F) On sheet C10 for the sanitary sewer profile, please provide existing manhole inverts for manhole S1. Please indicate all pipe sizes and material. For the new proposed main, please match crowns with the existing 15-inch pipe in. 37. (F) On sheet C10 for the sanitary sewer profile, please provide proposed manhole inverts for and pipe sizes for manhole S4. Page 6 of 6 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: July 9, 2019 RE: UPDATE GENERAL LAND USE PLAN Project Planner: Matt Alfele, AICP Date of Staff Report: June 25, 2019 Application Information: Property Street Address: 209 Maury Avenue, two unaddressed lots with frontage on Maury Avenue, and three unaddressed lots with frontage on Stadium Road Tax Map/Parcels #: Tax Map 17, Parcels 180, 180.1, 180.2, 184, 185, and 186 Total Square Footage/ Acreage Site: Approx. 1.6 acres (69,696 square feet) Comprehensive Plan (General Land Use Plan): Low Density Residential Current Zoning Classification: R-2U (Residential Two-family University) Completeness: The application generally contains all of the information required by Zoning Ordinance (Z.O.) Sec. 34-41. Background: On June 11, 2019 the Planning Commission provided a recommendation to City Council to rezone the Subject Properties from R-2U (Residential two-family University) to R-3 (Multifamily). By rezoning the Subject Properties, they no longer conform to the City’s 2013 General Land Use Map. Under the current map the Subject Properties are Low Density Residential. This designation is not consistent with R-3 zoning. A High Density Residential designation on the Land Use Map is more consistent with R-3 zoning. Standard of Review: All amendments to the Comprehensive Plan shall be recommended, approved and adopted, respectively, in accordance with the requirements set forth within Title 15.2, Chapter 22, Article 3 of the Code of Virginia as amended. In considering any amendments to the plan, the City Council shall act within (90) days of the Planning Commission’s recommendation resolution. Page 1 of 5 Vicinity Map: 2013 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map: Yellow: Low Density Residential, Red: Neighborhood Commercial, & Orange: High Density Residential, White: UVA Page 2 of 5 Proposed Action: To insure consistency between the City’s Zoning Map and the Comprehensive Land Use Map, staff recommends amending the Land Use Map for the Subject Properties to “High Density Residential”. Current Land Use Designation Proposed Land Use Designation Low Density Residential High Density Residential Includes all land occupied by single or Includes all land intended to be occupied by two-family types of housing. The density multi-family residential types of housing in these areas by right should be no (townhouses, apartments, condominiums). greater than 15 units per acre. The density in these areas should be greater than 15 units per acre. Zoning History of the Subject Properties: Year Zoning District 1949 A-1 Residence 1958 R-2 Residential 1976 R-2 Residential 1991 R-2 Residential 2003 R-2U Residential 2016 SUP for Educational Facility and Daycare 2018 SUP Expired The Subject Property is bordered by: Direction Zoning District Current Use East R-3 Cavalier Court Apartments and the Jefferson Scholars Foundation building South R-2U Duplexes West R-2U Single family detached dwellings and duplexes North UVA Grounds Gooch Dillard Student housing and Scott Stadium Page 3 of 5 Streets that Work Plan The Streets that Work Plan labels Stadium Road and Maury Avenue as Mixed Use B. The full plan can be viewed at: http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and- services/departments-h-z/neighborhood-development-services/streets-that- work/streets-that-work-plan Mixed Use B streets. They are characterized by one vehicular travel lane in each direction, intermittent center turn lanes, sidewalks and bicycle facilities. These streets also may have on-street parking. The adjacent land uses may be commercial, higher density residential or institutional. These streets should support high levels of walking, bicycling, and transit as they connect important destinations within the City and surrounding county. Future development that occurs along these streets will likely include a dense mix of uses. The purposes set forth per Z.O. Sec. 34-350(b) are: Two-family (R-2). The two-family residential zoning districts are established to enhance the variety of housing opportunities available within certain low-density residential areas of the city, and to provide and protect those areas. There are two categories of R-2 zoning districts: R-2U, (“university”), consisting of quiet, low-density residential areas in the vicinity of the University of Virginia campus, in which single-family attached and two-family dwellings are encouraged. R-3, consisting of medium-density residential areas in which medium- density residential developments, including multifamily uses, are encouraged. Public Comments Received: On June 11, 2019 the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on the rezoning request.. No members of the public spoke. Staff received a number of emails regarding this project and they have been forwarded to Planning Commission and City Council. Suggested Motions: 1. I move to recommend approval to amend the 2013 Comprehensive General Land Use Map for the Subject Properties from Low Density Residential to high Density Residential. Page 4 of 5 OR, 2. I move to recommend denial to amend the 2013 Comprehensive General Land Use Map for the Subject Properties from Low Density Residential to high Density Residential. Attachments A. Link to the Rezoning Public Hearing from June 11, 2019 https://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and-services/departments-h- z/neighborhood-development-services/development-ordinances/city-planning- commission/agendas/2019-agendas Page 5 of 5 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT MAJOR SUBDIVISION PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: July 9, 2019 APPLICATION NUMBER: P19-0059 Project Planner: Matt Alfele, AICP Date of Staff Report: June 24, 2019 Project Name: 105 David Terrace Property Owner: Shamrock Breco, LLC !pplicant’s Representative: Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc. (Surveyor) & Shimp Engineering, P.C. (Site Work), Justin Shimp, P.E. Applicable City Code Provisions: 29 – 1 through 29 – 126 (Subdivision) Zoning District: R-2 – Residential Two-family Date Subdivision was submitted: Plat: April 15, 2019, Site Plan October 5, 2018 Legal Standard of Review Approval of a major subdivision is a ministerial function, as to which the Planning Commission has little or no discretion. When an applicant has submitted a subdivision that complies with the requirements of the City’s Subdivision Ordinance, then approval of the plan must be granted. In the event the Planning Commission determines there are grounds upon which to deny approval of a subdivision, the motion must clearly identify the deficiencies in the plan, that are the basis for the denial, by reference to specific City Code sections and requirements. Further, upon disapproval of a subdivision, the Planning Commission must identify the modifications or corrections that would permit approval of the plan. Before Planning Commission is a proposed subdivision that meets the provisions of Chapter 29 with the exception of one provision. Staff is asking Planning Commission to determine if the proposed subdivision meets Section 29-161(c) as it pertains to lot 4. No lot shall contain peculiarly shaped elongations designed solely to provide the required square footage of area or frontage on a street. Page 1 of 3 Vicinity Map Executive Summary Roudabush, Gale & Associates, on behalf of the owner Shamrock Berco, LLC, has submitted a major subdivision plat located on the west side of David Terrace. The plat calls for subdividing the existing parcel into four (4) lots to accommodate construction of four (4) two-family homes. The subdivision is major because construction will require the extension of public utilities (extension of public sewer in David Terrace and Thomas Drive). The property is further identified on City Real Property Tax Map 22 Parcel 59 having frontage on David Terrace and Thomas Drive. The site is zoned R-2 Residential two-family and a total project area of 1.10 acres. This is a request for plat approval. The corresponding site plan is still under review. Staff Checklist A. Compliance with design standards and improvements (per Subdivision Ordinance Sec. 29-160 through Sec. 29-163): 1. The proposed subdivision plat conforms to Subdivision Ordinance Sections 29-160 through Section 29-163 with the possible exception of Section 29-161(c) which the Planning Commission must determine. Page 2 of 3 B. Compliance with Street Standards for Subdivisions (per Subdivision Ordinance Sec.29- 180 through Sec. 29-183): 1. No new roads or extension of existing roads are being proposed with the subdivision plat. C. Compliance with Utility Standards for Subdivisions (per Subdivision Ordinance Sec. 29- 200 through Sec. 29-204): 1. The utility layout and configurations have been reviewed by Public Utilities as a part of the plan review process and will be approved prior to final plat and site plan approval. 2. An erosion and sediment control plan was submitted with the site plan and will be approved prior to final plat approval. 3. The City’s Fire Department reviewed the plat and site plan and finds adequate capability exists to provide fire protection. D. Compliance with applicable zoning district regulations (per Zoning Ordinance Sec. 34- 350 through Sec. 34-420): 1. All lots shown on the plat are legal and buildable R-2 lots, pending Planning Commission’s determination on lot 4. Public Comments Received On November 7, 2018 a site plan conference was held relating to the site plan portion of this project. Five (5) members of the public attended and raised concerns related to the possibility of the sewer backing up noting more units will create additional parking problems, and inquiry on how the old drycleaners (formally on the site) was remediated. Recommendation Staff recommends Planning Commission make a determination on lot 4 as it relates to Section 29-161(c). That determination will lead to the determination for the subdivision as a whole. Suggested Motions 1. I move to approve the proposed subdivision plat located at 105 David Terrace, Tax Map 22 Parcel 59. 2. I move to deny the proposed subdivision plat located at 105 David Terrace, Tax Map 22 Parcel 59 as it does not conform to Section 29-161(c) of the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. Attachments A. Subdivision Plat dated April 22, 2019 B. Site Plan dated October 5, 2018 and revised January 16, 2019 C. Comment Letter dated June 25, 2019 Page 3 of 3 Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment B PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 105 DAVID TERRACE TAX MAP 22, PARCEL 59 LEGEND CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA EXIST NEW DESCRIPTION OWNER/DEVELOPER BUILDING HEIGHTS VICINITY MAP SCALE : 1"=1000' BUILDING SETBACKS ZONING EXISTING USE DISTRICT PROPOSED USE LEGAL REFERENCE LAND USE SCHEDULE SITE BENCHMARK SOURCE OF BOUNDARY & TOPOGRAPHY CRITICAL SLOPES LAND DISTURBANCE Map provided by Google.com FLOODZONE STORMWATER COMPLIANCE WATER & SANITARY SERVICES CITY PERMITS SHEET INDEX COVER ELECTRIC/ TELEPHONE/ CABLE TV C1 EXISTING CONDITIONS & DEMOLITION C2 SIGNS SITE PLAN C3 UTILITY MARKING C4 UTILITY PLAN PARKING SCHEDULE GRADING PLAN 912 E. HIGH ST. 434.227.5140 C5 CHARLOTTESVILLE VA, 22902 JUSTIN@SHIMP-ENGINEERING.COM LANDSCAPE PLAN C6 C7 UTILITY DETAILS T NOTES W 1. All excavation for underground pipe installation must comply with OSHA Standards for the Construction Industry (29 CFR I E Part 1926). ESHIMP JUSTIN M. V 2. The location of existing utilities across or along the line of the proposed work are not necessarily shown on the plans and R Lic. No. 45183 where shown based on "MISS UTILITY" markings and are only approximately correct. The contractor shall locate all R FO underground lines and structures as necessary. 3. The contractor shall verify the locations of all boundaries, buildings, existing elevations, vegetation and other pertinent site elements. Contractor shall immediately report any discrepancies to the engineer of record. 4. The contractor shall be responsible for notifying "MISS UTILITY" - 1-800-552-7001. 5. Any damage to existing utilities caused by the contractor or its subcontractors shall be the contractor's sole responsibility to ITE Trip Generation repair. This expense is the contractor's responsibility. 6. All paving, drainage related materials and construction methods shall conform to current specifications and standards of the City of Charlottesville unless otherwise noted. 7. An erosion and sediment control plan is required with this site plan. 8. All slopes and disturbed areas are to be fertilized, seeded and mulched. The maximum allowable slope is 2:1. Where it is PRELIMINARY SITE reasonably obtainable, lesser slopes of 3:1 or better are to be achieved. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 9. Paved, rip-rap or stabilization mat lined ditch may be required when in the opinion of the Engineer it is deemed necessary in order to stabilize a drainage channel. 10. All traffic control signs shall conform to the 2011 Virginia Supplement to the 2009 Manual on Uniform Control Devices.. 105 DAVID 11. Unless otherwise noted all concrete pipe shall be reinforced concrete pipe - Class III. FIRE MARSHAL'S NOTES 12. All material inside concrete forms shall be clean and free of all rocks and other loose debris. Sub-base material shall be compacted by mechanical means. Remove all standing water from area inside forms. TERRACE 13. Concrete and asphalt shall not be placed unless the air temperature is at least 40 degrees in the shade and rising. Material shall not be placed on frozen subgrade. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 14. All existing curbs, curb and gutters and sidewalks to be removed shall be taken out to the nearest joint. 15. Existing asphalt pavement shall be saw cut and removed as per VDOT Road and Bridge Specifications 2016. Removal shall SUBMISSION: be done in such a manner as to not tear, bulge or displace adjacent pavement. Edges shall be clean and vertical. All cuts shall be parallel or perpendicular to the direction of traffic. 2018.10.05 16. The contractor shall exercise care to provide positive drainage to the storm inlets or other acceptable drainage paths in all REVISION: locations. E&SContact 17. inspector, NDS- 970-3182 information for any (for the E&S necessary inspections) inspections with City: 2019.01.16 Project Inspectors, NDS-970-3182 (for other construction items like sidewalk, pavement patches, road, storm sewer etc) Water and Sanitary Sewer-Public Works 970-3800 Street cut, Public Works 970-3800 Other public ROW issues-City Engineer 970-3182. 18. Any sidewalk and/or curb damage identified in the site vicinity due to project construction activities as determined by City inspector shall be repaired at the contractor's expense. 19. A temporary street closure permit is required for closure of sidewalks, parking spaces and roadways and is subject to approval by the City Traffic Engineer. APPROVALS 20. Per the Virginia Department of Health Waterworks Regulation (Part II, Article 3, Section 12 VAC 5-590 through 630), all FILE NO. buildings that have the possibility of contaminating the potable water distribution system (hospitals, industrial sites, breweries, etc) shall have a backflow prevention device installed within the facility. This device shall meet specifications of 18.036 the Virginia uniform Statewide Building Code, shall be tested in regular intervals as required, and test results shall be submitted to the Regulatory Compliance Administrator in the Department of Utilities. Director of Neighborhood Date 21. All buildings that may produce wastes containing more than one hundred (100) perts per million of fats, or grease shall install Development Services COVER a grease trap. The grease trap shall meet specifications of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code, maintain records of cleaming and maintenance, and be inspected on regular intervals by the Regulatory Compliance Administrator in the Department of Utilities. 22. Please contact the Regulatory Compliance Administrator at 970-3032 with any questions regarding the grease trap or backflow prevention devices. SHEET C1 of 7 C1 Attachment B 912 E. HIGH ST. 434.227.5140 CHARLOTTESVILLE VA, 22902 JUSTIN@SHIMP-ENGINEERING.COM T I EW ESHIMP JUSTIN M. V R Lic. No. 45183 R FO PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 105 DAVID TERRACE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA SUBMISSION: 2018.10.05 REVISION: 2019.01.16 FILE NO. 18.036 EXISTING CONDITIONS & DEMOLITION SHEET C2 of 7 C2 Attachment B 912 E. HIGH ST. 434.227.5140 CHARLOTTESVILLE VA, 22902 JUSTIN@SHIMP-ENGINEERING.COM T E W V I ESHIMP JUSTIN M. R Lic. No. 45183 R FO PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 105 DAVID TERRACE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA SUBMISSION: 2018.10.05 REVISION: 2019.01.16 FILE NO. 18.036 SITE PLAN SHEET C3 of 7 C3 Attachment B 912 E. HIGH ST. 434.227.5140 CHARLOTTESVILLE VA, 22902 JUSTIN@SHIMP-ENGINEERING.COM T E W V I ESHIMP JUSTIN M. R Lic. No. 45183 R FO PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 105 DAVID TERRACE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA SUBMISSION: 2018.10.05 REVISION: 2019.01.16 FILE NO. 18.036 UTILITY PLAN SHEET C4 of 7 C4 Attachment B 912 E. HIGH ST. 434.227.5140 CHARLOTTESVILLE VA, 22902 JUSTIN@SHIMP-ENGINEERING.COM T E W V I ESHIMP JUSTIN M. R Lic. No. 45183 R FO PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 105 DAVID TERRACE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA SUBMISSION: 2018.10.05 REVISION: 2019.01.16 FILE NO. 18.036 GRADING PLAN SHEET C5 of 7 C5 Attachment B 912 E. HIGH ST. 434.227.5140 CHARLOTTESVILLE VA, 22902 JUSTIN@SHIMP-ENGINEERING.COM T LANDSCAPE NOTES I EW ESHIMP JUSTIN M. V R Lic. No. 45183 R FO PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 105 DAVID TERRACE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA SUBMISSION: 2018.10.05 REVISION: 2019.01.16 MICRO-BIOFILTER SECTION FILE NO. 18.036 LANDSCAPE PLAN SHEET C6 of 7 C6 Attachment B 912 E. HIGH ST. 434.227.5140 CHARLOTTESVILLE VA, 22902 JUSTIN@SHIMP-ENGINEERING.COM T I EW ESHIMP JUSTIN M. V R Lic. No. 45183 R FO PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 105 DAVID TERRACE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA SUBMISSION: 2018.10.05 REVISION: 2019.01.16 FILE NO. 18.036 UTILITY DETAILS SHEET C7 of 7 C7 Attachment C C I TY O F CHA R LO T TE S V I LLE “A World Class City” Neighborhood Development Services 610 East Market Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 Telephone 434-970-3182 Fax 434-970-3359 www.charlottesville.org June 25, 2019 Justin Shimp, PE Shimp Engineering, P.C. 912 E. High Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: 105 David Terrace (aka 203 Shamrock) Plat Justin, Staff has finished the review of the plat that is related to 105 David Terrace that was submitted April 15, 2019. On July 9, 2019 Planning Commission will review the plat for approval. Should Planning Commission grant approval of the plat, the following comments must be addressed. As a reminder, the preliminary site plan cannot be approved until after the plat approval by Planning Commissions (refer to the comment letter dated December 4, 2018). 1. Comments from Roy Nester, Utilities, are attached. Please revise the plan and resubmit 2 hard copies and a digital file for additional review. If you have questions, please contact me at 434-970-3636 or alfelem@charlottesville.org. Sincerely yours, Matthew Alfele C: Shimp Engineering, P.C., Attn: Justin Shimp, P.E,. justin@shimp-engineering.com Page 1 of 3 Attachment C Roudabush, Gale & Associates, INC. Attn: bethany@roudabush.com Shamrock Breco, LLC 3511 Rowcross Street. Crozet, VA 22935 Missy Creasy Roy Nester City Staff have made a good faith effort to identify all deficiencies within the April Page 2 of 3 Attachment C 15, 2019 submission; however, in the event that there remains any other deficiency which, if left uncorrected, would violate local, state or federal law, regulations, or mandatory engineering and safety requirements, such other deficiency shall not be considered, treated or deemed as having been approved. These comments are based on the current submission; future submissions may generate additional comments. The following items need to be addressed in the revised site plan: Be advised that major changes to the site plan may result in new comments not reflected in this review Utilities Utility Engineer – Roy Nester General: 1. Until the final site plan is ready for approval, this plat should not be signed and recorded as site plans changes could change easement locations. 2. Please work with the City !ttorney’s office to prepare a deed of easement for the new City easements. This will need to be recorded when the plat is recorded and site plan approved. 3. Please identify who all the easements are dedicated to. 4. On sheet 4, the small line table should be titled Public Utility Easements not Waterline Easements. Page 3 of 3 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT REQUEST FOR INITIATION OF A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: July 9, 2019 Project Planner: Matt Alfele, AICP Date of Staff Report: June 24, 2019 Origin of Request: Response to Planning Commission Requests Applicable City Code Provisions: Sec. 43-41 Initiation Process Whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice require, the City Council may, by ordinance, amend, supplement, or change the city’s zoning district regulations, district boundaries, or zoning district classifications of property. A zoning text amendment may be initiated by: (1) Resolution of the City Council; or (2) Motion of the Planning Commission. (See City Code §34-41(a), which is based on Virginia Code §15.2-2286(a) (7)). Discussion On May 28, 2019 the Planning Commission held a Work Session related to the assessment and zoning of the Fry’s Springs Neighborhood. This discussion focused on housing cost linked to the availability of undeveloped land and the impact R-1S zoning is having. Would changing the zoning from R-1S to R-2 on undeveloped land within the Fry’s Spring Neighborhood create more affordable housing without adversely affecting the neighborhood? Planning Commission is initiating a Zoning Map Amendment that would direct staff to look at rezoning the following parcels form R-1S to R-2: 1. 240 Stribling Avenue (TMP 18A025000) Approximately 12 Acres. 2. The lots along the plated but unimproved Belleview Street and alley (aka Azalea Cottages) (TMP 200148000, 200121000, 200147000, 200125000, 200145000, 200126000, 200129000, 200144000, and 200142000) Approximately 7 Acres. 3. The lots along the plated but unimproved Flint Drive and Keene Court (aka Flint Hill PUD) (TMP 200259380, 200259350, 200259340, 200259330, 200259320, 200259310, 200259370, 200259260, 200259270, 200259280, 200259290, 200259301, and 200196000) Approximately 10 Acres. Page 1 of 3 4. 2611, 2615, 2619, 2623, 2627, 2631, and 0 Naylor Street (TMP 21A100000, 21A100007, 21A100002, 21A100003, 21A100004, 21A100005, and 21A100006) Approximately 1 Acre. 5. 127 and 0 Porter Avenue (TMP 200019100 and 200063001) Approximately 0.4 Acres. As Planning Commission considers this initiation, staff recommends the following information related to the areas for consideration: Number (1) is a large duel zoned lot. Approximately 2 of the 12 acres is already zoned R-2 (the portion of the lot that fronts on Stribling Avenue. The lot also has large portions that are considered critical slopes per the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Number (2) is comprised of approximately 81 plated lots from the 1920s. These lots are small with each lot having approximately 25’of frontage and 3,500sqft of area. This area is also difficult to develop due to steep terrain and road layout. Number (3) is currently going through a rezoning process to PUD that would accommodate 50 townhouses. Number (4) is a recent subdivision (2016) that is currently being developed. Number (5) is the also a recent subdivision (2014) that is almost completely developed. Standard of Review If initiated, the Planning Commission shall review and study each proposed amendment to determine: (1) Whether the proposed amendment conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the comprehensive plan; (2) Whether the proposed amendment will further the purposes of this chapter and the general welfare of the entire community; (3) Whether there is a need and justification for the change; and (4) When pertaining to a change in the zoning district classification of property, the effect of the proposed change, if any, on the property itself, on surrounding property, and on public services and facilities. In addition, the Commission shall consider the appropriateness of the property for inclusion within the proposed zoning district, relating to the purposes set forth at the beginning of the proposed district classification. Appropriate Motions (1) For approval: the Planning Commission may decide to initiate a zoning map amendment, by making the following motion: “I move to initiate considerations of amendments to City Code Chapter 34 (Zoning Ordinance), Article IX, Division 10, to authorize the rezoning of the following properties from R-1S to R2. (TMP 18A025000, 200148000, 200121000, 200147000, 200125000, 200145000, 200126000, 200129000, 200144000, 200142000, 200259380, 200259350, 200259340, 200259330, 200259320, 200259310, 200259370, 200259260, 200259270, 200259280, 200259290, 200259301, 200196000, 21A100000, 21A100007, Page 2 of 3 21A100002, 21A100003, 21A100004, 21A100005, 21A100006, 200019100, and 200063001) (2) Decline to initiate the process. (No motion is needed; if the Commission does not adopt a motion to initiate, then the proposal will not proceed) Attachments A. Materials form the May 28, 2019 Planning Commission Work Session B. Map of proposed zoning change. C. Rory Stolzenberg Email and Map dated June 17, 2019 Page 3 of 3 Attachment A Fry’s Spring Assessment & Zoning Map Analysis May 2019 Summary Recent infill development in Fry’s Spring has produced 140 new homes since 2010. There is significant variance in the nature of these homes, ranging from exorbitantly expensive detached houses built by-right in R-1S zones, to more mixed results in form & price within the various Planned Unit Developments. With impending development likely to fill the remaining greenfield land within the next few years, Planning Commission and City Council must determine — explicitly or through inaction — whether the existing 1991 zoning and assorted PUDs are producing adequate outcomes that serve the interest of the neighborhood and city, or whether a change in zoning may produce a more appropriate result. The data make a compelling case that high prices of new homes are determined primarily by their larger size rather than a ‘new-build premium’, suggesting a change to R-2 zoning, allowing two families to live within the same built form, is likely to create less expensive new housing. Furthermore, a mix of housing types aligns more closely to the existing home typology of Fry’s Spring, which has single-family attached, duplexes, and some even denser forms distributed throughout the established neighborhood. Background Fry’s Spring is undergoing a wave of development on its remaining tracts of vacant land. Since 2012, single family detached homes on Christa Ct., Porter Ave., and the first parcels of Naylor St. (unaccepted) have been constructed by-right within the R-1S zone. The Huntley PUD on the northwest corner of the neighborhood, approved in 2004, has been filling its 23-acre tract with detached houses. On the southeast corner, townhomes have been constructed in the Longwood PUD. Three large vacant tracts remain undeveloped, but each shows signs of imminent development. The platted Keene Ct. was purchased by a developer in February 2019, soon after their acquisition of the adjacent 306 Camellia Dr.; that developer is now seeking the PUD known as Flint Hill. The owners of Belleview Ave. are presently seeking a special use permit for a sewage pump station in connection with a planned development of detached homes. The former Carrsgrove estate at 240 Stribling Ave. is currently on the market. The future character and land use patterns of these last additions to the Fry’s Spring neighborhood are likely to be inscribed within a matter of years, not decades. This report aims to analyze the nature and effects of these new homes, with the goal of informing policy choices to produce outcomes aligned with the Comprehensive Plan’s vision of “land use patterns [that] create, preserve, and enhance neighborhood character, improve environmental quality, integrate a diversity of uses, encourage Attachment A various modes of transportation, promote infill development, and increase commercial vitality and density in appropriate areas.” Analysis The data show evident contrasts between homes built prior to 2005 and most new construction in nearly every metric, including price, size, and use. Price This plot shows the relationship between assessed home value, year built, and type of home for all residences in Fry’s Spring. Every detached house built since 2009 is assessed higher than the mean value of neighborhood homes; many are now among the very most expensive homes. 124 Oak Lawn Ct., for example, is the eighth-most expensive home in Fry’s Spring at $742,800 assessed value, below only historic homes built in the first half of the 20th century. Present-era single-family attached homes, conversely, do not demonstrate this same pattern. There is a clear “new build premium,” but the newest attached homes hover at about the neighborhood average, then exhibit steady downward filtering. Attached homes built on Old Fifth Circle in 2005-2006 are priced around the mid-$200k mark, 15% less than the overall median. Attachment A Price Map These maps show the same assessment data mapped spatially as well as across time. Recent development is clearly visible as vacant parcels fill in with high-value houses adjacent to older, more moderately priced homes. Across-the-board assessment increases are visible, particularly in the latest years, as the median home price has risen from $227,300 in 2012 to $297,900 in 2019. Attachment A Square Footage What explains the outsized prices for recent detached homes? Plotting interior square footage against year built reveals a possible cause: new homes are remarkably larger than those of decades past. Structures of comparable size built between 1960 and 1985 are more commonly used as duplexes, providing two homes within the same built form. Attachment A Price per Square Foot To control for the growth in home size over time, this plot shows price per interior square foot. Surprisingly, the trend across time disappears in this view, suggesting that interior square footage is the primary driver of increased cost. Attached homes and duplexes exhibit lower prices per square foot, suggesting that their natural affordability extends beyond their smaller size. (Indeed, the previous plot shows that newly built attached homes are larger than mid-century detached homes!) Attachment A Housing Typology Map “The quality and diversity of the City of Charlottesville’s housing stock creates the basis for viable neighborhoods and a thriving community. In order to be a truly world class city, Charlottesville must provide sufficient housing options to ensure safe, appealing, environmentally sustainable and affordable housing for all population segments and income levels, including middle income. Consequently, City neighborhoods will feature a variety of housing types, housing sizes, and incomes all within convenient walking, biking or transit distances of enhanced community amenities that include mixed use, barrier free, higher density, pedestrian and transit-oriented housing at employment and cultural centers connected to facilities, parks, trails and services.” – Comprehensive Plan Housing Vision Perhaps no neighborhood embodies the “variety of housing types, housing sizes, and incomes” envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan better than the existing conditions of Fry’s Spring. This map of the existing housing typology shows single-family attached, duplexes, and ADUs distributed throughout the neighborhood, with a handful of denser homes visible as well. As is visible in the assessment map above, this directly translates into a broad mix of home sizes and values. Housing Typology by Street Attachment A On a street-by-street view, this mixture of housing types is even starker. Of the seven streets with only single-family-detached dwellings, five — Christa Ct., Morgan Ct., Oak Lawn Ct., Oak Lawn Dr., and Porter Ave. — have been constructed as part of recent by- right and PUD development. Nearly every street in Fry’s Spring has housing forms permitted only in R-2 or greater. Conclusion While a thorough rewrite of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance is expected to resume in the coming months, Fry’s Spring will likely see the land use patterns of its remaining greenfield land determined before those efforts are complete. On its present trajectory, determined by the 1991 zoning, the coming development is likely to produce similar dramatically uncharacteristic, unaffordable homes to those that have been produced over recent years. Without action, policymakers implicitly endorse this future. If there is to be a change to produce an alternate outcome, new options must be recommended by the Planning Commission and pursued by City Council in the near term, before outcomes are enshrined for decades to come. Attachment B Zoning Text Amendment E AV Fry's Spring G RAYMOND AVE I BLIN 2019 E R ST AV AV RY RY E SUNSET RD ER ER LB ST Roadway U M D H MON C Lot Groupings LN AVE SUNSET AVE Parcel Area HAM CLE 1 VEL BI NG LEY AND ´ AVE HUNT WO PARK RD WI O LL DL MO AR S AN EL EY DD DR DD 0 500 1,000 R R R RD ND N 5 AL L E Feet ST O ET OR R D RIS R YD RD YL HAR A AVE RO G NA 4 UR EL 2 The geographic data layers produced by DR HB the City of Charlottesville are provided E VIST MC EA DR as a public resource. The City makes no LLIA NC KE DR warranties, expressed or implied, LY concerning the accuracy, completeness or EN D CAME suitability of this data, and it should MONT O D AZAL E not be construed or used as a legal WO OL CT description. The information displayed is LN NG a compilation of records, information, and 3 data obtained from various sources, and LE LO the City is not responsible for GARDEN DR BI it's accuracy or how current it may be. MO Every reasonable effort is made to ensure accuracy and completeness of the data. Pursuant to Section 54.1-402 of the Code of Virginia, any determination of topography or contours, or any depiction of physical improvements, property lines or boundaries is for general information only and shall not be used for the design, modification or construction of improvements to real property or for flood plain determination. Attachment C Alfele, Matthew From: Rory Stolzenberg Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 9:14 AM To: Creasy, Missy Cc: Lisa Green; Alfele, Matthew; Robertson, Lisa Subject: Re: ZTA initiation - R-1 to R-2 In Frys Spring Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Thanks Missy. These are the areas I had in mind: Naylor St (south of Harris), Flint Dr/Keene Ct, Porter Ave/Oak Lawn, Belleview Ave, and Carrsgrove. Of course that was before I realized the Flint Hill PUD was that Flint — needless to say, we should leave that one out if Council rezones it. It might also make sense to include Christa Ct — though there are no remaining vacant parcels, most of the homes built there are plenty large enough to be subdivided into duplexes. 1 Attachment C (img) On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:50 AM Creasy, Missy wrote: Rory, We are working on the initiation memo for the July 9th meeting and need from you a map outlining the area that you want to be the consideration for the potential zoning change. We will need to indicate the area of the city for consideration in the initiation. Having this information no later than Wed June 19th would be helpful. Thanks missy 2 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT REQUEST FOR INITIATION OF A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: July 9, 2019 Project Planner: Matt Alfele, AICP Date of Staff Report: June 24, 2019 Origin of Request: Response to Planning Commission Requests Applicable City Code Provisions: Sec. 43-41 Initiation Process Whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice require, the City Council may, by ordinance, amend, supplement, or change the city’s zoning district regulations, district boundaries, or zoning district classifications of property. A zoning text amendment may be initiated by: (1) Resolution of the City Council; or (2) Motion of the Planning Commission. (See City Code §34-41(a), which is based on Virginia Code §15.2-2286(a) (7)). Discussion On May 28, 2019 the Planning Commission held a Work Session related to the assessment and zoning of the Fry’s Springs Neighborhood. This discussion focused on housing cost linked to the availability of undeveloped land and the impact R-1S zoning is having. Would changing the zoning from R-1S to R-2 on undeveloped land within the Fry’s Spring Neighborhood create more affordable housing without adversely affecting the neighborhood? Planning Commission is initiating a Zoning Map Amendment that would direct staff to look at rezoning the following parcels form R-1S to R-2: 1. 240 Stribling Avenue (TMP 18A025000) Approximately 12 Acres. 2. The lots along the plated but unimproved Belleview Street and alley (aka Azalea Cottages) (TMP 200148000, 200121000, 200147000, 200125000, 200145000, 200126000, 200129000, 200144000, and 200142000) Approximately 7 Acres. 3. The lots along the plated but unimproved Flint Drive and Keene Court (aka Flint Hill PUD) (TMP 200259380, 200259350, 200259340, 200259330, 200259320, 200259310, 200259370, 200259260, 200259270, 200259280, 200259290, 200259301, and 200196000) Approximately 10 Acres. Page 1 of 3 4. 2611, 2615, 2619, 2623, 2627, 2631, and 0 Naylor Street (TMP 21A100000, 21A100007, 21A100002, 21A100003, 21A100004, 21A100005, and 21A100006) Approximately 1 Acre. 5. 127 and 0 Porter Avenue (TMP 200019100 and 200063001) Approximately 0.4 Acres. As Planning Commission considers this initiation, staff recommends the following information related to the areas for consideration: Number (1) is a large duel zoned lot. Approximately 2 of the 12 acres is already zoned R-2 (the portion of the lot that fronts on Stribling Avenue. The lot also has large portions that are considered critical slopes per the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Number (2) is comprised of approximately 81 plated lots from the 1920s. These lots are small with each lot having approximately 25’of frontage and 3,500sqft of area. This area is also difficult to develop due to steep terrain and road layout. Number (3) is currently going through a rezoning process to PUD that would accommodate 50 townhouses. Number (4) is a recent subdivision (2016) that is currently being developed. Number (5) is the also a recent subdivision (2014) that is almost completely developed. Standard of Review If initiated, the Planning Commission shall review and study each proposed amendment to determine: (1) Whether the proposed amendment conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the comprehensive plan; (2) Whether the proposed amendment will further the purposes of this chapter and the general welfare of the entire community; (3) Whether there is a need and justification for the change; and (4) When pertaining to a change in the zoning district classification of property, the effect of the proposed change, if any, on the property itself, on surrounding property, and on public services and facilities. In addition, the Commission shall consider the appropriateness of the property for inclusion within the proposed zoning district, relating to the purposes set forth at the beginning of the proposed district classification. Appropriate Motions (1) For approval: the Planning Commission may decide to initiate a zoning map amendment, by making the following motion: “I move to initiate considerations of amendments to City Code Chapter 34 (Zoning Ordinance), Article IX, Division 10, to authorize the rezoning of the following properties from R-1S to R2. (TMP 18A025000, 200148000, 200121000, 200147000, 200125000, 200145000, 200126000, 200129000, 200144000, 200142000, 200259380, 200259350, 200259340, 200259330, 200259320, 200259310, 200259370, 200259260, 200259270, 200259280, 200259290, 200259301, 200196000, 21A100000, 21A100007, Page 2 of 3 21A100002, 21A100003, 21A100004, 21A100005, 21A100006, 200019100, and 200063001) (2) Decline to initiate the process. (No motion is needed; if the Commission does not adopt a motion to initiate, then the proposal will not proceed) Attachments A. Materials form the May 28, 2019 Planning Commission Work Session B. Map of proposed zoning change. C. Rory Stolzenberg Email and Map dated June 17, 2019 Page 3 of 3 Attachment A Fry’s Spring Assessment & Zoning Map Analysis May 2019 Summary Recent infill development in Fry’s Spring has produced 140 new homes since 2010. There is significant variance in the nature of these homes, ranging from exorbitantly expensive detached houses built by-right in R-1S zones, to more mixed results in form & price within the various Planned Unit Developments. With impending development likely to fill the remaining greenfield land within the next few years, Planning Commission and City Council must determine — explicitly or through inaction — whether the existing 1991 zoning and assorted PUDs are producing adequate outcomes that serve the interest of the neighborhood and city, or whether a change in zoning may produce a more appropriate result. The data make a compelling case that high prices of new homes are determined primarily by their larger size rather than a ‘new-build premium’, suggesting a change to R-2 zoning, allowing two families to live within the same built form, is likely to create less expensive new housing. Furthermore, a mix of housing types aligns more closely to the existing home typology of Fry’s Spring, which has single-family attached, duplexes, and some even denser forms distributed throughout the established neighborhood. Background Fry’s Spring is undergoing a wave of development on its remaining tracts of vacant land. Since 2012, single family detached homes on Christa Ct., Porter Ave., and the first parcels of Naylor St. (unaccepted) have been constructed by-right within the R-1S zone. The Huntley PUD on the northwest corner of the neighborhood, approved in 2004, has been filling its 23-acre tract with detached houses. On the southeast corner, townhomes have been constructed in the Longwood PUD. Three large vacant tracts remain undeveloped, but each shows signs of imminent development. The platted Keene Ct. was purchased by a developer in February 2019, soon after their acquisition of the adjacent 306 Camellia Dr.; that developer is now seeking the PUD known as Flint Hill. The owners of Belleview Ave. are presently seeking a special use permit for a sewage pump station in connection with a planned development of detached homes. The former Carrsgrove estate at 240 Stribling Ave. is currently on the market. The future character and land use patterns of these last additions to the Fry’s Spring neighborhood are likely to be inscribed within a matter of years, not decades. This report aims to analyze the nature and effects of these new homes, with the goal of informing policy choices to produce outcomes aligned with the Comprehensive Plan’s vision of “land use patterns [that] create, preserve, and enhance neighborhood character, improve environmental quality, integrate a diversity of uses, encourage Attachment A various modes of transportation, promote infill development, and increase commercial vitality and density in appropriate areas.” Analysis The data show evident contrasts between homes built prior to 2005 and most new construction in nearly every metric, including price, size, and use. Price This plot shows the relationship between assessed home value, year built, and type of home for all residences in Fry’s Spring. Every detached house built since 2009 is assessed higher than the mean value of neighborhood homes; many are now among the very most expensive homes. 124 Oak Lawn Ct., for example, is the eighth-most expensive home in Fry’s Spring at $742,800 assessed value, below only historic homes built in the first half of the 20th century. Present-era single-family attached homes, conversely, do not demonstrate this same pattern. There is a clear “new build premium,” but the newest attached homes hover at about the neighborhood average, then exhibit steady downward filtering. Attached homes built on Old Fifth Circle in 2005-2006 are priced around the mid-$200k mark, 15% less than the overall median. Attachment A Price Map These maps show the same assessment data mapped spatially as well as across time. Recent development is clearly visible as vacant parcels fill in with high-value houses adjacent to older, more moderately priced homes. Across-the-board assessment increases are visible, particularly in the latest years, as the median home price has risen from $227,300 in 2012 to $297,900 in 2019. Attachment A Square Footage What explains the outsized prices for recent detached homes? Plotting interior square footage against year built reveals a possible cause: new homes are remarkably larger than those of decades past. Structures of comparable size built between 1960 and 1985 are more commonly used as duplexes, providing two homes within the same built form. Attachment A Price per Square Foot To control for the growth in home size over time, this plot shows price per interior square foot. Surprisingly, the trend across time disappears in this view, suggesting that interior square footage is the primary driver of increased cost. Attached homes and duplexes exhibit lower prices per square foot, suggesting that their natural affordability extends beyond their smaller size. (Indeed, the previous plot shows that newly built attached homes are larger than mid-century detached homes!) Attachment A Housing Typology Map “The quality and diversity of the City of Charlottesville’s housing stock creates the basis for viable neighborhoods and a thriving community. In order to be a truly world class city, Charlottesville must provide sufficient housing options to ensure safe, appealing, environmentally sustainable and affordable housing for all population segments and income levels, including middle income. Consequently, City neighborhoods will feature a variety of housing types, housing sizes, and incomes all within convenient walking, biking or transit distances of enhanced community amenities that include mixed use, barrier free, higher density, pedestrian and transit-oriented housing at employment and cultural centers connected to facilities, parks, trails and services.” – Comprehensive Plan Housing Vision Perhaps no neighborhood embodies the “variety of housing types, housing sizes, and incomes” envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan better than the existing conditions of Fry’s Spring. This map of the existing housing typology shows single-family attached, duplexes, and ADUs distributed throughout the neighborhood, with a handful of denser homes visible as well. As is visible in the assessment map above, this directly translates into a broad mix of home sizes and values. Housing Typology by Street Attachment A On a street-by-street view, this mixture of housing types is even starker. Of the seven streets with only single-family-detached dwellings, five — Christa Ct., Morgan Ct., Oak Lawn Ct., Oak Lawn Dr., and Porter Ave. — have been constructed as part of recent by- right and PUD development. Nearly every street in Fry’s Spring has housing forms permitted only in R-2 or greater. Conclusion While a thorough rewrite of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance is expected to resume in the coming months, Fry’s Spring will likely see the land use patterns of its remaining greenfield land determined before those efforts are complete. On its present trajectory, determined by the 1991 zoning, the coming development is likely to produce similar dramatically uncharacteristic, unaffordable homes to those that have been produced over recent years. Without action, policymakers implicitly endorse this future. If there is to be a change to produce an alternate outcome, new options must be recommended by the Planning Commission and pursued by City Council in the near term, before outcomes are enshrined for decades to come. Attachment B Zoning Text Amendment E AV Fry's Spring G RAYMOND AVE I BLIN 2019 E R ST AV AV RY RY E SUNSET RD ER ER LB ST Roadway U M D H MON C Lot Groupings LN AVE SUNSET AVE Parcel Area HAM CLE 1 VEL BI NG LEY AND ´ AVE HUNT WO PARK RD WI O LL DL MO AR S AN EL EY DD DR DD 0 500 1,000 R R R RD ND N 5 AL L E Feet ST O ET OR R D RIS R YD RD YL HAR A AVE RO G NA 4 UR EL 2 The geographic data layers produced by DR HB the City of Charlottesville are provided E VIST MC EA DR as a public resource. The City makes no LLIA NC KE DR warranties, expressed or implied, LY concerning the accuracy, completeness or EN D CAME suitability of this data, and it should MONT O D AZAL E not be construed or used as a legal WO OL CT description. The information displayed is LN NG a compilation of records, information, and 3 data obtained from various sources, and LE LO the City is not responsible for GARDEN DR BI it's accuracy or how current it may be. MO Every reasonable effort is made to ensure accuracy and completeness of the data. Pursuant to Section 54.1-402 of the Code of Virginia, any determination of topography or contours, or any depiction of physical improvements, property lines or boundaries is for general information only and shall not be used for the design, modification or construction of improvements to real property or for flood plain determination. Attachment C Alfele, Matthew From: Rory Stolzenberg Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 9:14 AM To: Creasy, Missy Cc: Lisa Green; Alfele, Matthew; Robertson, Lisa Subject: Re: ZTA initiation - R-1 to R-2 In Frys Spring Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Thanks Missy. These are the areas I had in mind: Naylor St (south of Harris), Flint Dr/Keene Ct, Porter Ave/Oak Lawn, Belleview Ave, and Carrsgrove. Of course that was before I realized the Flint Hill PUD was that Flint — needless to say, we should leave that one out if Council rezones it. It might also make sense to include Christa Ct — though there are no remaining vacant parcels, most of the homes built there are plenty large enough to be subdivided into duplexes. 1 Attachment C (img) On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:50 AM Creasy, Missy wrote: Rory, We are working on the initiation memo for the July 9th meeting and need from you a map outlining the area that you want to be the consideration for the potential zoning change. We will need to indicate the area of the city for consideration in the initiation. Having this information no later than Wed June 19th would be helpful. Thanks missy 2