Agenda PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DOCKET TUESDAY, September 10, 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 i. Report of Nominating Committee ii. Annual Election of Officers 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 – August 13, 2019 – Pre- meeting and Regular meeting 2. Minutes – August 27, 2019 - Work Session III. JOINT MEETING OF COMMISSION/ COUNCIL Beginning: 6:00 p.m. Continuing: until all public hearings are completed Format: (i) Staff Report, (ii) Applicant, (iii) Hearing 1. SP19-00004 – (503 Rugby Road Special Use Permit) – Landowner Epsilon Sigma House Corporation (Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority) owns approximately 0.319 acre of land having an address of 503 Rugby Road (fronting on both Rugby Road and Lambeth Lane) and identified on City Tax Map 5 as Parcel 52 (Tax Parcel ID No. 050052000) (“Subject Property”). The Subject Property is currently used as a sorority house for up to 36 residents. Landowner is requesting a Special Use Permit (SUP) pursuant to City Code Sec. 34-420, to authorize a specific land use (sorority house with up to 37 residents) The Subject Property is zoned is zoned R3-H ("Multifamily", for Medium density, subject to historic overlay regulations). The Subject Property is within the Rugby Road—University Circle—Venable Neighborhood Architectural Design Control District. The Comprehensive Land Use Map for this area calls for High Density residential development. Information pertaining to request may be viewed five days prior to the Public Hearing 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, 605 East Main Street. Persons interested in this SUP application may contact NDS Planner Joey Winter by e-mail (winterj@charlottesville.org) or by telephone (434-970-3991). IV. COMMISSION’S ACTION ITEMS Continuing: until all action items are concluded 1. SP19-00003 – 602-616 West Main Special Use Permit request for a mixed-use building 2. Entrance Corridor – Hillsdale Place Comprehensive sign package V. FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE/ADJOURN Tuesday, September 24, 2019 – 5:00PM Work 218 W Market Street Preliminary Session Discussion Monday, September 30, 2019 – 5:00PM Work Standards and Design Manual City Space Shop Tuesday, October 8, 2019 – 4:30 PM Pre- Meeting Tuesday, October 8, 2019 – 5:30 PM Regular Rezoning –209 Maury Avenue Meeting Anticipated Items on Future Agendas Zoning Text Amendments –Off-street parking facilities requirements along streets designated as “framework streets” (initiated May 8, 2018), Site Plan Requirements, Form Based Code (November 2019) SUP –MACAA (1021 Park Street), SP19-00002 – 1201 Druid Avenue, 218 West Market St. SUP/EC - Seminole Square Shopping Center - Drive though Rezoning - 240 Stribling Avenue, Emmet Streetscape - Jan/Feb 2020 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 8/1/2019 TO 8/31/2019 1. Preliminary Site Plans a. Gallery Court Hotel (TMP 8-4) – July 9, 2019 b. 10th & High Medical Office Building (TMP 53-273, 274, 275) - July 15, 2019 2. Final Site Plans a. 319 11th Street NE (Charlottesville Day School Parking lot – July 1, 2019 3. Site Plan Amendments a. Sigma Chi Renovation & Addition - August 8, 2019 b. Water Street Promenade (Amendment 4 – Pocket Park Layout) – August 27, 2019 4. Subdivision a. BLA – William Taylor Plaza Phase II (TMP 29-147 Lot D) – August 9, 2019 b. 2025 Spottswood Road (TMP 40-9.1) – August 28, 2019 c. 901 Rivers Road (TMP 49-98) – August 28, 2019 1 Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DOCKET August 13, 2019 – 5:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS NDS Conference Room I. COMMISSION PRE-MEETING (Agenda discussion(s)) Beginning: 4:30 pm Location: City Hall, 2nd Floor, NDS Conference Room Members Present: Chairman Lisa Green, Commissioners Hosea Mitchell, Jody Lahendro, Taneia Dowell, Lyle Solla-Yates, Gary Heaton, and Rory Stolzenberg Staff Present: Missy Creasy, Lisa Robertson, Alex Ikefuna, Joey Winter, Brian Haluska, and Brennen Duncan Chairman Green called the meeting to order at 5:10pm. She asked if there were any questions on items for this evening. Commissioner Dowell ask if there was information provided on the price point for the units in the West Main proposal. Brian Haluska noted it was not. He further stated that the SUP request provides options for the applicant and it is likely that the development will be similar to the property next door. Commission Stolzenberg noted concern with cost. Mr. Haluska noted that the proposal would require compliance with the affordable housing code section. Commissioner Solla Yates asked for information on the setback provided and Mr. Haluska noted that the setback was the result of BAR conditions. He reviewed all of the BAR conditions. Commissioner Mitchell asked for clarification on condition #4 (pedestrian engagement) and it was noted that condition was proposed to memorialize the proposal in the application materials. Commissioner Dowell noted concern with prices. Mr. Haluska noted some background on what information the schools provided concerning enrollment increases when the multifamily properties on West Main came on line. Chair Green asked if Fire had reviewed the Access ZTA. Ms. Robertson noted that they had been part of the discussion. She clarified the fire code and SADM standards which dictate requirements for access. Commissioner Mitchell noted that clarity on this item needs to be provided to the public so they understand. Chair Green asked if Fire had reviewed this language and it was noted that consultation would occur. It was noted that the Fire Code requirements would be required to be met regardless of any change proposed here. II. COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Beginning: 5:30 pm Location: City Hall, 2nd Floor, NDS Conference Members Present: Chairman Lisa Green, Commissioners Hosea Mitchell, Jody Lahendro, Taneia Dowell, Lyle Solla-Yates, Gary Heaton, Rory Stolzenberg, and Mr. Bill Palmer A. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS 2 Commissioner Mitchell: The Parks and Recreation Board met in July where we talked about the activity surrounding our trails. Part of the dialogue was to remind us that our trails are the #1 recreational amenity that our community wants us to invest in. Staff also reminded us that the greatest ROI on our trails would be to develop trails that allow for local travel and incorporate recreational activity and tourism. There were discussions about the Meadowcreek trail system and the greenway associated with it. A few months ago, a developer was interested in developing the area near the trail and to make an investment in the trails to help us with that. That has been tabled, but the Parks and Rec staff and the Board would like us to be sensitive to the need to develop that. Parks and Rec will develop it if they must, but they would love to partner with anyone who would want to develop the Giant lot nearby. We received a comprehensive update on aquatics and we get nearly 100,000 visits to our aquatics facilities per year. We teach about 1,200 people how to swim every year and at peak season we have about 180 people who work for Parks and Rec. We do the Red Cross lifeguard training and have pups in the pool, which is a lot of fun. Commissioner Stolzenberg: On July 16 there was an MPO Technical Committee meeting where we discussed the Hydraulic Road intersection and the 3 different options. We are getting settled on a possible solution but it is urgent that we use the money that was left over from the other 29 projects and put it into something before it disappears. On August 8 we had a PLACE Committee meeting where we heard about the upcoming participatory budgeting program for the Ridge Street neighborhood starting in a few months. They will decide how the $100,000 allocated by Council will be spent on a capital improvements project to help the neighborhood. Chairman Green: Since we didn’t get Smart Scale funding for the intersection, is this the $18 million left over from Rio? Commissioner Stolzenberg: It’s left over from two different projects and they plan to resubmit for Smart Scale. Regardless, the City/Council will have to put up a fair amount of money for it. Commissioner Heaton: I attended the July meeting of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District CTAC meeting and we added new members at that meeting. We continue to look for additional citizens to serve on that board. The Unity Days Committee has met frantically throughout the month and there is a meeting tomorrow night to do an evaluation of how the weekend events went. Commissioner Dowell: No report. Commissioner Solla-Yates: The Barracks Road/Emmet Street Improvement Project Steering Committee met for the first time on July 25 and discussed how to frame a survey soliciting public input, how to make bicycling safe in the corridor, and how to calm traffic, manage congestion and preserve trees. The HAC Planning Subcommittee met on August 9 to discuss housing affordability impacts of the Standards and Design manual, focusing on street widths and clear zone spatial requirements and concrete material requirements, which combined can raise the cost of new housing construction. We requested more clarity on what is required by state code, requested checking requirements against NACTO requirements, and suggested more staff flexibility to permit more affordable housing. Commissioner Lahendro: I attended the BAR meeting on July 16 where we approved 7 COA applications for projects and 2 were deferred. The BAR Guidelines are still being reviewed and updated at work sessions by the BAR members every third Thursday of the month at 5:30 pm in the NDS conference room and it is open to the public. The Tree Commission met on August 6 where we had updates from several members who serve on steering committee members for Fontaine Avenue, the East High streetscape study, and the Barracks/Emmet streetscape study. We are monitoring those studies and looking to make an impact to represent our concerns. 3 Lastly, we expressed a frustration over a Downtown large urban project that has been submitting site plans since last October. Our City Urban Forester and the Tree Commission have been asking to review these plans without any luck. The last site plan has been submitted and unfortunately several large important trees are going to be taken down when we’ve had absolutely no input. We are trying to reconcile that with our mandate from City Council in our bylaws, which is to stay informed on local changes and intentions involving trees, plans for public lands, and infrastructure in the City and advocate for trees before City Council and the Planning Commission. B. UNIVERSITY REPORT Bill Palmer: No report. C. CHAIR’S REPORT Chairman Lisa Green: We have a nominating committee that will be making a recommendation for the new Chair and Vice Chair in September. Mr. Lahendro and Mr. Solla-Yates have agreed to be this committee and I look forward to the recommendations. D. DEPARTMENT OF NDS Missy Creasy: This Thursday there is a joint work session with City Council on the form-based code where the consultants are coming back to discuss moving forward. The meeting is from 6-8 pm at CitySpace. On August 27 there will be a preliminary work session on the application concerning 240 Stribling. Because we anticipate public interest, we have reserved the Water Street Center for that from 5-7 pm. On September 4 there is a meeting concerning the Standards and Design Manual. There was a request the last time staff brought it forward to Council for additional discussion with groups, as well as review of comments, and then to hold a joint discussion with Planning Commission, City Council, and representatives of several community groups to talk through the next steps. After that there will be public discussions. The location is still pending but as soon as we have more information it will be posted on the meeting website. The September meeting will be our annual meeting where elections are held. The Commission noted that once leadership is changed you all were interested in having a retreat of some sort, which is something to keep in mind and we will work towards that. Mr. Alex Ikefuna: At the last meeting the Commission asked me to provide an update on the Comprehensive Plan. The RFP is closing on August 16 and the proposal analysis group has been set up, which is driven by the Assistant City Manager, Mr. Murphy. There will be 11 people in this group, including two members of the Planning Commission, and they will review the proposals submitted by various consultants to make a selection. The City Manager has put the fate of the Long Range Planner on hold until he finishes with the reorganization and then he will decide if he will move forward with it or not. In the meantime, once the consultant is selected for updating the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Affordable Housing Strategy, staff and the Planning Commission will work with the consultant until the City Manager makes a decision. NDS has a wealth of knowledge in terms of coordinating the activities of consultants and can figure out how to move the project forward. Regarding the Belmont Bridge, a few weeks ago the Planning Commission received a quarterly update and the bridge is moving forward. In the past 30 days we have requested and received right-of-way acquisition from VDOT. This was a major milestone and it was contingent upon the approval of stage 1 bridge design. We are now moving forward with phase 2 bridge design. Once this is completed, it goes back to VDOT again for review. Hopefully we will complete the right-of-way acquisition by next summer and in the late fall we can bid the project out. Commissioner Stolzenberg: The update said it was seeking a waiver or permit from the Buckingham Branch railway. Does that mean fences will be gone forever or just during construction? 4 Mr. Ikefuna: There will still be some kind of fence because as much as they can, the railroad tries to keep people away from the track. They have been very cooperative working with us, and the City Attorney has been very helpful in terms of helping us draft the legal agreement. E. MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE FORMAL AGENDA Sean Tubbs, Piedmont Environmental Council: Earlier this year I made the decision to try to avoid driving through the City of Charlottesville. I live 1.5 miles away from where I work and for years, I had the mentality that the CAT would not work for me. I decided to challenge myself and I have gotten my commute down to 20 minutes from my door to my stop. That doesn’t work for everyone, especially those in the urban ring, so it’s important to realize that we can make vast improvements if we work together. The Regional Transit Partnership has helped us to do that and I’m here tonight to raise their profile. Many of our planning objectives call for us to reduce the number of people who drive to work alone. To get there, we need options. Part of that is biking and walking, but transit is something needed especially for those areas in the urban ring and outlying counties. We have 3 transit agencies in this community and to get the improvements we need faster, better coordination is going to happen because we are unlikely to have an authority that does it all at once. Every month the RTP discusses these and early successes including better sharing of data, discussions of best practices, and an agreement that gives Albemarle County more clarity about how the money they contribute to CAT is spent. The City also has transit questions and at the July 23 work session regarding the Fontaine Avenue Streetscape, they discussed how transit is going to be served on that corridor. CAT doesn’t travel on Fontaine and there are extensive shuttles, but they aren’t necessarily open to the public. As the Fontaine Research Park grows, there will be a need to coordinate that. My quality of life has improved through transit and realizing I am part of a community. The RTP is a place where we are already discussing these things and I hope one of you will join us. F. CONSENT AGENDA (Items removed from the consent agenda will be considered at the end of the regular agenda) 1. Minutes – July 9, 2019 – Pre Meeting and Regular meeting 2. Minutes – July 23, 2019 – Work Session Commissioner Solla-Yates moves to approve the consent agenda as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Dowell. Motion is approved 7-0. III. JOINT MEETING OF COMMISSION/COUNCIL Beginning: 6:00 pm Continuing: until all public hearings are completed Format: (i) Staff Report, (ii) Applicant, (iii) Hearing 1. SP19-00003 – Landowner Heirloom West Main Street Second Phase LLC, by its agent Milestone Partners is requesting a Special Use Permit (SUP) pursuant to City Code Sec. 34-641, to allow additional residential density for a mixed-use building at its property having an address of 602-616 West Main Street, having approximately 163 feet of frontage on West Main Street. The applicant is proposing a mixed-use building with ground floor commercial space, and up to 55 residential units above the ground floor. The property is further identified on City Real Property Tax Map 29 as Parcel 3 (“Subject Property”). The Subject Property is zoned West Main East Corridor (WME), subject to the West Main 5 Street Architectural Design Control Overlay District and the Parking Modified Zone Overlay District. In WME residential uses are allowed by-right, including multifamily dwellings, at a density up to 87 dwelling units per acre and additional density, up to 120 dwelling units per acre, is allowed pursuant to an SUP. Building(s) within the proposed development are to have a minimum height 35 feet and a maximum height of 52 ft. max, subject to a bulk plane restriction; ADC architectural guidelines state that height should be within 130 percent of the prevailing average of both sides of the block and should relate to adjacent contributing buildings. The Comprehensive Land Use Map for this area calls for Mixed Use, but no density range is specified by the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Lahendro: In the interest of full disclosure, I provide architectural preservation consulting to First Baptist Church, who owns the adjacent building and has concerns about this project. In no way do I receive any payment for my consultation to them and do not believe I have a conflict of interest, for which I would look to Council to verify. Ms. Robertson: You do not have a conflict and you can participate and be objective under your own procedural guidelines. Staff Report, Brian Haluska: This is a SUP request for a property located between 602-616 West Main Street. It is currently the location of the University Tire and Auto Center. The proposal is in conjunction with a plan to demolish the existing structure on the property and build a new mixed-use building, which is ground floor commercial with the potential for residential on the upper floors. One of the issues we had with the agenda item is it said the by-right density is 87 dwelling units per acre, but it is actually 43. Under a by-right scheme, the building would be limited to 20 residential units. The proposed SUP would increase the density to a maximum of 120 dwelling units per acre, which is the maximum allowed in the zone. It would permit the applicant to build up to 55 residential units. The size of the building is not impacted by the SUP request. Staff has reviewed this against the city code and the school population issue has come up a few times in conversation with the school board. Typically, this type of unit does not appeal to families with school-aged children, but we found that when other developments along West Main Street have opened, there is a reshuffling of residential units. It’s not necessarily that school-aged children are living in those large apartment buildings, but the residents that move in there move out of housing that is attractive to families with young children and those children are going to the schools. The schools have reported that they saw spikes in enrollment when large multi-family structures were opened on West Main. The unit count here is much lower and it’s a different end of West Main, but nonetheless we wanted to highlight it because it is not normally an impact for these types of developments. The recommendation from the BAR found no issues with the request but they added conditions that are suggested that relate to the design of the building. Those conditions have been carried forward by staff. In discussion with the applicant, they would like to have discussion on two of these items, which are conditions 1(b) regarding building height and item (e) regarding how the parking is arranged. Staff recommends approval and the conditions serve to mitigate our main concern, which is the design review that would be handled at the BAR. There is an opportunity to create something that contributes to the overall nature of the West Main East Corridor that was rezoned several years ago to get development that was more conducive with the existing character of the street, which is reflected in the staff report. COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS Commissioner Solla-Yates: It looks like there is a 10’ setback. Is that zoning or design review? It looks like the 10’ setback is being pushed back further than the rest of the street wall, which looks strange. 6 Mr. Haluska: One of the issues with West Main Street with the mixed-use code is the amenities in front of the building and being able to accommodate that in terms of the amount of space we have. It’s a 10’ minimum and a maximum of 20’ and the reason for the setback is to open up the space for street trees, to give them more space to accommodate for utilities, and to provide space for street furniture or cafés. Commissioner Solla-Yates: Affordable housing was called out as a question mark. What are the possibilities here? Mr. Haluska: This application requires adherence to the affordable housing code section in the zoning ordinance. The applicant has not indicated how they would meet that section, but they acknowledge that they will have to. Commissioner Solla-Yates: We’re finding no impact visually, but there are a lot of requirements recommended to offset the non-impact. How does that work? Mr. Haluska: They would have to go through the BAR process, and I would conceive that when we’re talking about the actual increase in residential density, the visual is another element that would get dealt with at another time. The idea behind putting this into the conditions is partly so it’s not forgotten. Commissioner Lahendro: One of staff’s conditions says that the building shall be broken down to reflect the multi-parcel massing historically on the site. How important is our review of whether the drawings comply with that recommendation tonight? Is it more of a BAR issue to discuss? Mr. Haluska: Highlighting that condition of the SUP is just an intent, but it is a BAR recommendation. The drawings tonight don’t need to reflect that, but it is a reminder to the applicant and staff. You are not approving the details of those drawings. Commissioner Stolzenberg: How do you reconcile condition 2 with 1(a)? Why do we have a problem with them having two side-by-side buildings so it actually would be multiple parcels. Do they just need to pretend it is visually? Mr. Haluska: I don’t think the applicant’s intention is to build two buildings, even though that would achieve the intent of what the BAR is looking for. In the absence of the intent to build multiple buildings on this site, we are saying that they will build one building, but the façade needs to reflect the pattern of West Main east. There needs to be an intent to break up the massing. Commissioner Mitchell: I am a member of First Baptist Church and make regular offerings, so I do have a financial interest in that I give them money. I was unaware they had an interest in this and I think I can be objective, but I will leave it up to Council to decide if I should be recused. Ms. Robertson: Your contributions do not give you a legal conflict. You are a member of a congregation that includes 3 or more people and the decision in this particular case is not going to change your financial position positively or negatively. Your guidelines simply require you to say whether or not you believe you can participate objectively. Chairman Green: Since we don’t know how many dwelling units are actually going to be in this development, is that why we don’t have a number for what is required under the affordability? Mr. Haluska: 34.12 is a zoning requirement so there’s no way to get around it, but it typically comes at the final site plan. Based on the final site plan where we have square footages, we would plug it into our spreadsheet and 7 generate the number of units or the amount of cash contribution they provide, should they choose to forego units. Applicant, Jeff Levien: I apologize for the box on the site because it has no integrity and we’re here today to discuss what can go in that box. We know there needs to be articulation along the road and we have to break it up so it is beautiful and we understand that. Regarding the conditions, they are a little restrictive. We fully intend to comply with the ordinance with the four-stories, which is a 52 ft. height maximum. You will get a certain amount of stories within the 52 ft. with probably a max of 5 ft., but we haven’t looked at the detail in the grading to see if you could get five stories. It won’t impact the amount of units. We aren’t that far along, but we would like the flexibility to not have the restriction of four stories. With respect to parking, we just laid out a general tray of parking and it came out to 53 spots. It is not well articulated, and it was more to provide comfort and if there is any parking relief needed here, there is ample space to park according to the zoning ordinance. I would like to eliminate any particular count of parking spaces and just make it clear that we will comply with the ordinance, including taking into consideration the credits you can and what kind of units we build, since that is still up in the air. Regarding the First Baptist Church, I would like the Commission to recognize that we are here to talk about this particular SUP and the number of units that can go in the box, but we aren’t going to go for a SUP for residential density. There is nothing particular of this development that’s adversely impacting any of the neighboring land owners with respect to building these additional residential units. COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS Commissioner Stolzenberg: In April 2018 you spoke with Sean Tubbs from Charlottesville Tomorrow and said you didn’t have any prices available for the project at the time, but that they would be priced higher than the general market but wouldn’t be the most expensive units in town. When looking at the rental rates for the project that is almost complete, a studio is going for $1499-$1750 per month, a two bedroom is $2680-3860, and a three bedroom for $4090. Do you think those are not the most expensive in town? Mr. Levien: I know there are units that rent for $4100-$4200. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Do you think the units in this new phase are going to be comparably priced? Mr. Levien: These won’t come to market until 3 years from now so it’s hard to say. It depends on what the market is, but they will be market rate. Commissioner Dowell: You have 3 options available for the affordable housing fund. What option are you leaning towards? Mr. Levien: I don’t know until I see the whole formula and what it comes out to. At 600 West Main I had an agreement on the site plan to pay into the fund and voluntarily built them on-site. It’s difficult to say until it’s all laid out, but I’ve worked very closely with the City on complying with that and I certainly will. Commissioner Stolzenberg: At four stories, it would be one of the shorter buildings on West Main east. Would you build higher if it were permitted? Mr. Levien: That’s getting into a larger urban planning discussion, but height isn’t the only definitive measure of context along a street. Going along setbacks is also indicative of context. I’d rather have tall and thin, but with restrictions on height there’s only so tall and thin you can do. I would probably build higher if I could. 8 Commissioner Stolzenberg: If you went higher and made more units, would those units potentially have to be lower priced in order for you to rent them all? Are you encouraged to have high prices or able to because of the limited supply you are offering here? Mr. Levien: I would have to sit down with the site because it might not even need more units. A lot of things would have to factor into the equation so it would be very hard to answer that. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Related to the side setback next to one of the historic houses you’re preserving, the design shows that you’re preserving the view of the mural. Does that mural exist? Mr. Levien: There is an internationally renowned muralist coming in September to do that mural. Being an adjacent land owner, rather than covering it up with a building, I have the opportunity to preserve it, make it visible and have some open space. That mural was approved by the BAR and it went along with their recommendations. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Regarding the meditative courtyard, are the amenities of the phase 1 going to be available for the phase 2 residents? Mr. Levien: I don’t know. It’s a much larger conversation about combining them or not. Chairman Green: If we allowed you to build 12 stories, how much affordable housing would you put in it at 20­ 30% AMI? Or would you go all market rate because you could? Mr. Levien: I would probably build all market rate. The private and public sector should work together to build true affordable housing. There should be real estate tax incentives to try to build the housing that we desperately need. I operate under the current ordinances today, but I’ve seen different municipalities work together to achieve this. Without inclusionary housing inducement, the economics don’t work. Chairman Green: Randomly adding height just anywhere doesn’t give us affordable housing. Ms. Robertson: It’s important to focus on the specifics of this application in front of you. Perhaps you might invite Mr. Levien to a workshop in the future. Chairman Green: At this current zoning ordinance, there is a certain height restriction. Ms. Robertson: In our zoning ordinance, there is a generally applicable provision that if you reference four stories, it refers to 50 ft. of height. In the West Main Street east zoning district you’re allowed to have 52 ft. of height maximum. If the applicant is asking to be able to go to the maximum height the zoning ordinance allows, you don’t need a condition at all that describes height. Commissioner Stolzenberg: You bought this property a few months ago for $2.9 million. Were you in a hurry for some reason? Ms. Robertson: Again, it’s very important to focus on the details that are presented in the application materials and to ask questions to clarify how the ordinance is and the general land use issues. Commissioner Dowell: Staff recommends the height shall not exceed 4 stories. Can you justify why you need 5? 9 Mr. Levien: The zoning speaks to 52 ft. in height and I have to comply with that height and stick to the ordinance. Commissioner Lahendro: The recommendation for the underground parking that no direct access shall be provided from the building street wall on West Main Street. How will the underground parking be accessed? Mr. Levien: It will have to be setback along West Main so it isn’t in the building wall. It has to come off of West Main, but the condition says it can’t be right in the street wall. I am fine with that condition. PUBLIC HEARING Pat Edwards: I am a member of First Baptist Church and a Starr Hill resident. The Annex/Holsinger building is delicate. One of the conditions is that it be seismically monitored, but I would love for you to flesh that out to say how it goes on and who would be responsible for reading it and communicating to the church what is discovered because of it. There is also a mural on the side of our building that may be covered up. That retaining wall in the alley between those two buildings belongs to Mr. Levien, but we use that alley. It is an active alley and we cannot have it blocked. Lastly, the Starr Hill neighborhood is being parked in by everyone, including UVA, construction workers, people getting on the Amtrak, etc. and parking is a serious issue for the neighborhood. It’s not that simple to get neighborhood parking and it’s not convenient. I would appreciate if you were mindful of the fact that surrounding neighborhoods are being impacted by all the construction and there will be people who park long term in our neighborhoods. It’s a problem. The trashmen can’t back down the hill anymore because of the cars on both sides so they have to walk to get it. Mark Kavit: Earlier this year or last year, a board member made the comment that when developers come before you for SUPs they need to give back to the community. This is a good case where that could and should be done. It would be nice if the developer did efficiency units that could be at a lower cost. There are people that work Downtown that would like to not have to take a car into town and this could be a good location for that. There should also be some affordable housing onsite and I hope the developer will look at that. In this case we have a developer that is looking at it from the standpoint of how much he can possibly get out of the units and maximize his return on investment. Pool Ita: I reside in the Fifeville neighborhood and would like to echo the comment made about parking in the neighborhoods. We have yet to see the impact of the allowance for a lower parking provision from 600 West Main Street. That is going to impact parking in the Fifeville and Starr Hill neighborhoods. Since we have the convenience of having the same developer here, perhaps we ought to be looking to make up a little bit on what we haven’t got. If I recall, a long time ago they agreed to make provisions for parking for people who couldn’t park within 600 West Main and I wonder where that got to because we haven’t seen any of it yet. It’s naive to expect that we’re going to put up these very expensive apartments and expect people won’t have cars in it. COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION Commissioner Solla-Yates: How detailed can we get on the seismic monitoring procedure? Mr. Haluska: I don’t know much about it either so it is unclear how much you’d want to spell things out in the condition versus what could be left to the applicant to demonstrate that they’ve complied with that. The only guidance we may have is City Council’s blasting ordinance that delved into that. The applicant mentioned they’ve worked very closely with the adjacent building on the other side of 600 West Main when building their current project, so they went through precautions. Typically, there is seismic monitoring that can be done including a 10 survey of the property prior to any construction activity and periodically checking on it to see if there are any signs of disruption to mitigate it. Commissioner Lahendro: The Holsinger building goes back to 1912 and has some wonderful history. I am familiar with the monitoring because of my work at the Rotunda. The details of course have to be worked out, but I would suggest modifying the recommendation to say that “real-time notification of building occupants of significant movement would be required” that way it is being monitored as the work is going on and there are certain movement amounts. The main concern is the safety of the occupants of the building and we want to know if there is any damage to the building as a result of the construction activities. Chairman Green: Does it make sense to have a setback on that side to the alley as opposed to just the building to give more room to work? Commissioner Lahendro: As an architectural historian, I am fine with just the alley being there because that is the historic development of buildings on this street. There’s a retaining wall so it’s not like they’ve had additional space to pull out in the past. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Is there existing recourse if there is seismic damage? Ms. Robertson: You would have to write something into the conditions. Chairman Green: What happens if there is damage to a historic structure? Ms. Robertson: The question is always how close the relationship is between damage that someone finds in their building and proving that it is the result of seismic activity caused by the development on the parcel. It’s not something the City would typically be in the middle of, but if you do include a condition that requires the gathering of data regarding seismic activity, the easiest thing to do would be to require that information to be shared with an adjacent property owner on request. The landowner may not want to agree to that but that’s as far as you should go. The landowners would have private recourse. Commissioner Lahendro: It would be wise to digitally document the building before construction starts and have it monitored during construction, as well as at the end of the project. I can’t give you the details of that but hopefully there is a way for them to get worked out as the project goes along. Chairman Green: Is this something we’ve done in the past? Mr. Haluska: We’ve never put a condition in terms of seismic monitoring. We’ve done conditions on notification of businesses prior to construction or a phone number contact, but this suggestion by the BAR is the first time it has come forward. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Is the Annex building an individually protected property? Commissioner Lahendro: The Holsinger building is a contributing member to the historic district, so it is a certified historic building. The church itself is individually listed on the state and national registers. Commissioner Dowell: Why would we have monitoring in place with no enforcement behind it? 11 Mr. Haluska: The rational is there is a condition on the SUP to generate a record that the parties involved would be able to access. The City wouldn’t swoop into a civil matter and we aren’t a party to that. We can only enforce the rules we have the legal authority to enforce. Commissioner Dowell: If there is a shift in the building, what happens? Where is the accountability? What is the purpose of having the monitoring in place and how are we enforcing it? Mr. Haluska: The way the condition is worded, the applicant satisfies the condition by having the monitoring in place. What is done beyond that is done between the private property owners to mitigate. We can’t step in on the church’s behalf. Chairman Green: Why wasn’t there a section on this about data collection from the BAR? Commissioner Lahendro: It’s because there are a lot of details to consider so it was left as a general statement with the understanding and hope that the details would be worked out later. Mr. Levien: I did a similar agreement with the adjacent landowner. It is comforting to know that I built 600 West Main and didn’t knock four buildings down, two of which being contributing structures that were very old. I had an arrangement with adjacent landowners and can work with you on the language and details on how to monitor it. The ultimate recourse is getting sued for taking down a building and that’s not a good idea. Ms. Robertson: One modification might be to simply require a written agreement with the adjacent property owner setting forth the terms under which monitoring will occur. I just don’t know what types of provisions are in the agreement you are referring to. Mr. Levien: I could never agree to that because it would put the power in the adjacent landowner so I could never get a SUP until they agreed with me and they would simply not agree. I would agree to the condition that we would seismically monitor, provide data, and not cause any structural damage to the neighboring building. To do that, I would provide detailed language on how I would do that as a condition, but I can’t have an agreement to agree because it gives them too much leverage over me to never agree. Ms. Robertson: There has to be more words in this condition, and you can make a recommendation for those categories of things to be included. The applicant could then send us the specific language that he would be agreeable to including within the condition, which can be incorporated as this goes forward to Council. Perhaps the condition coming out of this is that the applicant will provide language to be included as part of the seismic monitoring condition. The condition needs to be finessed because it’s too general. The applicant is offering a solution, but they should provide the specific wording to create a final wording for a condition that is consistent with the representation he just made. Chairman Green: The concern is that this is not a proffer, so all this is not left up to the applicant to provide the language he wants. Ms. Robertson: Staff or the BAR have to help us craft the specific language because we don’t have it. As long as the final wording is consistent with what has been discussed tonight, you could make a recommendation on the vague outlines and work through it before it goes to Council. 12 Councilor Walker: If you are talking about potentially settling this in court, the landowner would have more funds available to do that and it could put the church in the position where they may not be able to fight a legal battle. We need to take care of whatever we can do on our end. Commissioner Lahendro: Could we ask the applicant to work with the church to come up with an agreement and come back to us with a proposal? Councilor Galvin: The National Park Service has guidelines for protecting a historic structure during adjacent construction. That document very well may provide that language. In short, there should be a protected plan. Councilor Walker: Can legal look into potentially enforcement from the City’s end? Chairman Green: Based off state law, this is a civil matter between two private landowners. Ms. Robertson: The reference to a protected plan, given that the status of the building is a historic building, is something that I would be more comfortable with in a SUP condition such as this. It’s difficult to do this at a public meeting, but I’m more comfortable with the notion that we would require a protective plan. We don’t know what that plan would look like right now and we don’t have one that staff has ever used. Chairman Green: We always encourage coming to a work session to work out things like these. Mr. Levien: Once you put in the condition about seismically monitoring, notifying the landowner, and cannot cause structural damage to the building, then I will have to show you that before I can get a COA once I complete the project. There’s no hammer larger than that to ensure this happens. Commissioner Dowell: I don’t feel comfortable with that because these bodies love to punt items off to other people. For me to feel comfortable granting a SUP, I would like to see the details of what this will look like. Just saying that you’re going to monitor it is one thing, but the details come in for determining what happens during different situations. Just saying you can’t get a COA only covers you and we’re not looking at it from both sides. The issue is we’re trying to make sure the adjacent property owner is covered as well. Mr. Levien: I’m not just saying I’ll monitor it, I’m saying I won’t cause structural damage to it, which will be in the condition. That is ultimately the goal and what is larger than that? It’s no different than saying I can’t build over 52 ft. and the risk on me is much greater because I have to stand before someone and show that I have not caused that structural damage. You’re burdening risk where it should be, which is on me to not cause damage to this neighboring building. Ms. Robertson: How would the zoning administrator resolve a situation in which the owner of this property says it didn’t cause any damage and the owner of the adjacent property says they have damage and thinks it was attributed to this? It’s not a zoning issue. We should talk about a protective plan to look out for historic properties under our zoning requirements and our BAR guidelines. I’m happy to review the language of the park service regulations with the applicant and see the pros and cons of it, but it can’t be done on the fly. I can’t think of another situation where we make someone promise absolutely no damage to an adjacent property and that gets enforceable by the zoning administrator. Chairman Green: I agree if it’s two individual properties that it’s a civil matter, but it’s not. This is a Special Use Permit and a governmental regulation. We need to be able to give the church some piece of mind. 13 Ms. Robertson: Our zoning administrator is not qualified to determine who caused a large crack in the foundation of a building. Commissioner Lahendro: We should say that the applicant should implement a monitoring service that protects the Holsinger building and its occupants during construction that digitally documents the Holsinger building prior to construction, seismically monitored during construction with real-time notification to occupants if there is significant movement, and digitally document it following construction. Ultimately the church would have to prove that something happened to their building and they would have the documentation before and after construction to show that something did happen. They could then take it as a civil matter to the applicant. Commissioner Dowell: I know the goal is to not damage the building, but he’s not the one physically doing construction. If we put in a monitoring system and it moves, then what? Will they keep building? Will they fix the problem that they caused and then keep going? I’m okay with the agreement, but we also need to list how to mitigate it if something does happen. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Perhaps it can be incorporated into the plan. They can lay out a plan with a structural engineer that states the threshold of seismic movement where it matters and something needs to happen. Commissioner Lahendro: The responsibility can’t fall entirely on the applicant. The church has to take responsibility that if they are notified that movement has occurred, the church puts the applicant on notice. If the applicant proceeds with construction and takes a chance of the building failing, that is a huge lawsuit. The church would also be wise not to have people go back in the building if the applicant decides to go ahead with construction. Chairman Green: I agree, but this language needs to be worked out so it is comprehensive. Mr. LJ Lopez: As part of the site plan process, we are responsible for providing a traffic management plan and the site plan has to return back to the Planning Commission. If we condition the preservation protection plan to be worked out between now and the site plan to return to the Commission for review and its approval, is that a potential alternative to allow us the opportunity to work through the details and language? As a side note, what Commissioner Lahendro outlined is exactly what we’ve done on the current 600 West Main for the directly adjacent property line for the ABC store. Chairman Green: Would that hold up legally? Ms. Robertson: It is doable. It would include a requirement for a preservation protection plan. You should have that resolved so an approved protection plan can be established before final site plan approval. I don’t like the idea that it’s part of the site plan, but if we can agree on who is going to approve that plan and the plan has to be in place before final site plan approval can be obtained, then that would work. We need to establish who is responsible for pronouncing the plan to be approved. Chairman Green: How do we know who to put this on? Ms. Robertson: Perhaps it’s the BAR. Mr. Lopez: We have to return to the BAR for a COA for design regardless of this application or a by-right commercial application. If you put both bodies in there, we can work with staff to craft a plan between now and 14 return and we could take opportunities at future work sessions to work through the details. It allows us more time to vet it and not spend that time here creating it on the fly. Commissioner Dowell: Depending on the plan, I may not like the SUP. If we’re going to vote we should have all the information in front of us to review and then make a decision. Right now we don’t have enough details. Commissioner Lahendro: Does it have to be a member of staff that approves it? If there is a civil engineer on staff, I’d be happy to work with that person to review it. Ms. Robertson: It could also be the BAR or the Planning Commission. The site plan approvals are based on requirements in the ordinance and other zoning regulations. This wouldn’t be an ordinance requirement, but it would be a zoning regulation because it would be in the SUP. There are very important historic issues, but it’s very difficult when the BAR sets this out and it is unclear. People don’t think about what it means to establish a zoning regulation that you expect a zoning administrator to enforce. The way this is coming forward is difficult. Chairman Green: The protection of the building was going to be a huge topic of discussion whether the BAR included it or not. Ms. Robertson: We can include a condition that requires an approval of a preservation protection plan, we just need to specify who is going to approve it. The BAR was the source of the recommendation so it could be approved by them before the applicant can get final site plan approval. Or you can specify someone else who can approve the adequacy of the plan, including the Commission. It won’t necessarily guarantee that what is in the plan will keep damage from happening, it just approves the list of things that would be done to attempt to protect the adjacent property. Commissioner Dowell: Who is going to be in charge of the City staff monitoring? Mr. Brennen Duncan: If you’re going to rely on City staff, I suggest we make a condition like we do for structural walls where there is a plan for the preservation that is stamped by a structural engineer that focuses on historic preservation that staff can then review. Putting the emphasis on a particular staff member would not be a good idea. It is a very specialized field and we may not have any civil engineers on staff who are specialized enough to speak to seismic fluctuations. Commissioner Solla-Yates moves to continue taking action on this application at the next regular meeting on September 10th and to direct staff to create a more comprehensive condition for a preservation plan. Seconded by Commissioner Stolzenberg. Motion is approved 5-0. Commissioner Heaton and Mitchell were not present during the vote. Mr. Levien: To clarify, when we return will the conversation be narrowed into a protection plan? I would like to hear a poll on the other discussion items, like not having a four-story limitation. If we’re only focused on the protection plan that would focus us and we would be limited to that. The discussion should be about how the incremental density has an adverse impact on the neighborhood and I don’t know how it has any affect on the adjacent landowner’s building. I am disappointed that it is deferred, but I would like to limit it to this protection plan and reserve the right to have further conversations with my council to understand how the limited review of increased density has an affect on seismic affects of an adjacent building. Commissioner Dowell: The height issue is still a concern and we haven’t talked about how to mitigate parking because the applicant stated that what he gave us in this draft we’re reviewing is not definitive. How can we make a decision on an estimated figure? 15 Chairman Green: Perhaps we can look at the conditions very quickly to get a consensus. What do we think about the building height not exceeding a height of 4 stories? Commissioner Stolzenberg: I do not agree. The idea is that they might be able to squeeze it in, but if they end up with four, the ceiling heights are going to be huge. Although they say it doesn’t affect the density, it would be better if there were some apartments that were somewhat lower down the market even though they are going to be at the top regardless. Commissioner Lahendro: I am for the condition. Commissioner Dowell: My conflict comes in with the zoning. We also talked about preserving the view of a mural, which I am all for. However, we often don’t take into context the existing neighbors. Where is their view? That is an issue for me when it comes to height and that is for all the projects we see. I like four stories. Commissioner Solla-Yates: I do not agree with the condition. My concern is the flexibility will allow a diversity of housing types within the construction, which would promote what we say we want in the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Dowell: Do you really think those diversity types are going to give us what we want in the Comprehensive Plan? The people who need the housing that we’re referring to aren’t even going to be able to look at these apartments. Commissioner Solla-Yates: This will help very few of the people who need the most help either way. Chairman Green: I am inclined to stay with four stories only because of the transition areas that we’re talking about in our Comprehensive Plan and having the historical site next to it. I don’t think anything should be as high as that steeple. What about the condition that the building shall not contain more than 55 dwelling units? Commissioner Stolzenberg: I am anti. Commissioner Lahendro: I’m good with it. Commissioner Solla-Yates: I’m anti. I don’t see any value to it and I see potential issues with it, but ultimately the proposal is for 55 units and it’s the maximum allowed by SUP anyway. We aren’t achieving anything but if it makes people happy then I am okay with it. Chairman Green: What about the condition that the building shall contain space to be occupied and used for retail uses, which shall be located on the ground floor facing West Main? Commissioner Dowell: On other projects we very clearly describe what type of retail we want to see in these spaces. Is there any use we would not want to see? Chairman Green: That typically happens in a rezoning where the uses are spelled out. With this being a SUP, it would be anything allowed in that district. Everyone seems to agree that that condition is fine. What about the condition that underground parking shall be provided in a parking structure constructed underneath the building, provide at least 53 spaces, and no direct access is provided into the underground parking from the building’s street wall along West Main Street? 16 Commissioner Solla-Yates: Assuming we can find a way to do it in the site plan, I’m fine with it. Commissioner Stolzenberg: I would like to add a clause saying “less any reductions allowed under the zoning ordinance” because there are many incentives to do extra stuff. I would like to add a clause that allows them to use the incentives we have in the zoning ordinance we have. Chairman Green: How does that help the neighborhood? Commissioner Stolzenberg: To have more transit. It doesn’t directly address the concerns, but the incentives we have in the ordinance are with the goal of lessening the traffic problems in the entire City by shifting people to alternative modes of transportation. Commissioner Lahendro: I’m fine requiring the full number of spaces that are required. Commissioner Solla-Yates: I don’t like specifying 53. If they meet the code, that is adequate. Chairman Green: Parking is a question we will have. What about the condition to break down the mass of the building to multi-parcel massing and they refer to historic buildings on either side? Commissioner Lahendro: That is good. I’m happy to hear the applicant say that it has a long way to go to meet this recommendation. Commissioner Stolzenberg: I’m anti because The Standard has them and I don’t think they help. Chairman Green: What about the condition that there shall be pedestrian engagement with the street with an active transparent and permeable façade at street level? Commissioner Solla-Yates: I’m all for it. Ms. Robertson: What is a permeable façade? Commissioner Lahendro: Perhaps we say “passage and transparency” instead. Commissioner Stolzenberg: If they were to do on-site affordable units, would that fall under the standard operating procedures the City has adopted at the home high rent limits? Ms. Creasy: They would have to meet the criteria that is part of the affordable housing program. Typically, an applicant will look at the multiple options to choose from and figure out which one works the best. 2. ZT19-06-01 –- A proposed amendment to the text of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, City Code Section 34-896, to modify access requirements for various uses. Currently the ordinance requires 2 points of access for any development that contains 50 or more dwelling units; this requirement is outdated and does not match current Fire Code or other engineering and safety standards. The purpose of the amendments are to clarify that access must be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards set out in the City’s Standards and Design Manual, and mandatory safety standards, and to eliminate conflicts with those other documents. 17 Staff Report, Missy Creasy: At the May Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Trey Steigman suggested the Commission consider a text amendment to this section and provided background information concerning it. The Commission discussed it at the June work session and decided to initiate. In this case there is not a specific applicant because text amendments have to be either initiated through Planning Commission or City Council. At the July 9th meeting it came forward for a formal initiation. We’ve received comments concerning this and it’s a little difficult to explain. The access section of the ordinance, as well as many other portions of the ordinance, are problematic. Updates need to be made and there are conflicts with existing standards. Since this was brought forward for review, we took a deeper look at it and found that the standards exist that would create safe and secure situations, but the number that was placed in the section for two entryways with 50 units or more was arbitrarily put in. We couldn’t find a specific reason and in consulting the fire code and Standards of Design Manual, those are the locations where the true information needs to come from. With that number in the zoning ordinance, it could limit the situation where fire or traffic needs something different based on safety standards. We want to be clear that this wasn’t pertaining to a specific development and we looked at this code section independently of that, however we anticipated we would have some concern from the community because there are a number of developments where the concern could result. We anticipated those and provided some background on that and plan to do more tonight. Mr. Brennen Duncan: Staff and fire reviewed this and the code that we have is arbitrary. We have language in the draft Standards in Design Manual that should be coming before you and Council later this fall that address some of these access issues from a traffic management standpoint. The fire code already addresses it from the health and safety aspect as well, which are the two reasons for this. The code that we currently have is restrictive because all it takes into consideration are the dwelling units. It doesn’t consider if it’s a corner lot, other buildings around it, the road it comes out onto, etc. and it doesn’t give me the flexibility to assess these projects on a case­ by-case basis that they deserve. COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS Chairman Green: This states that it is outdated from the current fire code. Wouldn’t they still be reviewing any site plan for any amount of dwelling units? Mr. Duncan: Yes. The fire code official would be reviewing it. This only applies to how many dwelling units, but the fire code actually speaks to commercial and industrial developments, multi-family, one or two family, etc. There is more information in the fire code than what our current zoning code provides. Commissioner Solla-Yates: We’ve received a lot of public comment from people in the Belmont neighborhood with a concern that there was a relationship to a specific project in Belmont that is by-right. Is there a relationship between that specific project and this specific proposal? Mr. Duncan: The fire code official would have to look at it from their point of view. From my point of view, it would still require multiple access points so I don’t know with that particular project that this code change would affect anything. It will require at least two points of access whether this changes or not. PUBLIC HEARING: Trey Steigman: As mentioned in May, I represent numerous property owners and clients in the City from a development perspective. This came to our attention very surprisingly in February of this year during a pre­ 18 application meeting with City staff when we were proposing a project that was otherwise a by-right use project of approximately 90 units. We were told because of our site plan and this access management zoning code, we would be restricted to no more than 49 units. That was a surprise to us in a City that is severely lacking in the number of units we need to support the existing and future growth of Charlottesville. Beyond that, it also came to our attention by doing some limited research that over the past dozen years at least nine projects of new construction development have been approved where this code was not enforced. It was peculiar that we were being asked to limit our proposal to this zoning ordinance. Staff has done a great job of digging in and agreeing that the arbitrary number of no more than 50 units without two points of access is not practical for urban development. We appreciate the suggestion of a work session where many things we put on the table and thought that this zoning text amendment was a good idea. Staff and the City Attorney’s office has come up with a solution that corrects a previously unenforced situation that doesn’t make any sense. It’s important for staff to analyze projects on a case-by-case basis particular to access management and we ask you to support this zoning text amendment and we thank you for your time. Kat Meyer: Resides at 208 Douglas Avenue. If you put the amount of consideration to all of the applicants that come forward looking at different access that you just did to the last project, I have complete trust and faith. You took your time, went through all the nuances, protected the neighborhood and really listened to the applicant. I came to be educated about this and in Belmont there are a lot of contra folks, but we really want to be your allies. We are looking at development and we moved there because 20 years ago we could afford it and there was diversity. That is changing and we want to be your allies. The climate is changing and there are a lot more emergencies and storms and we need to look into the future and make sure there is easier access. When I hear that each one will be taken into its own considered by the fire department, you have both sides in mind. Mark Kavit: I am concerned that this will open the floodgate to a lot development on the books right now that’s being required to have 2 or 3 entry points and going down to only 1 entry point. An example is 100 Avon Street. Currently there may be 2 entry points for it, but it might end up being changed. If it only has 1 entry point, anyone trying to go from that area to the Belmont Bridge and the development that planned for the area will have a difficult time getting through and they will have a long wait. It’s not just about emergency vehicles getting to the project, it’s also a convenience factor for the people who are there and have to deal with the traffic. I personally would like to see it done as a situation where it is counted on each individual merit as to what we have, rather than doing a blank change. Valerie Long: I wanted to call your attention to paragraph A of the proposed text, which sufficiently addresses the comments that were just raised. It continues to provide discretion to the City’s traffic engineer to require additional access points. The new text says “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 onsite, minimize conflict with pedestrian traffic, and provide continuous and unobstructed access for emergency purposes… To these ends, the traffic engineer and the review of the site plan may specify the number, type and location of access points on a public street.” It goes on to retain a significant amount of discretion as Mr. Duncan stated. The flexibility for him and his colleagues to review each application on a case-by-case basis to determine what makes the most sense its context, location, neighborhood, and the traffic conditions. Julia Williams: I live in Belmont and recently became aware of this. In the quarterly meeting that the neighborhood associations had with the City Manager I happened to stand in for the President of the Belmont- Carlton Neighborhood Association. When summarizing the critical issues, the thread that was most common was the concern about development pressure. It was mostly regarding conflicts between commercial and residential development, but housing density also creates pressures that are very similar when you have low density 19 residential neighborhoods. In considering this proposal, a long range planner is still a position we very much need in the City and I encourage the City Manager to consider that. In section A, why doesn’t it say, “conflicts or friction with pedestrian or multi-modal transportation?” In Belmont some intersections may work better for traffic, but we’re getting many concerns about safety of pedestrians. Why can’t we build that into this language since we are trying to be a multi-modal community? It’s surprising that the traffic engineer has all of the review on this. If there is a long range planner, they may also have insight as to how these intersections, changes in density, and vehicular access affect long range plans. COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION Commissioner Dowell: Regardless of whether we vote to do the zoning text amendment change, none of the language in the amendment supersedes what fire and rescue already have in place. If fire says that it’s okay to access this with one entry point but the traffic engineer comes back and says it’s still not safe, that does not supersede what we have in the zoning text amendment. Chairman Green: To be clear, the fourth line talks about minimizing conflict with pedestrian traffic. As the traffic engineer, do you already look at pedestrian and bicycle traffic or is it something we should add? Mr. Duncan: I have no issues if you would like to change it to multi-modal, so it covers all modes. Commissioner Solla-Yates: This is astonishing progress. We should be enforcing our code and we should have enforceable code. This is a big pain point and I’m grateful to see action on it. Chairman Green: I am also very grateful for the folks who requested this to come forward and take their time for us to work through this and ask all our questions. Hopefully in the future we will have more of that. Commissioner Stolzenberg moves to recommend approval of this zoning text amendment to amend and re- ordain section 34-896 access to the zoning ordinance on the basis that the changes would serve the interests of public necessity, convenience, general public welfare, and/or good zoning practice, with the amendment to add “multi-modal traffic” after “pedestrian”. Seconded by Commissioner Dowell. Motion is approved 7-0. IV. COMMISSION’S ACTION ITEMS 1. 503 Rugby Road – Preliminary Discussion Staff Report, Joey Winter: This item is a SUP request for a sorority with up to 37 residents. The property is zoned R-3H so it is historic. It already has a valid SUP for a sorority with up to 36 residents. With this request the applicant will ask to increase the amount of density by one resident and they will also be asking for relief from front and side setback requirements. This is a preliminary discussion with some questions to consider as you review this request. What is the impact in the neighborhood of allowing the additional resident? Are there measures the applicant can take to mitigate this sorority impact on the neighborhood? What is the impact of granting modifications to front and side setback requirements? This property is in a historic district so BAR will make a recommendation on this SUP request in their August meeting next week. Currently this SUP is on track for a public hearing at the September 10th Planning Commission meeting. 20 Applicant, Erin Hannegan– There is no change in the zoning from R-3 and the use is staying the same as a residential boarding house that was already granted through a SUP. We are asking for one additional resident that is technically considered one dwelling unit. The reason for this is the building is currently functionally obsolete and they need to expand to meet their required needs. The current architecture doesn’t reflect the character they desired and as part of the renovation, we’ll be modifying the architectural character. We are dealing with a very irregular trapezoidal site and we’re asking for setback modifications in assisting the architectural character they would like. The bedrooms are about 9 ft. wide by 15.7 ft long, which is smaller than a standard UVA dorm room. They require custom sized beds that are smaller than a standard twin bed and they don’t meet the current accessibility requirements. When we renovate, we are removing all of the demising walls between the six bedrooms on the front and expanding the width of each bedroom to be 11 ft. wide, which meets the requirements. The other reason for the change is their current chapter room doesn’t seat enough of the members at the same time for their chapter meetings, as there is a fireplace in the middle of the plan. Removing that is a major piece of the renovation to expand the size of the room. We are also relocating the front entry, as there is currently no front door from Rugby Road. We think that by adding this, it will enhance the streetscape, the connection to the street life, better organization in the plan, and better circulation. This is a noncontributing structure and the building was built in 1979. In addition to putting an addition on the rear, we are going up a story and adding a front porch with a front entry point. We would still maintain the side entrance, but it wouldn’t be the main entrance any longer. The yard is currently not usable. Regarding the setback relief, we aren’t asking for any change in the rear yard. With the other two, it isn’t to add any gross square footage to the building, but instead to provide the character defining conditions that help change that character and provide scale. The reason we are proposing the roof overhangs as we are is because they are correct for the proportion of the building and it helps to shield the façade from heat gain in the summer. In addition, the current zoning ordinance reads that it has to be uncovered and unenclosed, which would mean that a porch would not be allowed, which is why we’re asking. COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS Commissioner Solla-Yates: What was here before this building? Ms. Hannegan: It was a boarding house and the owner became sick and moved back to New York. It fell into dilapidation and eventually people got into it and set fires in it. The building caught on fire. The City raised the building and Kappa Kappa Gamma purchased the parcel to develop the proposal for the building that currently exists. Commissioner Solla-Yates: You mentioned the front yard isn’t usable. Does this mean the sorority can’t use it as it’s currently configured? Ms. Hannegan: A better word would be that it isn’t utilized. There is no connection to the front yard and it’s just grass. The landscaping has been left to overgrow and conceal the building because the building doesn’t represent the architectural character that the client would prefer. Commissioner Stolzenberg: On the side setbacks, there is a very tight driveway there. You stated that the building footprint doesn’t actually change, so it wouldn’t be affected. Is that true? Ms. Hannegan: Correct. That drive is on their property, not this property. We’re not expanding that direction at all except for the eave and a pilaster at the corner. 21 Commissioner Solla-Yates: The idea behind the setbacks is to get at an aesthetic control, which is redundant since we have architectural design control in this area. Setting aside aesthetics, is there a health, safety, or public welfare benefit to the current setbacks as currently laid out to this specific location? Chairman Green: Setbacks are sometimes utilized and looked at for fire code. If you’re only 3 ft. from the next building, you have to have specific fire rating, even on the eaves. The setbacks are generally related to building code. Mr. Winter: There will be a site plan related to this and the building official will review it. It will have to conform to the building codes. Commissioner Heaton: So, there’s a whole other story for one more resident? Mr. Winter: The current house has 21 residents with the house director as it is. With this expansion they are going to 37. The SUP from 1978 authorized them to have 36 residents, so they could go to 36 now. Chairman Green: No one seems to have any problem with the one unit being requested. Commissioner Dowell: Why 37? That seems like an odd number. Ms. Hannegan: There are 9 bedrooms on each floor with double occupancy. The house director makes it 37. Commissioner Mitchell: I really like everything about this because it makes it look so much more like all the other houses on Rugby. Commissioner Lahendro: When this building was being constructed in 1979, I was in graduate school and walked in front of it every day. It was a notable building at the time and it was an attempt to transition from very traditional buildings to something that was a bit modern. It was a significant building locally and was appreciated by the architects that walked by it. Chairman Green: Has staff come with a list of conditions to be addressed? Mr. Winter: There are conditions on the old 1978 SUP, most of which are not relevant today. I will do a staff report and get input from other reviewers to come up with conditions. If there is a sorority or fraternity that has had a SUP approved recently that you like the conditions from, I can work off that. Otherwise, staff will go through it as they see fit to come up with conditions. Chairman Green: In the past parking and noise are concerns. Ms. Hannegan: The IFC at UVA is a board that sets rules about what can and cannot occur at fraternity and sorority houses. Parties are not allowed at sorority houses, along with other conditions that are different between the two. In addition, the national chapter has rules and regulations about what can occur in the house. On top of that, there is a house director and there are guidelines in place for what they want to occur locally in their chapter house. There are multiple levels of oversight. We held a neighborhood meeting last week and only 2 people showed up, but both were in favor of it. Commissioner Solla-Yates: In terms of impact, I am not very concerned. There are potential impacts with trip generation and parking. One thing I’d like to consider are bicycle facilities. Mr. Winter: There is a requirement for bicycle facilities for fraternities and sororities, which is one bike space per 500 sq. ft. of bedroom area. 22 Commissioner Solla-Yates: Lastly, I was asked by a professor at VCU to speak on a panel on Charlottesville’s efforts on affordable housing in the next few months. Turns out this is a Virginia APA event, so I wanted to alert the Commission about that. V. Adjournment 9:30 pm – Commissioner Dowell moves to adjourn until the second Tuesday in September 2019. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPT. OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT JOINT CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF HEARING: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 PROJECT NAME: Kappa Kappa Gamma - 503 Rugby Road SUP APPLICATION NUMBER: SP19-00004 REASON FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT: To authorize a specific land use (sorority house with up to 37 residents) Project Planner: Joey Winter (winterj@charlottesville.org) Date of Staff Report: September 3, 2019 Applicant: Mitchell Matthews Architects Applicants Representative: Ms. Erin Hannegan Owner of Record: Epsilon Sigma House Corporation of Kappa Kappa Gamma Application Information Property Street Address: 503 Rugby Road (“Subject Property”) Tax Map | Parcel Number: TM 5-52 | 050052000 Site Area (per GIS): 0.3440 acres (14,985 ft2) Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Plan): High Density Residential Current Zoning Classification: R-3H Overlay Districts: Rugby Road—University Circle—Venable Neighborhood Architectural Design Control District Completeness: • Application contains all info required by Zoning Ordinance Secs. 34-41(d), 34-158(a), & 34-158(b) • Existing dwelling units on site: 1 • Dwelling units proposed by this development: 1 • Pre-application meeting required by Sec. 34-41(b)(1) was conducted on: July 2, 2019 • Community meeting required by Sec. 34-41(c)(2) was conducted on: August 6, 2019 Meeting location – Kappa Kappa Gamma House (503 Rugby Road, Charlottesville, VA 22903) ***The Planning Commission held a preliminary discussion of this SUP request at their August 13, 2019 regular meeting*** Page 1 of 12 SP19-00004 Kappa Kappa Gamma – 503 Rugby Road SUP Application Components Per Sec. 34-158(a), the procedure for filing and consideration of an application for a special use permit is the same as that required by section 34-41 for an owner-initiated petition for a zoning map amendment, except that a complete application for a special use permit shall also include: (1) A site plan when required by section 34-802 of ATTACHMENT 2, Pages 54-70 the City Code; (2) A written disclosure of the information required by section 34-8 of the City Code and, if the applicant is not the owner of the property, written evidence of his status as (i) the authorized agent of ATTACHMENT 1, Page 8 the property owner, or (ii) a contract purchaser of the property whose application is with the permission of the property owner; (3) For developments including any non-residential uses, and developments proposing the construction of three (3) or more single- or two-family dwellings, ATTACHMENT 1, Page 9 the applicant shall provide a completed low-impact development ("LID") methods worksheet; (4) For applications proposing the alteration of the footprint or height of an existing building, or the ATTACHMENT 2, Pages 24-32 construction of one (1) or more new buildings: (i) a building massing diagram and (ii) elevations; (5) Information and data identifying how many, if any, existing dwelling units on the development site meet the city's definition of an "affordable ATTACHMENT 1, Pages 10-12 dwelling unit" and whether any such existing units, or equivalent affordable units, will remain following the development; (6) Other supporting data sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the purposes and standards of this Zoning Ordinance, including, without limitation, See list of attachments on page 12 of this staff report graphic materials that illustrate the context of the project as well as information and data addressing the factors set forth within section 34-157 above. Page 2 of 12 SP19-00004 Kappa Kappa Gamma – 503 Rugby Road SUP Applicant’s Request Ms. Erin Hannegan of Mitchell/Matthews Architects on behalf of the Epsilon Sigma House Corporation of Kappa Kappa Gamma has submitted a Special Use Permit (SUP) application for a sorority at 503 Rugby Road. Pursuant to City Code Sec. 34-420, an SUP is being requested for a sorority house with up to 37 residents. The property is further identified on City Real Property Tax Map 5 Parcel 52. The site is zoned R-3H and is approximately 0.3440 acres. The General Land Use Plan calls for High Density Residential development. A preliminary site plan for the Subject Property was submitted to the City on July 16, 2019 and is included with this staff report (see Attachment 2, pages 54-70). This site plan is currently under review by city staff. Vicinity Map Page 3 of 12 SP19-00004 Kappa Kappa Gamma – 503 Rugby Road SUP Zoning Map Background A Special Use Permit is being requested for a sorority house with up to 37 residents, one resident more than the previously approved quantity of 36 residents allowed by a Special Use Permit for the Subject Property granted by City Council on February 21, 1978. In addition, modifications to front and side yard regulations are being requested to (1) permit ornamental features, roof overhangs, and covered porches; AND (2) permit the front wall and north side wall of the building to remain in their current locations. Increased Density Pursuant to City Code Sec. 34-420, a sorority house with up to 37 residents is being requested. A Special Use Permit for a sorority house with as many as 36 residents for the Subject Property was granted by City Council on February 21, 1978 (see attachments 3 and 4). The addition of one resident above the previously approved quantity of 36 residents will not have a detrimental impact on the neighborhood. Page 4 of 12 SP19-00004 Kappa Kappa Gamma – 503 Rugby Road SUP Modification of Yard Regulations Pursuant to City Code Sec. 34-162(a), in reviewing an application for a special use permit, the city council may modify yard regulations provided: 1. Such modification will be in harmony with the purposes and intent of [the special use permits] division, the zoning district regulations under which such special use permit is being sought; and 2. Such modification is necessary or desirable in view of the particular nature, circumstances, location or situation of the proposed use; and 3. No such modification shall be authorized to allow a use that is not otherwise allowed by this chapter within the zoning district in which the subject property is situated. Modifications to front and side yard regulations are being requested to (1) permit ornamental features, roof overhangs, and covered porches; AND (2) permit the front wall and north side wall of the building to remain in their current locations. Diagram of requested yard modifications. - SOURCE: Applicant (via email - 08/21/2019) Page 5 of 12 SP19-00004 Kappa Kappa Gamma – 503 Rugby Road SUP REQUESTED NORTH SIDE YARD MODIFICATION ABUTTING TMP 5-53: A side yard of five (5) feet, minimum will be required instead of one (1) foot of side yard per every two (2) feet of building height with a minimum of ten (10) feet. STAFF ANALYSIS: This modification to side yard regulations is being requested to allow ornamental features and roof overhangs on the north side of the renovated sorority house. The existing sorority house already encroaches into the required north side yard due to changes in the zoning ordinance since construction. REQUESTED CORNER SIDE YARD MODIFICATION ABUTTING LAMBETH LANE: A side yard of fifteen (15) feet, minimum will be required instead of twenty (20) feet, minimum. STAFF ANALYSIS: This modification to side yard regulations is being requested to allow ornamental features and roof overhangs on the south side of the renovated sorority house. REQUESTED FRONT YARD MODIFICATION ABUTTING RUGBY ROAD: A front yard of twenty-five (25) feet, minimum will be required instead of the average depth of the existing front yards within five hundred (500) feet. STAFF ANALYSIS: This modification to front yard regulations is being requested to allow the front of the building along Rugby Road to remain in its current location and the addition of a front porch. The existing building already encroaches significantly into the required front yard due to changes in the zoning ordinance made after its construction. Standard of Review City Council may grant an applicant a special permit or special use permit, giving consideration to a number of factors set forth within Zoning Ordinance Sec. 34-157. If Council finds that a proposed use or development will have potentially adverse impacts, and if Council identifies development conditions that could satisfactorily mitigate such impacts, then Council may set forth reasonable conditions within its SUP approval. The role of the Planning Commission is to make an advisory recommendation to the City Council, as to (i) whether or not Council should approve a proposed SUP and if so, (ii) whether there are any reasonable development conditions that could mitigate potentially adverse impacts of the propose use or development. Section 34-157 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance lists a number of factors that Council will consider in making a decision on a proposed SUP. Staff’s analysis of those factors, based on the information provided by the applicant is as follows: Page 6 of 12 SP19-00004 Kappa Kappa Gamma – 503 Rugby Road SUP Sec. 34-157. - General standards for issuance. (a) In considering an application for a special use permit, the city council shall consider the following factors: 1. Whether the proposed use or development will be harmonious with existing patterns of use and development within the neighborhood; Staff Analysis: The proposed use of the Subject Property (sorority house) is harmonious with existing patterns of use and development within the neighborhood. The Subject Property is located on the corner of Rugby Road and Lambeth Lane and directly abuts the University of Virginia campus. There are at least 15 fraternity/sorority houses within 1000 feet of the Subject Property. The properties immediately surrounding the subject property are described as follows: Direction TMP Use Zoning North 5-53 Fraternity R-3H West 5-51 Apartment Building R-3H South n/a (UVA Campus) Academic Offices (O’Neil Hall) n/a (UVA Campus) East 9-3 Church R-3H 2. Whether the proposed use or development and associated public facilities will substantially conform to the city's comprehensive plan; Staff Analysis: The Subject Property is designated High Density Residential on the City’s General Land Use Plan and lies in the R-3 ("multifamily") Residential District. Per City Code Sec. 34-350(c), the purpose of the multifamily residential zoning district is to provide areas for medium- to high-density residential development. The proposed use of the Subject Property – a sorority house with up to 37 residents – is appropriate for the neighborhood and will substantially conform to the city's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. 3. Whether proposed use or development of any buildings or structures will comply with all applicable building code regulations; Staff Analysis: Renovation and expansion of the existing structure cannot proceed without approval by the City’s Building Code Official. Any buildings or structures on this site will be required to comply with all applicable building code regulations per City Code Chapter 5. 4. Whether the proposed use or development will have any potentially adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, or the community in general; and if so, whether there are any reasonable conditions of approval that would satisfactorily mitigate such impacts. Potential adverse impacts to be considered include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: a. Traffic or parking congestion; Staff Analysis: The proposed development will be required to comply with current off-street parking and bicycle storage facility requirements for sororities found in City Code Sections 34- 984 and 34-881(2) respectively. Due to increased off-street parking requirements and limited Page 7 of 12 SP19-00004 Kappa Kappa Gamma – 503 Rugby Road SUP physical space available for on-site parking, additional signing and pavement markings may be necessary to designate the travel ways and specify the direction of traffic in parking area(s). Proposed staff condition 4 on pages 10-11 of this report is included to address this concern. b. Noise, lights, dust, odor, fumes, vibration, and other factors which adversely affect the natural environment; Staff Analysis: The proposed use (sorority house) is identical to the use of the Subject Property for the past 35+ years. Changes in yard regulations will not adversely affect the natural environment. c. Displacement of existing residents or businesses; Staff Analysis: The proposed development will not lead to displacement of existing residents or businesses. d. Discouragement of economic development activities that may provide desirable employment or enlarge the tax base; Staff Analysis: The proposed development will not lead to discouragement of economic development activities that may provide desirable employment or enlarge the tax base. e. Undue density of population or intensity of use in relation to the community facilities existing or available; Staff Analysis: Proposed staff conditions 5 and 6 on pages 10-11 of this report include measures to mitigate any adverse impact on the neighborhood in relation to undue density of population or intensity of use in relation to the community facilities existing or available. f. Reduction in the availability of affordable housing in the neighborhood; Staff Analysis: The proposed development will not lead to a reduction in the availability of affordable housing in the neighborhood. Increasing the number of residents at the Subject Property may increase the number of available housing units in the neighborhood. g. Impact on school population and facilities; Staff Analysis: The proposed development will not have an impact on school population and facilities. No school aged children will reside in the Subject Property. h. Destruction of or encroachment upon conservation or historic districts; Staff Analysis: The Subject Property lies in the Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District. The existing building at 503 Rugby Road is designated as a non- contributing structure and was constructed in the late 1970s. The Board of Architectural Review recommends that, based on the general design and building footprint as submitted, the granting of this Special Use Permit will not have an adverse impact on the Rugby Road- University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District. i. Conformity with federal, state and local laws, as demonstrated and certified by the applicant; Staff Analysis: The applicant has certified that the proposed development will conform to federal, state and local laws. Page 8 of 12 SP19-00004 Kappa Kappa Gamma – 503 Rugby Road SUP j. Massing and scale of project. Staff Analysis: The Board of Architectural Review has recommended that the massing and scale of this project is appropriate for the neighborhood. 5. Whether the proposed use or development will be in harmony with the purposes of the specific zoning district in which it will be placed; Staff Analysis: - R-3 DISTRICT: Per City Code Sec. 34-350(c), the purpose of the multifamily residential zoning district is to provide areas for medium- to high-density residential development. The proposed use of the Subject Property – a sorority house with up to 37 residents – will be in harmony with the purposes of the R-3 zoning district in which it will be placed. - RUGBY ROAD—UNIVERSITY CIRCLE—VENABLE NEIGHBORHOOD ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN CONTROL DISTRICT: Per City Code Sec. 34-274(8), City council has designated only certain buildings within this overlay district as contributing structures; and the existing building has NOT been designated as a contributing structure. The renovated and expanded building has been designed to be in harmony with the architecture of the existing neighborhood. 6. Whether the proposed use or development will meet applicable general and specific standards set forth within the zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, or other city ordinances or regulations; Staff Analysis: The proposed building on the Subject Property will not conform to specific yard regulations for the R-3 district and is requesting modifications to yard requirements. See pages 4-5 for staff analysis. Proposed staff conditions 2 and 3 on pages 10-11 of this report are included if the Planning Commission wishes to modify yard regulations for the Subject Property. 7. When the property that is the subject of the application for a special use permit is within a design control district, city council shall refer the application to the BAR or ERB, as may be applicable, for recommendations as to whether the proposed use will have an adverse impact on the district, and for recommendations as to reasonable conditions which, if imposed, that would mitigate any such impacts. The BAR or ERB, as applicable, shall return a written report of its recommendations to the city council. Staff Analysis: This application was discussed before a meeting of the City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review (BAR) on August 20, 2019. The following action was taken: Motion - Sarafin moved to recommend that based on the general design and building footprint as submitted the proposed Special Use Permit for 503 Rugby Road will not have an adverse impact on the Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District, with the understanding that the final design and details will require BAR review and approval, and with the condition that the recommendation is based on the general design and building footprint as submitted. Balut seconded. Approved (9‐0). (b) Any resolution adopted by city council to grant a special use permit shall set forth any reasonable conditions which apply to the approval. Staff Analysis: Conditions recommended by staff are found on pages 10-11 of this report. Page 9 of 12 SP19-00004 Kappa Kappa Gamma – 503 Rugby Road SUP Public Comments Received COMMUNITY MEETING: As required by Sec. 34-41(c)(2), the applicant held a community meeting for this SUP application on August 6, 2019, at the Subject Property (503 Rugby Road, Charlottesville, VA 22903). A City Planner attended this meeting as a representative of NDS. The two neighborhood residents in attendance indicated they were in favor of this SUP request. BAR HEARING: At the BAR hearing for this SUP on August 20, 2019, several Kappa Kappa Gamma alumni spoke in favor of this SUP request. A representative of the developer building the apartment building at 513 Rugby Road spoke in favor of this SUP request. WRITTEN COMMENT: Staff received one email from a nearby property owner in favor of this SUP request. No public comment in opposition to this SUP request has been received by staff. Staff’s Recommendations Staff recommends Planning Commission focus on the following questions during review: • What is the impact of allowing (1) additional resident over the previously approved quantity of 36 residents allowed by the existing Special Use Permit? • What is the impact of granting modifications to front and side yard setbacks? • Are there measures the applicant can take to mitigate any adverse impact on the neighborhood? Proposed Staff Conditions If the Planning Commission recommends approval, staff recommends the following conditions be placed on this Special Use Permit: 1. The sorority house shall have a maximum of thirty-seven (37) residents. Any expansion of the sorority house beyond thirty-seven (37) residents will require an amendment to this Special Use Permit. 2. For the building and use described above, modifications of generally-applicable yard regulations (City Code 34-353) are approved, as follows: (a) The following side yards shall be required: i. North Side Yard abutting TMP 5-53: A side yard of five (5) feet, minimum will be required instead of one (1) foot of side yard per every two (2) feet of building height with a minimum of ten (10) feet. ii. South Side Yard Corner, street side abutting Lambeth Lane: A side yard of fifteen (15) feet, minimum will be required instead of twenty (20) feet, minimum. (b) The following front yard shall be required: Page 10 of 12 SP19-00004 Kappa Kappa Gamma – 503 Rugby Road SUP i. East Front Yard abutting Rugby Road: A front yard of twenty-five (25) feet, minimum will be required instead of the average depth of the existing front yards within five hundred (500) feet. 3. Except as specifically modified within condition (2), buildings and structures, and the uses thereof, located on the Subject Property shall be in accordance with the provisions of City Code Sec. 34-353 and any other applicable provision of Chapter 34 (Zoning) of the Code of the City of Charlottesville. 4. On-site parking will be provided in the general location and configuration shown within the preliminary site plan dated 07/16/2019. The final site plan shall demonstrate compliance with all of the following: (a) All on-site parking shall be used exclusively by residents of the sorority house and their guests. No selling or leasing of on-site parking for off-site functions is permitted. (b) Additional signing and pavement markings, including both lane lines and text, may be required by the City’s Traffic Engineer to designate the travel ways and specify the direction of traffic in parking area(s). 5. All outdoor lighting and light fixtures shall be full cut-off luminaires and equipped with devices for redirecting light (such as shields, visors, or hoods) to eliminate the luminaire glare and block direct light from on-site fixtures from spilling over onto neighboring properties. Fixtures shall be recessed and shall completely conceal the light source from all viewing positions other than those on-site positions intended to receive illumination from the fixture. 6. All trash receptacles must be hidden from view when not set out for curbside pickup. Possible Motion(s) 1. On the basis that the proposal would service public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice, I move to recommend approval of this application for a Special Use Permit to authorize a boarding (fraternity or sorority) house use with up to 37 residents at 503 Rugby Road, within a building of the size and location depicted within the proposed Preliminary Site Plan, subject to the following conditions: • The six (6) conditions presented in the staff report • [alternative conditions, or additional condition(s)….list here] OR, 2. On the basis that the proposal would NOT service public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice, I move to recommend denial of this application for a Special Use Permit to authorize a boarding (fraternity or sorority) house use with up to 37 residents at 503 Rugby Road. Page 11 of 12 SP19-00004 Kappa Kappa Gamma – 503 Rugby Road SUP Attachments 1. Special Use Permit Application SP19-00004 2. Link To Supporting Documentation From Applicant: https://mitchellmatthewsarchitects.sharefile.com/d-s7ea4b854c3b4fcab 3. Resolution Granting A Special Use Permit For Increased Density Development Of Property Located At 503 Rugby Road – Adopted By The Charlottesville City Council On February 21, 1978 4. Charlottesville City Council Minutes From February 21, 1978 – Includes List Of Conditions For 1978 SUP (see pages 5-6) 5. General Standards For Issuance Of A Special Use Permit - City Code Section 34-157 6. Exceptions And Modifications As Conditions Of Permit Special Use Permit - City Code Section 34-162 Page 12 of 12 ATTACHMENT 1 - Page 1 of 12 ATTACHMENT 1 - Page 2 of 12 ATTACHMENT 1 - Page 3 of 12 ATTACHMENT 1 - Page 4 of 12 ATTACHMENT 1 - Page 5 of 12 M I T C H E L L M A T T H E W S A R C H I T E C T S P L A N N E R S 15 July 2019 Re: Kappa Kappa Gamma Sorority at 503 Rugby Rd – Neighborhood meeting invitation Dear Venable/University Circle neighbors, Mitchell / Matthews Architects is representing the owner, Epsilon Sigma House Corporation of Kappa Kappa Gamma Sorority, for the application of a special use permit in the renovation & addition of 503 Rugby Rd, the Chapter House on the corner of Rugby Rd and Lambeth Ln. See reverse side for a map and photograph of current conditions. We invite you to attend a meeting Tuesday, August 6th at 7:00pm at KKG located at 503 Rugby Rd, to discuss the proposed plans for the building. The proposed project is a continuation of the existing use as a sorority house. This special use permit specifically seeks to add one bedroom above the currently approved quantity. In addition, the project requests relief to the setbacks in order to accommodate a small front porch and the proposed architecture detailing, including pilasters and roof overhangs. Through thoughtful design, we hope to traditionalize the modern style currently applied to the existing house on this property, which will help contribute to a more consistent character along Rugby Road and throughout the Venable and University Circle neighborhoods. We look forward to explaining more about the project at the neighborhood meeting. The City Planner, Joseph Winter, has also been invited. We would like to ask for your support of this project, so that the process with the City can be expedited. We hope you can join us on the 6th. In the meantime, feel free to contact me at 979-7550 or eh@mitchellmatthews.com or the City Planner, Joseph Winter, at 970-3991 or winterj@charlottesville.org if you have any questions about this project or the proposed special use permit requests. Sincerely, Erin Hannegan, Project Manager, Mitchell / Matthews Architects Cc: Epsilon Sigma House Corporation of Kappa Kappa Gamma, Owner Mr. Joseph Winter, Planner for the City of Charlottesville P. O. BOX 5603 • CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22905 • (434) 979 7550 • FAX (434) 979 5220 ATTACHMENT 1 - Page 6 of 12 KAPPA KAPPA GAMMA SORORITY COMMUNITY MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 6TH, 2019 7PM AT 503 RUGBY RD. MITCHELL / MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS P. O. BOX 5603 • CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22905 • (434) 979 7550 • FAX (434) 979 5220 ATTACHMENT 1 - Page 7 of 12 ATTACHMENT 1 - Page 8 of 12 ATTACHMENT 1 - Page 9 of 12 ATTACHMENT 1 - Page 10 of 12 ATTACHMENT 1 - Page 11 of 12 ATTACHMENT 1 - Page 12 of 12 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR INCREASED DENSITY DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 503 RUGBY ROAD BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville that there is hereby granted pursuant to §31-33 of the Code of the City of Charlottesville a special permit for the use of the property located at 503 Rugby Road for construction of a sorority house having sleeping and living accommodations for thirty-six residents on such property. Such permit shall be subject to the conditions and regulations set forth in the aforesaid §31-33 for· such higher density development as well as to all general conditions and regulations imposed upon special permits by Chapter 31 of such City Code, including the obtaining by the developers of an approved site plan prior to initiating use of the property for such purposes. Adopted by the Council February 21, 1978 Copy Teste: _-< Clerk Sec. 34-157. - General standards for issuance. (a) In considering an application for a special use permit, the city council shall consider the following factors: (1) Whether the proposed use or development will be harmonious with existing patterns of use and development within the neighborhood; (2) Whether the proposed use or development and associated public facilities will substantially conform to the city's comprehensive plan; (3) Whether proposed use or development of any buildings or structures will comply with all applicable building code regulations; (4) Whether the proposed use or development will have any potentially adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, or the community in general; and if so, whether there are any reasonable conditions of approval that would satisfactorily mitigate such impacts. Potential adverse impacts to be considered include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: a. Traffic or parking congestion; b. Noise, lights, dust, odor, fumes, vibration, and other factors which adversely affect the natural environment; c. Displacement of existing residents or businesses; d. Discouragement of economic development activities that may provide desirable employment or enlarge the tax base; e. Undue density of population or intensity of use in relation to the community facilities existing or available; f. Reduction in the availability of affordable housing in the neighborhood; g. Impact on school population and facilities; h. Destruction of or encroachment upon conservation or historic districts; i. Conformity with federal, state and local laws, as demonstrated and certified by the applicant; and, j. Massing and scale of project. (5) Whether the proposed use or development will be in harmony with the purposes of the specific zoning district in which it will be placed; (6) Whether the proposed use or development will meet applicable general and specific standards set forth within the zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, or other city ordinances or regulations; and (7) When the property that is the subject of the application for a special use permit is within a design control district, city council shall refer the application to the BAR or ERB, as may be applicable, for recommendations as to whether the proposed use will have an adverse impact on the district, and for recommendations as to reasonable conditions which, if imposed, that would mitigate any such impacts. The BAR or ERB, as applicable, shall return a written report of its recommendations to the city council. (b) Any resolution adopted by city council to grant a special use permit shall set forth any reasonable conditions which apply to the approval. (9-15-03(3); 11-21-05; 2-21-06) Sec. 34-162. - Exceptions and modi cations as conditions of permit. (a) In reviewing an application for a special use permit, the city council may expand, modify, reduce or otherwise grant exceptions to yard regulations, standards for higher density, parking standards, and time limitations, provided: (1) Such modification or exception will be in harmony with the purposes and intent of this division, the zoning district regulations under which such special use permit is being sought; and (2) Such modification or exception is necessary or desirable in view of the particular nature, circumstances, location or situation of the proposed use; and (3) No such modification or exception shall be authorized to allow a use that is not otherwise allowed by this chapter within the zoning district in which the subject property is situated. (b) The planning commission, in making its recommendations to city council concerning any special use permit application, may include comments or recommendations regarding the advisability or effect of any modifications or exceptions. (c) The resolution adopted by city council to grant any special use permit shall set forth any such modifications or exceptions which have been approved. (9-15-03(3)) CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DATE OF HEARING: September 10, 2019 APPLICATION NUMBER: SP19-00003 Project Planner: Brian Haluska, AICP Date of Staff Report: July 29, 2019, Revised August 30, 2019 Applicant: Heirloom West Main Street Second Phase, LLC Applicants Representative: L.J. Lopez, Milestone Partners Current Property Owner: Heirloom West Main Street Second Phase, LLC Application Information Property Street Address: 602-616 West Main Street (“Subject Property”) Tax Map/Parcel #: Tax Map 29, Parcel 3 Total Square Footage/ Acreage Site: 0.455 acres or 19,819 square feet Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Plan): Mixed Use Current Zoning Classification: West Main East Corridor with Architectural Design Control and Parking Modified Overlays Tax Status: Parcel is up to date on taxes paid. Completeness: The application contains all of the information required by Zoning Ordinance Secs. 34-41(d), and 34-158(a) and (b). There are no existing dwelling units on the site, and there are fifty-five (55) residential units in a mixed-use building proposed by this development. Graphic materials illustrating the context of the project are attached to this staff report (Attachment 1 and 4). The pre-application meeting required by Sec. 34-41(b)(1) was held on April 9, 2019. The community meeting required by Sec. 34-41(c)(2) was conducted on June 20, 2019, at the following location: Carver Recreation Center. Background The applicant previously put forward a special use permit request (SP16-00003) for the adjacent property (600 West Main Street), which City Council approved on June 16, 2016. Applicant’s Request L.J. Lopez of Milestone Partners, acting as agent for Heirloom West Main Street Second Phase, LLC (owner) has submitted an application seeking approval of a Special Use Permit (SUP) for the property located at 602-612 West Main Street with approximately 163 feet of road frontage on West Main Street. The proposal requests additional residential density up to 120 dwelling units per acre (DUA), pursuant to City Code Section 34-641. The applicant’s proposal shows a new mixed-use building on the entire development site (0.455 acres). The property is further identified on City Real Property Tax Map 29 Parcel 3 (“Subject Property”). The Subject Property is zoned West Main East Mixed-Use Corridor with West Main Street Architectural Design Control District Overlay and Parking Modified Zone Overlay. The site is approximately 0.455 acres or 19,819 square feet. The proposed site plan, dated May 13, 2019 (Attachment 1) proposes the construction of a single 4-story mixed-use building with retail space on the ground floor facing West Main Street, and up to 55 residential units. The plan also shows underground parking beneath the building that would accommodate 53 parking spaces. The Comprehensive Plan designates the land use of the Subject Property as Mixed Use. 2 Vicinity Map Context Map 1 Train Station Parking Lot 3 Context Map 2 – Zoning Classifications KEY – Magenta (WME): West Main Street East; Magenta (CH): Cherry Avenue Corridor; Yellow: R-1S – Single-Family, Low-Density Residential; Light Orange: R-2 – Two-Family, Low-Density Residential; Deep Orange: R-3 – Multi-Family, High-Density Residential; Aqua Blue: Planned Unit Development; Pink: B-1 – Commercial; Red: B-3 - Commercial 4 Context Map 3 - General Land Use Plan, 2013 Comprehensive Plan KEY – Purple: Mixed Use; Yellow: Low Density Residential; Orange: High Density Residential; Green: Park or Preserved Open Space; Blue: Public or Semi-Public Application Components: Application and LID Checklist – Attachment 1 Applicant’s Narrative – Attachment 2 Additional Illustrative Materials – Attachment 3 Approved Special Use Permit for 600 West Main – Attachment 4 5 Standard of Review City Council may grant an applicant a special use permit, giving consideration to a number of factors set forth within Zoning Ordinance Sec. 34-157. If Council finds that a proposed use or development will have potentially adverse impacts, and if Council identifies development conditions that could satisfactorily mitigate such impacts, then Council may set forth reasonable conditions within its SUP approval. The role of the Planning Commission is to make an advisory recommendation to the City Council, as to (i) whether or not Council should approve a proposed SUP and if so, (ii) whether there are any reasonable development conditions that could mitigate potentially adverse impacts of the propose use or development. Section 34-157 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance lists a number of factors that Council will consider in making a decision on a proposed SUP. Following below is staff’s analysis of those factors, based on the information provided by the Applicant. Sec. 34-157(a)(1) Whether the proposed use or development will be harmonious with existing patterns of use and development within the neighborhood. The properties immediately surrounding the subject property are described as: Direction Use Zoning North Retail/Office WME South CSX Railroad None East Mixed-Use WME West Commercial WME The subject property is in use as a service repair garage. The building on the property was built in 1958. The proposed new mixed-use building would be taller and occupy more of the site. Staff Analysis: The West Main Corridor was historically the location of the City’s automotive oriented uses. A number of buildings on the corridor were previously used for automobile repair, and several of them have been renovated to accommodate new uses that are in keeping with the City’s vision for the West Main Corridor without demolishing the building. The major concern with pursuing such a strategy with this property is its relationship to the street. The current building is set as far back as possible on the property, with the front and side yards used to park and maneuver vehicles. 6 The City’s vision for the West Main Corridor is an activity center in addition to its traditional role as a transportation link between the University of Virginia and downtown Charlottesville. The proposed project would better contribute to the corridor by adding residents to the corridor, and better defining the street edge along this block of the street. The proposal is also in keeping with previous developments both constructed and underway on West Main Street. Sec. 34-157(a)(2) Whether the proposed use or development and associated public facilities will substantially conform to the city's comprehensive plan. The applicant includes within the project proposal narrative (Attachment 1) a section regarding its consistency with the Comprehensive Plan on Page 1 of the document. Staff Analysis: The 2013 Comprehensive Plan’s General Land Use Plan specifies the Subject Property and its surrounding properties as Mixed Use. Mixed Use areas, according to the Comprehensive Plan, are “intended to be zones where the City encourages development of a moderate or high intensity, and where a large variety of uses will be permitted, including many commercial uses, residential uses, and some limited research and manufacturing where appropriate.” Staff believes the use conforms to the intent of the Mixed Use land use designation. Staff also recognizes the overall product of the proposal conforms to other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan listed below. Below are specific areas of the Comprehensive Plan for which the development is in compliance: a. Land Use Goal 3.2 – Public Space, “When considering changes to land use regulations, respect nearby residential uses.” Staff Analysis: The special use permit would increase the total number of allowable residential units within the by-right building volume permitted on the Subject Property. The proposal is in keeping with the vision of West Main as an active corridor, and the Subject Property is not adjacent to and low-density residential development. 7 b. Housing Goal 3.6 – Grow the City’s Housing Stock, “Promote housing options to accommodate both renters and owners at all price points, including workforce housing.” Staff Analysis: The proposed increase in the permitted maximum residential density on the Subject Property will give the applicant the option of providing a variety of unit types with the proposed building. c. Urban Design Goal 1.3 – Urban Design, “Facilitate development of nodes of density and vitality in the City’s Mixed Use Corridors, and encourage vitality, pedestrian movement, and visual interest throughout the City.” Staff Analysis: The West Main Street Corridor has had several large residential apartment complexes constructed in the past, as well as three hotel projects. The cumulative result of these projects is a larger population of residents – both permanent and temporary – on the West Main Street corridor. The proposed building would add to this population, which has resulted in an increase in activity along the corridor. Below are specific areas of the Comprehensive Plan for which the development may not be in compliance: a. Housing Goal 3.2 Incorporate affordable units throughout the City, recognizing that locating affordable units throughout the community benefits the whole City. Goal 3.3 Achieve a mixture of incomes and uses in as many areas of the City as possible. Goal 3.4 Encourage creation of new, on-site affordable housing as part of rezoning or residential special use permit applications. Goal 3.5 Consider the range of affordability proposed in rezoning and special use permit applications, with emphasis on provision of affordable housing for those with the greatest need. 8 Staff Analysis: The applicant has made no indication of how they intend to comply with the affordable housing zoning requirement in Section 34-12 of the City Code. This will be required prior to final site plan approval. The applicant previously committed to on-site affordable units in the adjacent building. Sec. 34-157(a)(3) Whether proposed use or development of any buildings or structures will comply with all applicable building code regulations. Staff Analysis: The proposed development will conform to all applicable building code regulations. Building plans are not yet available for review, but the construction of the proposed new structures cannot proceed without separate applications/review conducted by the City’s Building Code Official. Sec. 34-157(a)(4) Potential adverse impacts, including, but not necessarily limited to: a) Traffic or parking congestion Parking: The applicant shows off-street parking that complies with the minimum parking requirements for the proposed building. Staff Analysis: Staff confirms that the applicant’s concept plan shows the required off-street parking. The demolition of the existing building on the site will give the applicant the ability to provide all required parking on site. Traffic: The applicant includes a “potential adverse traffic impacts” section within their project proposal narrative (Attachment 2) and notes that the development would generate approximately 29 vehicle trips in a day. Staff Analysis: Staff has no concerns regarding the traffic impact of the proposed Special Use Permit. The automobile access to the building will be reviewed by the Traffic Engineer during the site plan review process. b) Noise, lights, dust, odor, fumes, vibration, and other factors which adversely affect the natural environment 9 Staff Analysis: Staff does not anticipate there will be significant noise generated from the proposed project beyond the level that can typically be anticipated in a mixed-use corridor such as West Main Street. c) Displacement of existing residents or businesses Staff Analysis: There are no existing residents or businesses on the Subject Property that would be displaced as a direct result of the Special Use Permit, as the redevelopment of the property is permitted as a matter of right. d) Discouragement of economic development activities that may provide desirable employment or enlarge the tax base Staff Analysis: The development would not discourage economic development activities. e) Undue density of population or intensity of use in relation to the community facilities existing or available Staff Analysis: The Subject Property is located in the vicinity of a number of community amenities that should serve the residents of the project. The West Main Corridor is a multi-modal corridor that supports several modes of transit. The Subject Property is within a short walking distance to the downtown business area. The Subject Property is also one block from Starr Hill Park, the Jefferson School African American Heritage Center and Carver Recreation Center. f) Reduction in the availability of affordable housing in the neighborhood Staff Analysis: The proposed development would not reduce the availability of affordable housing in the neighborhood. g) Impact on school population and facilities Staff Analysis: Staff from Charlottesville Schools has noted that they have observed increases in school enrollment when previous large multi-family buildings on West Main Street have opened. Staff speculates that the apartments on West Main Street attracted students from the University of Virginia that were previously renting houses in the low-density neighborhoods near the University. When those students 10 opted for the newly constructed rental units on West Main Street, families with school age children moved in the houses that the students vacated. The large scale apartment buildings that precipitated this increase in enrollment were all in the West Main West zoning district, and primarily feature unit configurations that are attractive to a student population. The applicant’s request would enable the applicant to construct more single and two-bedroom units within the building, units that tend to be less attractive to a student population. h) Destruction of or encroachment upon conservation or historic districts Staff Analysis: The Subject Property is in the West Main Street Architectural Design Control District. The Board of Architectural Review will review the proposed building for compliance with the design guidelines for the district. i) Conformity with federal, state and local laws, as demonstrated and certified by the applicant Staff Analysis: The proposed project will comply with federal, state and local laws. This is ensured through final site plan approval. j) Massing and scale of project The applicant’s application materials shows the massing and scale of the proposed building. Staff Analysis: The applicant is proposing to construct a building within the by-right dimensional limits. The Board of Architectural Review will review the proposed building for compliance with the West Main Street Architectural Design Control District guidelines. Sec. 34-157(a)(5) Whether the proposed use or development will be in harmony with the purposes of the specific zoning district in which it will be placed; Staff Analysis: Staff believes that a mixed-use building is appropriate within the West Main East zoning district. 11 Sec. 34-157(a)(6) Whether the proposed use or development will meet applicable general and specific standards set forth within the zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, or other city ordinances or regulations; and Staff Analysis: The proposed project must comply with standards set forth within the zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations and other applicable city ordinances/regulations prior to final site plan and building permit approvals. Sec. 34-157(a)(7) When the property that is the subject of the application for a special use permit is within a design control district, city council shall refer the application to the BAR or ERB, as may be applicable, for recommendations as to whether the proposed use will have an adverse impact on the district, and for recommendations as to reasonable conditions which, if imposed, that would mitigate any such impacts. The BAR or ERB, as applicable, shall return a written report of its recommendations to the city council. Staff Analysis: The Subject Property is located in a design control district. The Board of Architectural Review considered the Special Use Permit request at their June 18, 2019 meeting, and took the following action: Motion: Schwarz moved that the proposed special use permit for additional residential density for the redevelopment at 612 West Main Street will not have an adverse impact on the West Main Street ADC District, with the understanding that the massing is not final, and must be further discussed, and [will require] a complete full design review at future BAR meeting(s) and propose the following conditions [for the SUP]: • Garage entry shall not be accessed directly from the building’s street wall along West Main Street; • That the building’s mass shall be broken down to reflect the multi-parcel massing historically on the site, as well as the West Main Street context, using building modulation; • That the Holsinger Building be seismically monitored during construction; • That there shall be pedestrian engagement with the street with an active, transparent, and permeable façade at street level; • And that the building and massing refer to the historic buildings on either side. Mohr seconded. Approved (7-0-2 with Earnst and Ball recused). 12 PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED Per Sec. 34-41(c)(2), the applicant held a community meeting on June 20, 2019 (a City Planner attended as a NDS representative). Neighborhood concerns gathered from the community meeting are listed below. • Parking impact in the surrounding neighborhood. Several residents noted that when parking demand exceeds supply on West Main Street, the on-street parking spaces on residential streets around West Main are frequently filled to capacity, which can create difficulties navigating those streets. • Residents asked about the rental rates of the proposed units. • Several residents asked about the potential tenants in the commercial space. The Planning Commission held a joint public hearing with City Council on this matter on August 13, 2019. Three members of the public spoke on the matter, and raised concerns regarding: • The demand on on-street parking spaces within the surrounding neighborhood that has been increasing with increased activity along West Main Street, especially during construction projects. • The safeguarding of the adjacent historic building at 620 West Main Street during construction. • The maintenance of access to the alley between the Subject Property and 620 West Main Street. • The impact of construction noise on the surrounding properties. The Planning Commission’s discussion of the application centered on the protection of the adjacent building at 620 West Main. The Commission voted to table the matter to give staff some additional time to draft a more extensive condition protecting the adjacent building. Staff’s recommended condition is included in the recommendation below. STAFF’S RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends the application be approved with the following conditions: 1. The specific development being approved by this special use permit (“Project”), as described within the site plan exhibit required by City Code §34-158(a)(1), shall have the following minimum attributes/ characteristics: a. Not more than one building shall be constructed on the Subject Property (the “Building”). The Building shall be a Mixed Use Building. 13 b. The Building shall not exceed a height of four (4) stories. c. The Building shall contain no more than 55 dwelling units. d. The Building shall contain space to be occupied and used for retail uses, which shall be located on the ground floor of the Building facing West Main Street. The square footage of this retail space shall be at least the minimum required by the City’s zoning ordinance. e. Underground parking shall be provided within a parking garage structure constructed underneath the Building, which shall provide at least 53 parking spaces serving the use and occupancy of the Building. No direct access shall be provided into the underground parking from the Building’s street wall along West Main Street. 2. The mass of the Building shall be broken down to reflect the multi-parcel massing historically on the site, as well as the West Main Street context, using building modulation. The Building and massing refer to the historic buildings on either side. 3. There shall be pedestrian engagement with the street with an active, transparent, and permeable façade at street level. 4. The Landowner (including, without limitation, any person who is an agent, assignee, transferee or successor in interest to the Landowner) shall prepare a Protective Plan for the Rufus Holsinger Building located on property adjacent to the Subject Property at 620-624 West Main Street (“Holsinger Building” or “Adjacent Property”). The Protective Plan shall provide for baseline documentation, ongoing monitoring, and specific safeguards to prevent damage to the Holsinger Building, and the Landowner shall implement the Protective Plan during all excavation, demolition and construction activities within the Subject Property (“Development Site”). At minimum, the Protective Plan shall include the following: a. Baseline Survey—Landowner shall document the existing condition of the Holsinger Building (“Baseline Survey”). The Baseline Survey shall take the form of written descriptions, and visual documentation which may include color photographs and video recordings. The Baseline Survey shall document the existing conditions observable on the interior and exterior of the Holsinger 14 Building, with close-up images of cracks, staining, indications of existing settlement, and other fragile conditions that are observable. The Landowner shall engage an independent third party structural engineering firm (one who has not participated in the design of the Landowner’s Project or preparation of demolition or construction plans for the Landowner, and who has expertise in the impact of seismic activity on historic structures) and shall bear the cost of the Baseline Survey and preparation of a written report thereof. The Landowner and the Owner of the Holsinger Building (“Adjacent Landowner”) may both have representatives present during the process of surveying and documenting the existing conditions. A copy of a completed written Baseline Survey Report shall be provided to the Adjacent Landowner, and the Adjacent Landowner shall be given fourteen (14) days to review the Baseline Survey Report and return any comments to the Landowner. b. Protective Plan--The Landowner shall engage the engineer who performed the Baseline Survey to prepare a Protective Plan to be followed by all persons performing work within the Development Site, that may include seismic monitoring or other specific monitoring measures of the Adjacent Property if recommended by the engineer preparing the Protective Plan. A copy of the Protective Plan shall be provided to the Adjacent Landowner. The Adjacent Landowner shall be given fourteen (14) days to review the Report and return any comments to the Landowner. c. Advance notice of commencement of activity--The Adjacent Landowner shall be given 14 days’ advance written notice of commencement of demolition at the Development Site, and of commencement of construction at the Development Site. This notice shall include the name, mobile phone number, and email address of the construction supervisor(s) who will be present on the Development Site and who may be contacted by the Adjacent Landowner regarding impacts of demolition or construction on the Adjacent Property. The Landowner shall also offer the Adjacent Landowner an opportunity to have meetings: (i) prior to commencement of demolition at the Development Site, and (ii) at least fourteen (14) days prior to commencement of construction at the Development Site, on days/ times reasonably agreed to by both parties. During any such preconstruction meeting, the Adjacent Landowner will be provided information as to the nature and duration of the demolition or construction 15 activity and the Landowner will review the Protective Plan as it will apply to the activities to be commenced. d. Permits--No demolition or building permit, and no land disturbing permit, shall be approved or issued to the Landowner, until the Landowner provides to the department of neighborhood development services: (i) copies of the Baseline Survey Report and Protective Plan, and NDS verifies that these documents satisfy the requirements of these SUP Conditions, (ii) documentation that the Baseline Survey Report and Protective Plan were given to the Adjacent Landowner in accordance with these SUP Conditions. POSSIBLE MOTION(S) 1. I move to recommend approval of a special use permit allowing the specific development proposed within the application materials for SP19-00003 subject to the following reasonable conditions and safeguards: • The conditions presented in the staff report • [alternative conditions, or additional condition(s)….list here] OR, 2. I move to recommend denial of the special use permit requested by SP19-00003. ATTACHMENTS 1) Special Use Permit Application received May 14, 2019 2) Special Use Permit Project Proposal Narrative received May 14, 2019 Includes Project narrative, Conceptual Plan, Building Elevations, Landscape Plan 3) Special Use Permit Resolution for 600 West Main Street, approved by City Council on June 20, 2016 16 City of Charlottesville Application for Special Use Permit Address of Property: too-z... - ~ \ t, W l"-14 1'4 __-_?>________________ Tax Map and Parcel Number(s}: _ _7$=\ Current Zoning District Classification: W,.._,e .... Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: ~\~ED U$£ Is this an amendment to an existing SUP? ....to If "yes", provide the SUP#:_ _ __ _ _ __ Applicant: Address: He1te..lb0!=1 WEST ttAlH ~ C/o H1Y;t!n:1=4E. pAet'9Mtt@S · Phone: ~3" 2'4~ · SSf303 Email: • 300 LL. opei. S~'C f?*"~ LU!- (M-Wt-\S 2.woSt· .._.E, ~·~1~,v.\ ~Z ce._ "'"'\lL&.StbME. P'tl!t"M~. c:!.a j Cff c!. UiNl!M & • Cbt-1 --- ......~ Applicant's Role In the Development (check one): Owner's Agent Designer Contract Purchaser ("4W~ .S,~' owner of Record: ~&·~~ we- ~·""' m-@eeT' ~ ~ AA ?"-'~ W-) Address: l 3S CoWM8U5 Ave. •zat 409, t--4EN 'je2lt-J "'4¥ IOOZS Phone: q13 • Co\'2.• C>~ Email: j~~e LillY•E.._.S.~ Reason for Special Use Permit: D Additional height: feet IX I Additional residential density: units, or 1'2.0 units per acre D Authorize specific land use (identify)_ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ D Other purpose(s) (specify City Code section):_ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ ~·· ""w""' ~w-o P' ~ 6P UC. 7~'::::11"""---------Print Je~ ~~,fUsc»Jl""Date _ _ __ Applicant's (Circle One): LLC Member(i.Lc ManageflCorporate Officer (specify) _ _ _ _ __ Other (specify): - - - - - - - ­ (2) Signature._ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ Prlnt _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ Date _ _ _ __ Owner's (Circle One): LLC Member LLC Manager Corporate Officer (specify)-- - - - - - ­ Other (specify):_ _ _ _ _ _ __ 1 City of Charlottesville Pre-Application Meeting Verification Project Name: 612 West Main Street Pre-Application Meeting Date: _04_1_09_12_0_1_9_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Applicant's Representative: Craig Kotarski I Jeff Dreyfus --------------'------------~ Planner: Brian Haluska Other City Officials in Attendance: The following items will be required supplemental information for this application and must be submitted with the completed application package: 1. Preliminary Elevations Planner Signature: ~£~ 2 City of Charlottesville Application Checklist I certify that the following documentation is ATTACHED to this application: lXI 34-lSB(a)(l): a site plan (ref. City Code 34-802{generally); 34-1083(communications facilities) ~ 34-158(a)(3): Low-impact development (LID) methods worksheet (required for developments that include non-residential uses, and developments proposing 3 or more SFDs or TFDs) IXI 34-158(a)(4): a building massing diagram, and building elevations (required for applications proposing alteration of a building height or footprint, or construction of any new building(s)) IX'I 34-lSB(a)(S) and 34-12: affordable housing data. (i) how many (if any) existing dwelling units on the property are an "affordable dwelling unit" by the city's definitions? (ii) Will existing affordable units, or equivalent affordable units, remain following the development? (iii) What is the GFA of the project? GFA of residential uses? GFA of non-residential uses? ~ 34-157(a)(l) Graphic materials that illustrate the context of the project, and a narrative statement as to compatibility with existing patterns of use and development lRJ 34-157(a)(2) Narrative statement: applicant's analysis of conformity with the Comprehensive Plan IX] 34-157(a)(3) Narrative statement: compliance with applicable USBC provisions fg] 34-157(a)(4) Narrative statement identifying and discussing any potential adverse impacts, as well as any measures included within the development plan, to mitigate those impacts D 34-158(a)(6): other pertinent information (narrative, illustrativeJ etc.) IX'I All items noted on the Pre-Application Meeting Verification. . "~MS ~'-''C P-""~ u.a. Applicant~e«o""'"' ?""'•t. ~ u..c. Signatu~ Print Je~ U:.\l\E:.'-' Date -----­ By Its; Pfu.S&Qe.~ (For entities, specify: Officer, Member, Manager, Trustee, etc.) 3 City of Charlottesville Community Meeting Project Name: _ .... lm ........ ;4..._0.. ................. ____e.__v....1!._L.J:J~Pi--'-1..-1:.--...~ R._s::_o ............- - ­ Section 34-41(c)(2) of the Code of the City of Charlottesville (adopted October 19, 2015) requires appli­ cants seeking rezonings and special use permits to hold a community meeting. The purpose of a communi­ ty meeting is to provide citizens an opportunity to receive information about a proposed development, about applicable zoning procedures, about applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan, and to give citizens an opportunity to ask questions. No application for a rezoning shall be placed on any agenda for a public hearing, until the required community meeting has been held and the director of neighborhood development services determines that the application Is ready for final review through the formal public hearing process. By signing this document, the applicant acknowledges that it is responsible for the following, in connection to the community meeting required for this project: 1. Following consultation with the city, the applicant will establish a date, time and location for the community meeting. The applicant is responsible for reserving the location, and for all related costs. 2. The applicant will mail, by U.S. mail, first-cl(Jss, postage pre-paid, a notice of the community meeting to a list of addresses provided by the City. The notice will be mailed at least 14 calendar days prior to the date of the community meeting. The applicant is responsible for the cost of the mailing. At least 7 calendar days prior to the meeting, the applicant will provide the city with an affidavit confirming that the mailing was timely completed. 3. The applicant will attend the community meeting and present the details of the proposed application. Ifthe applicant is a business or other legal entity (as opposed to an Individual) then the meeting shall be attended by a corporate officer, an LLC member or manager, or another individual who can speak for the entity that is the applicant. Additionally, the meeting shall be attended by any design professional or consultant who has prepared plans or drawings submitted with the application. The applicant shall be prepared to explain all of the details of the proposed development, and to answer questions from citizens. 4. Depending on the nature and complexity of the application, the City may designate a planner to attend the community meeting. Regardless of whether a planner attends, the City will provide the applicant with guidelines, procedures, materials and recommended topics for the applicant's use in conducting the community meeting. 5. On the date of the meeting, the applicant shall make records of attendance and shall also document that the meeting occurred through photographs, video, or other evidence satisfactory to the City. Records of attendance may include using the mailing list referred to in #1 as a sign-in sheet (requesting attendees to check off their name(s)) and may include a supplemental attendance sheet. The City will provide a format acceptable for use as the supplemental attendance sheet. Applicant: +\ Wt-iS SQCo\..lo~se U.t.1~6 (2°'-o. Nc*nt etle~, VA ~e'\ Name.~~~~~~~~~- Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- Attach additional sheets as needed. Note: The requirement of listing names of stockholders does not apply to a corporation whose stock is traded on a national or local stock exchange and which corporation has more than five hundred (500) shareholders. Applicant: ~w~s ~l,000 ft. or~ 50% of the total parking and driveway surface area. surface area. Shared parking (must have legally binding agreement} that eliminates >30% 5 points or 1 point for each of on-site parking required. 6% of parking surface elimi­ ? nated. Impervious Disconnection. Follow design manual specifications to ensure 8 points adequate capture of roof runoff (e.g. cisterns, dry wells, rain gardens) Bioretention. Percent of site treated must exceed 80%. Biofilter surface ar­ 8 points or 1 point for each ea must be~ 5% of impervious drainage area. 10% of site treated. Rain gardens. All lots, rain garden surface area for each lot ~ 200 ft. 2 • 8 points or 1 point for each 10% of lots treated. Designed/constructed swales. Percent of site treated must exceed 80%, 8 points or 1 point for each achieve non-erosive velocities, and able to convey peak discharge from 10 10% of site treated. year storm. Manufactured sand filters, filter vaults (must provide filtering rather than 8 points or 1 point for each just hydrodynamic). Percent of site treated must exceed 80%. Sizing and 10% of site treated. volume for water quality treatment based on manufacturer's criteria. Green rooftop to treat ~ 50% of roof area 8 points Other LID practices as approved by NOS Engineer. TBD, not to exceed 8 points Off-site contribution to project in City's water quality management plan. S points This measure to be considered when on site constraints (space, environ­ mentally sensitive areas, hazards) limit application of LID measures. Re­ quires pre-approval by NOS Director. Total Points 10 I • ~WMS ~C'O"-"'O ~'QE. LL.C. Applicant·s~ ~..iM ~e::c......t> ~se c:.p LLC Signature ~ Print Jl!ff!!j LeVIEM-\tr>&Sttld'oate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heet\Exhibit\SUP Concept Plan.dwg | Plotted on 5/13/2019 4:19 PM | by Kim Mellon OK OK POST-DEVELOPED Q10  PRE-DEVELOPED Q10 1.17 CFS  0.90*(1.97 CFS*4617 CF)/(4617 CF) CF = 1.78 CFS QDEVELOPED  0.90*(QPRE-DEVELOPED*RVPRE-DEVELOPED)/RVDEVELOPED 3.38 CFS (POST-DEVELOPED Q10)  3.65 CFS (PRE-DEVELOPED Q10) 24' PARKING RAMP TO PROPOSED UNDERGROUND OF 60" CMP APPROX. 100 LF PROPOSED UNDERGROUND DETENTION 10' MINIMUM SETBACK 0 LEGEND: 20' SCALE 1"=20' 83 CONCRETE SIDEWALK NAD HEAVY DUTY CONCRETE PROPOSED HARDSCAPE 40' DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION 612 WEST MAIN STREET - SPECIAL USE PLAN DATE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA SCALE JOB NO. EX-1 1" = 20' SHEET NO. DRAWN BY 43751 CHECKED BY K. MELLON DESIGNED BY 05/13/2019 C. KOTARSKI C. KOTARSKI SUP CONCEPT PLAN These plans and associated documents are the exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and may not be reproduced in whole or in part and shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever, inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding, and/or construction staking without the express written consent of TIMMONS GROUP. 602-616 W. MAIN STREET ZONE:  - WEST MAIN STREET EAST CORRIDOR (MIXED-USE) - ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN CONTROL DISTRICT - PARKING MODIFIED ZONE 4TH STREET NW 6TH STREET NW PRIMARY STREETS: - WEST MAIN STREET LAND AREA: -0.46 ACRES/19,830 SF DENSITY:  WEST MAIN STREET  BY RIGHT  WITH SUP  43 DUA  120 DUA TOTAL: 20 DWELLING UNITS 55 DWELLING UNITS SITE 7TH STREET SW ET SW 602-616 W. MAIN ST. 0.46 ACRES 600 W. MAIN ST. (UNDER 5TH STRE CONSTRUCTION) PROPOSED MASSING GSF: PARKING RESIDENTIAL RETAIL PARKING LEVEL 19,830 LEVEL 1 1,413 10,377 5,871 LEVEL 2 17,677 LEVEL 3 17,677 LEVEL 4 14,801 TOTAL: 87,646 N BAR - PRELIMINARY CONVERSATION 5/14/2019 - 11x17 SITE LOCATION NTS 1 612 WEST MAIN STREET Tuesday, May 14, 2019 ZONE:  property line property line - WEST MAIN STREET EAST CORRIDOR (MIXED-USE) - ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN CONTROL DISTRICT 10'-0" 10'-0" SETBACK - PARKING MODIFIED ZONE bu MAX. HT. IN ADJACENT CH DIST. l PRIMARY STREETS: k pl ane permitted 52'-0" MAX. envelope - WEST MAIN STREET 40'-0" LAND AREA: 50'-0" -0.46 ACRES/19,830 SF 15' MIN. REQ'D University Tire demo existing DENSITY:  W. Main St.  BY RIGHT  WITH SUP Railroad Tracks  43 DUA  120 DUA ZONING HEIGHTS AND SETBACKS TOTAL: 20 DWELLING UNITS 55 DWELLING UNITS SEC. 34-638: STREETWALL SEC. 34-638: REGULATIONS STREETWALL SETBACKS AT 10' MIN. AT REGULATIONS TOP OF STREETWALL SETBACKS AT 10' HEIGHT. W. MAIN STREET W. MAIN STREET MIN., 20' MAX 10'-0" MIN. 20'-0" MAX. (LEVEL 1-3) (LEVEL 1) 10' MIN. STEPBACK AT TOP OF STREETWALL HEIGHT ALLEY ALLEY 620 W. MAIN ST. 620 W. MAIN ST. (FIRST BAPTIST (FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH ANNEX) CHURCH ANNEX) SEC. 34-639: BULK PLANE DN 602-616 W. MAIN STREET RESIDENTIAL NO BUILDING MAY EXTEND INTO LEVEL 1-3 A 45-DEGREE ANGULAR PLANE LEVEL 4 PROJECTING ABOVE THE LOT, STARTING AT A HEIGHT EQUAL TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED HEIGHT IN THE ADJACENT ZONING DISTRICT. DN UP 600 W. MAIN ST. 600 W. MAIN ST. BULK PLANE RESTRICTION LEVELS 1-3 LEVEL 4 BAR - PRELIMINARY CONVERSATION 5/14/2019 - 11x17 ZONING ANALYSIS 2 612 WEST MAIN STREET Tuesday, May 14, 2019 W. MAIN STREET POTENTIAL SETBACK 15'-0" 10' MIN. SETBACK 20' MIN. AISLE RETAIL UP ALLEY 620 W. MAIN ST. DRIVEWAY (FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH ANNEX) ramp DN 24' MIN HC HC HC ramp VAN 20' MIN AISLE 20' MIN. AISLE PARKING 53 spaces (8.5x18) (16 compact, 2 HC, 1 HC van) 600 W. MAIN ST. RESIDENTIAL 600 W. MAIN ST. PARKING LEVEL LEVEL 1 W. MAIN STREET W. MAIN STREET POTENTIAL SETBACK 10' MIN. SETBACK POTENTIAL SETBACK 10' MIN. STEPBACK AT TOP OF STREETWALL HEIGHT ALLEY 620 W. MAIN ST. ALLEY (FIRST BAPTIST 620 W. MAIN ST. CHURCH ANNEX) RESIDENTIAL (FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH ANNEX) RESIDENTIAL UP DN UP 600 W. MAIN ST. RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL 600 W. MAIN ST. BULK PLANE RESTRICTION LEVEL 4 LEVEL 2-3 BAR - PRELIMINARY CONVERSATION 5/14/2019 - 11x17 PLANS - PROPOSED 3 612 WEST MAIN STREET Tuesday, May 14, 2019 . ST N M AI W. VIEW WEST W. M AI N ST . VIEW EAST BAR - PRELIMINARY CONVERSATION 5/14/2019 - 11x17 MASSING - ALLOWABLE ENVELOPE 4 612 WEST MAIN STREET Tuesday, May 14, 2019 VIEW EAST TOWARD MURAL VIEW SOUTH BAR - PRELIMINARY CONVERSATION 5/14/2019 - 11x17 MASSING - ALLOWABLE VS PROPOSED 5 612 WEST MAIN STREET Tuesday, May 14, 2019 VIEW FROM WEST ON RAILROAD TRACKS VIEW WEST ON WEST MAIN STREET BAR - PRELIMINARY CONVERSATION 5/14/2019 - 11x17 MASSING - CONTEXT 6 612 WEST MAIN STREET Tuesday, May 14, 2019 49'-4" MAX BUILDING HEIGHT 40'-0" STEPBACK LINE 612 49'-4" MAX BUILDING HEIGHT 40'-0" STEPBACK LINE HEIRLOOM WEST MAIN DEVELOPMENT 5/14/2019 - 11x17 MASSING - ELEVATIONS 7 612 WEST MAIN Tuesday, May 14, 2019 1" = 20' 5(62/87,21 $33529,1*$63(&,$/86(3(50,7 72$//2:+,*+'(16,7<5(6,'(17,$/'(9(/230(17 :,7+02'),('5(6,'(17,$/3$5.,1*5(48,5(0(176 )253523(57</2&$7('$7 $1':(670$,1675((7 :+(5($6+HLUORRP:HVW0DLQ'HYHORSPHQW//& ³$SSOLFDQW´ KDVUHSUHVHQWHG WKDWLWLVWKHFXUUHQWRZQHURIWKUHHORWVLGHQWLILHGRQ&LW\7D[0DSDV3DUFHOVDQG &LW\ 7D[0DS,GHQWLILFDWLRQ1RV DQG  FROOHFWLYHO\WKH³6XEMHFW 3URSHUW\´ DQGWKH$SSOLFDQWSURSRVHVWRUHGHYHORSWKH6XEMHFW3URSHUW\DVDQGIRUDSURSRVHG PL[HGXVHGHYHORSPHQWFRQWDLQLQJPXOWLIDPLO\UHVLGHQWLDO DWDGHQVLW\RIPRUHWKDQGZHOOLQJ XQLWVSHUDFUH FRQWDLQLQJVWXGLRRQHEHGURRPDQGWZREHGURRPXQLWVDORQJZLWKVRPH FRPPHUFLDOXVH V WRJHWKHUZLWKVWUXFWXUHGSDUNLQJORFDWHGXQGHUQHDWKWKHEXLOGLQJ V  FROOHFWLYHO\WKH³3URSRVHG'HYHORSPHQW´ DQG :+(5($6WKH3URSRVHG'HYHORSPHQWLVGHVFULEHGZLWKLQWKH$SSOLFDQW¶VDSSOLFDWLRQ PDWHULDOVGDWHG0DUFKVXEPLWWHGLQFRQQHFWLRQZLWK63 FROOHFWLYHO\WKH ³$SSOLFDWLRQ0DWHULDOV´ LQZKLFKWKH$SSOLFDQWVWDWHVWKDWLWH[SHFWVWRLQFOXGHZLWKLQWKH 3URSRVHG'HYHORSPHQWDPRQJRWKHUW\SHVRIGZHOOLQJXQLWVDQXPEHURIPDUNHWUDWH QRQ VWXGHQW VWXGLRGZHOOLQJXQLWVLQRUGHUWRSURYLGHDKRXVLQJRSWLRQQRWSUHVHQWO\ZLGHO\ DYDLODEOHZLWKLQWKH'RZQWRZQRU:HVW0DLQ6WUHHWDUHDVDQG :+(5($6WKH$SSOLFDQW¶VUHTXHVWIRUDGGLWLRQDOUHVLGHQWLDOGHQVLW\DQGIRU PRGLILFDWLRQ UHGXFWLRQ RIWKHSDUNLQJVWDQGDUGVDSSOLFDEOHWRWKH3URSRVHG'HYHORSPHQW UHTXLUHDSSURYDORIDVSHFLDOXVHSHUPLWSXUVXDQWWR&LW\&RGH††DQG D DQG :+(5($6WKH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQUHYLHZHGWKH$SSOLFDWLRQ0DWHULDOVDQGWKH &LW\¶V6WDII5HSRUWDQGIROORZLQJDMRLQWSXEOLFKHDULQJGXO\DGYHUWLVHGDQGFRQGXFWHGE\WKH 3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQRQ0D\WKH&RPPLVVLRQYRWHGWRUHFRPPHQGWKDWWKH&LW\ &RXQFLOVKRXOGDSSURYHWKHUHTXHVWHGVSHFLDOXVHSHUPLWWRDOORZUHVLGHQWLDOGHQVLW\XSWR GZHOOLQJXQLWVSHUDFUH '8$ ZLWKSDUNLQJWREHSURYLGHGIRUWKHSURSRVHGUHVLGHQWLDOGZHOOLQJ XQLWVDWDUDWHRIVSDFHSHUXQLWDOOVXEMHFWWRFHUWDLQVXLWDEOHFRQGLWLRQVDQGVDIHJXDUGV UHFRPPHQGHGE\WKH&RPPLVVLRQDQG :+(5($6IROORZLQJWKHMRLQWSXEOLFKHDULQJDQGXSRQFRQVLGHUDWLRQRIWKH3ODQQLQJ &RPPLVVLRQ¶VUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVDVZHOODVWKHIDFWRUVVHWIRUWKZLWKLQ6HFRIWKH&LW\¶V =RQLQJ2UGLQDQFHWKLV&RXQFLOILQGVDQGGHWHUPLQHVWKDWJUDQWLQJWKHUHTXHVWHGVSHFLDOXVH SHUPLWVXEMHFWWRFHUWDLQFRQGLWLRQVZRXOGVHUYHWKHSXEOLFQHFHVVLW\FRQYHQLHQFHJHQHUDO ZHOIDUHRUJRRG]RQLQJSUDFWLFHQRZWKHUHIRUH %(,75(62/9('E\WKH&RXQFLORIWKH&LW\RI&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9LUJLQLDWKDWSXUVXDQW WR&LW\&RGH††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¶V]RQLQJRUGLQDQFHPD\EH DSSOLHGWR IXUWKHUUHGXFHWKHWRWDOQXPEHURIUHTXLUHGSDUNLQJVSDFHV  $WOHDVWIRUW\SHUFHQW  RIWKHWRWDOQXPEHURIUHTXLUHGSDUNLQJVSDFHVIRUWKH 3URSRVHG 'HYHORSPHQWVKDOOEHSURYLGHGRQVLWH$Q\UHPDLQLQJUHTXLUHGSDUNLQJ VSDFHVLIDQ\PD\ EHSURYLGHGDWDQRIIVLWHORFDWLRQ 2IIVLWH6SDFHV LQDFFRUGDQFH ZLWKWKHUHTXLUHPHQWV RI&LW\&RGH† H  E SURYLGHGWKDWDQ\RIIVLWHSDUNLQJ OHDVHIRUWKH2IIVLWH 6SDFHVPD\FRQWDLQUHQHZDEOHWHUPVLIFROOHFWLYHO\WKHWHUPVRI WKHOHDVHFRPSO\ZLWKWKH GXUDWLRQDOUHTXLUHPHQWVRI† H  E DQGE\WKH WHUPVRIVXFKOHDVHWKH$SSOLFDQW KDVWKHULJKWWRUHQHZWKHWHUPV7KH$SSOLFDQWVKDOO JLYHWKH&LW\ V=RQLQJ$GPLQLVWUDWRU GD\V¶DGYDQFHZULWWHQQRWLFHRIDQ\H[SLUDWLRQ RUHDUOLHUWHUPLQDWLRQRIVXFKOHDVH 2QRUEHIRUH-XO\RIHDFKFDOHQGDU\HDUIROORZLQJLVVXDQFHRIDQ\FHUWLILFDWHRI RFFXSDQF\ IRUWKH3URSRVHG'HYHORSPHQWWKHSURSHUW\RZQHUVKDOOVXEPLWWRWKH&LW\¶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¶V3ODQ DVLQHIIHFWRQ-XQH VKDOOUHPDLQLQ HIIHFW  7KHQHZEXLOGLQJSURSRVHGWREHFRQVWUXFWHGZLWKLQWKH3URSRVHG'HYHORSPHQWVKDOOFRQWDLQ DQLQGRRUOREE\DUHDDQGDQRXWGRRUFRXUW\DUGSURYLGHGIRUWKHUHFUHDWLRQDOXVHRIWKH UHVLGHQWV  3ULRUWRFRPPHQFHPHQWRIDQ\ODQGGLVWXUELQJDFWLYLW\RQWKH3URSHUW\WKH2ZQHUVKDOOKROG DPHHWLQJZLWKQRWLFHWRDOODGMRLQLQJSURSHUW\RZQHUVWRUHYLHZWKHSURSRVHGORFDWLRQRI FRQVWUXFWLRQZRUNHUSDUNLQJSODQIRUWHPSRUDU\SHGHVWULDQDQGYHKLFXODUFLUFXODWLRQDQG KRXUVDQGRYHUDOOVFKHGXOHIRUFRQVWUXFWLRQDFWLYLWLHV7KHFLW\¶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¶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¶VODQGUHFRUGVDQG VXEMHFWWRVXFKWHUPVDQGFRQGLWLRQVDVPD\EHDSSURYHGE\&LW\&RXQFLODQGWKH&LW\ $WWRUQH\$FRS\RIWKHUHFRUGHGLQVWUXPHQWVKDOOEHVXEPLWWHGWRWKH&LW\DORQJZLWKWKH ILUVWUHTXHVWIRUDEXLOGLQJSHUPLWIRUDQ\QHZEXLOGLQJZLWKLQWKHGHYHORSPHQW $SSURYHGE\&RXQFLO -XQH &OHUNRI&RXQFLO City Of Charlottesville Neighborhood Development Services Staff Report to the Planning Commission September 10, 2019 Proposed Comprehensive Signage Plan for Hillsdale Place Project Name: 1801 Hydraulic Road, Hillsdale Place Planner: Jeff Werner, AICP Applicant: Peyton Associates Partnership Applicant’s Representative: Ashley Davies (Riverbend Development) Applicant’s Relation to Owner: Developer Application Information Property Street Address: 1801 Hydraulic Road Property Owner: Meadowbrook Creek LLC (leaseholder) Tax Map/Parcel #: Tax Map 41B, Parcel 2 (GIS: 41B002000) Total Square Footage/Acreage Site: 9.064 acres Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Plan) Designation: Mixed Use Current Zoning Classification: HW Highway Corridor with Entrance Corridor (EC) Overlay Entrance Corridor Overlay Districts: §34-307(a)(1) Route 29 North from corporate limits to Ivy Road, and §34-307(a)(2) Hydraulic Road from corporate limits to the 250 Bypass Current Usage: One-story vacant building, most recently occupied by K Mart and Gold’s Gym (Existing building to be partially demolished and renovated.) Background Hillsdale Place is a retail development at the intersection of Route 29 and Hydraulic Road and within the Route 29 North and Hydraulic Road Entrance Corridors. The approximately 87,000 sq. ft. building will reuse space previously occupied by K-Mart and Gold’s Gym and is planned to accommodate 10 tenants, anchored on the west by a 40,000 sq. ft. store and on the east by a 20,000 sq. ft. store. (For design review, the Entrance Corridor CoA was approved by the ERB earlier this year.) Applicant is requesting approval of a Comprehensive Signage Plan (CSP), which will be applied to the building signage for the 10 anticipated tenants and includes three monument signs. Applicants for a development that is subject to Site Plan review and design review may request approval of a CSP, defined as “a written plan detailing the type, quantity, size, shape, color, and location of all signs within the development that is the subject of the plan, where the number, characteristics and/or locations of [the] signs referenced within the plan do not comply with the requirements of [the City Code re: signs].” Per the City Code, Council may approve a comprehensive signage plan, upon a determination that: There is good cause for deviating from a strict application of the requirements of this division, and the comprehensive signage plan, as proposed, will serve the public purposes and objectives at least as well, or better, than the signage that would otherwise be permitted for the subject development. Comprehensive Sign Plan (September 3, 2019 FINAL) 1 Note: This CSP will not apply to building signage associated with the adjacent Whole Foods store, which is subject to a CSP approved in 2011. However, space on each of the three, new monument signs will be available to Whole Foods and therefore be subject to the provisions of this CSP. Comprehensive Sign Plan Specifics Per applicant’s submittal, Hillsdale Place: Comprehensive Signage Plan, drawings by Bignell Watkins Hasser Architects dated August 29, 2019; sheets 1 through 10. Relevant signage types (as currently defined by Division 4, Section 34-1038 of the City Code): a. Awning or canopy. • See sheets 4 and 5 of the CSP; identified as Canopy Mounted Tenant Signs and Under Canopy Signs. • Proposed conditions are consistent with Code provisions. b. Freestanding signs. • Not included in CSP; not permitted. c. Marquee signs. • Not included in CSP; not permitted. d. Monument signs. • Three (3) monument signs. See sheets 2 and 6 of CSP. • Proposed conditions are consistent with Code provisions. e. Pole mounted signs. • Not included in CSP; not permitted. f. Projecting signs. • See sheet 5 of the CSP. See sheet 5. • Proposed conditions are consistent with Code provisions, except the maximum sign area allowed within an EC is 15 sq. ft. [from 30 sq. ft.]. Per 34-1038(f) and 34-1044(a). g. Sandwich board signs. • See sheet 5 of the CSP. • Allowed with owner’s approval, no sign permit required. Such signage may be placed only on the concrete walk at the storefronts shown in elevation on sheet 7 and must be removed after hours. City will not regulate signs that comply, however those that do not will be treated as a violation. h. Temporary signs. • Included in CSP and permitted by reference as currently defined in Section 34-1038(h) of the City Code. i. Wall signs. • See sheets 4, 7, 8, and 9 of the CSP; identified as Wall Mounted Tenant Signs. • Wall signage may be installed only in the areas noted on the building elevations. • Proposed conditions vary from Code provisions as follows: Comprehensive Sign Plan (September 3, 2019 FINAL) 2 o Height: Code limits the height of wall signs to 20-feet above grade. CSP proposes three locations where signs may be allowed at a height not to exceed 28-feet. Note: The elevations indicate five locations where these higher signs may be installed, however staff understands this condition to mean that at no time will there be more than three signs located higher than 20-feet. o Size: Per 34-2031 and 34-1038(i) and 34-1044(a), maximum sign area is 1 sq. ft per linear foot of frontage, not to exceed 50 sq. ft. per tenant and being within an EC reduces that number by one-half. For this CSP, Tenant #1 is allowed a maximum of 300 sq. ft. (versus 25 sq. ft.); Tenant #10 is allowed a maximum of 150 sq. ft. (versus 50 sq. ft.). All other tenants—2 through 9—are limited to a maximum of 50 sq. ft. (versus a range of 18 to 25 sq. ft.) The central tower shopping center sign is 128 sq. ft. (versus 25 sq. ft.) o Number: For the entire building, tenants #1 through 10 and on the central tower collectively, the total number of all wall signs shall not exceed 18. This does not exceed that allowed by the Code. Maximum Aggregate Signage Area Per 34-1032(a) the Maximum Aggregate Signage Area is 75 sq. ft. per parcel, which in a shopping center like this staff has applied as a per tenant maximum. Therefore, by code each tenant would be allowed a maximum aggregate signage area 75 sq. ft. for all signage above. (See recommendation in Staff Analysis.) Illumination • General (sheet 3) o No flashing or other mechanical animation will be allowed on signs. o All illuminated signs shall be illuminated with LED lamping. • Wall Mounted Tenant Signs (sheet 4) o Note: CSP provisions are consistent with current code requirements. o May be internally lit, halo lit, or externally lit with gooseneck or straight-arm sign lights. o Internally lit signs shall have an opaque background. o Gooseneck and straight-arm sign light fixtures shall have lamps that comply with the 'full cutoff' requirements of Div.4 Sec. 34-1034 and 34-1000. o All lit signage shall appear to be lit 'white' at night. o When exposed incandescent lamps are used to illuminate signs, they shall be equipped with gooseneck reflectors or other devices arranged so as to concentrate the illumination upon the area of the sign and to prevent glare. o Special attention shall be given to illumination so as to avoid glare upon adjoining properties and/or streets • Canopy Mounted Tenant Signs (sheet 4) o Internally lit or halo lit. o All lit signage shall appear to be lit “white” at night • Projecting Signs (sheet 5) o Projecting signs may incorporate internal lighting or external lighting and illuminated letters. o All lit signage shall appear to be lit “white” at night. Comprehensive Sign Plan (September 3, 2019 FINAL) 3 • Under Canopy Signs (sheet 5) o Under canopy signs may incorporate internal lighting and illuminated letters. o All lit signage shall appear to be lit “white” at night. • Monument Signs (sheet 6) o Internally lit. All lit signage shall appear to be lit “white” at night Discussion and Recommendation Analyses regarding code provisions of Sec. 34-1045. - Optional comprehensive signage plan. a) … b) … c) City council may approve a comprehensive signage plan, upon a determination that: 1) There is good cause for deviating from a strict application of the requirements of this division, and 2) The comprehensive signage plan, as proposed, will serve the public purposes and objectives set forth within section 34-1021 of this division at least as well, or better, than the signage that would otherwise be permitted for the subject development. Staff Comment: (See Summary below) d) … e) Each application for approval of a comprehensive signage plan shall include the following information: (1) A written narrative description of the overall plan, including, without limitation: a tally of the total number of signs included within the coverage of the plan, and a summary of how the applicant believes the comprehensive signage plan will serve the objectives set forth within section 34-1021; • Staff Comment: Provided. See sheet 1 of the proposed CSP. (2) A color illustration or photograph of each sign included within the plan. For signs with multiple faces, an illustration or photograph shall be provided for each face. For monument and pole signs, an illustration or photograph of proposed landscaping shall be provided; • Staff Comment: Provided. See sheets 4, 5, and 6 of the proposed CSP. However, color illustrations are not available until actual tenant signs are submitted for review. The CSP does limit each sign to no more than two colors. (3) A written description of the type, size (dimensions), materials, and proposed location of each sign; • Staff Comment: Provided. See sheets 4, 5, and 6 of the proposed CSP. (4) A map or other written identification and description of all existing signs on the property comprising the proposed development; • Staff Comment: Not applicable. No existing signs will be retained and/or used. (5) Color illustrations or photographs of signage existing on adjacent properties; • Staff Comment: Provided. See sheet 10 of the proposed CSP. (6) A written description (and illustration or photograph) of proposed lighting (for illuminated signs). • Staff Comment: Provided. See pages 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the proposed CSP. Staff Summary: The proposed CSP has two primary deviations from that allowed by Code: Comprehensive Sign Plan (September 3, 2019 FINAL) 4 • Aggregate signage area. o As proposed, the aggregate area of wall, canopy, and projecting signage allowed by the CSP exceeds the by-right maximum of 75 sq. ft. as follows (in sq. ft. and the excluding the central shopping center sign):  Tenant #1: • Wall: 300 • Canopy: 0 • Projecting: 30 • Under canopy: 4 • Total: 334  Tenants #2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9 (each). • Wall: 50 • Canopy: 20 • Projecting: 30 • Under canopy: 4 • Total: 104  Tenant #6 • Wall: 50 • Canopy: • Projecting: 30 • Under canopy: 4 • Total: 84  Tenant #8 (Note: On the drawings, Tenant #9 is 18-ft wide, not #8. This is corrected in staff’s recommendations.) • Wall: 50 • Canopy: 18 • Projecting: 30 • Under canopy: 4 • Total: 102  Tenant #10 • Wall: 150 • Canopy: 20 • Projecting: 30 • Under canopy: 4 • Total: 204  All Tenants: • Total: 1,348 sq. ft. • Maximum 750 sq. ft. Note: (See recommendation in Staff Analysis.) Comprehensive Sign Plan (September 3, 2019 FINAL) 5 • Wall signage height. o Code limits the height of wall signs to 20-feet above grade. CSP proposes three locations where signs may be allowed at a height not to exceed 28-feet. Note: The elevations indicate five locations where these higher signs may be installed, however staff understands this condition to mean that at no time will there be more than three signs located higher than 20-feet, but no higher than 28-feet. Staff supports this as follows:  Shopping Center Sign on Central Tower: The tower provides an elevated, accent component within the relatively uniform height of the building parapet. While the tower is taller, the proposed signage at 28-feet is generally aligned with or is only slightly above the building’s parapet.  Signage at West and Southwest Elevations: The site grade here is approximately 15 feet below that of Route 29, thus the higher sign locations will appear in line with and not elevated above the corridor. Additionally, these locations generally align with or are only slightly above the building’s parapet.  Signage at East and Southeast Elevations: While the grade of the adjacent street here is not elevated, allowing the higher sign locations here allows continuity of the building’s overall design and both locations noted generally align with or are only slightly above the building’s parapet. Review of the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines for Signs 1. Place signs so that they do not obstruct architectural elements and details that define the design of the building. o Staff Comment: Proposed CSP complies. 2. Respect the design and visibility of signs for adjacent businesses. o Staff Comment: Proposed CSP complies. 3. Use colors and appropriate materials that complement the materials and color scheme of the building, including accent and trim colors. o Staff Comment: Per the CSP new signage, per tenant, is limited to two colors. Additionally, prior to submittal for a sign permit, applications must be reviewed and approved by the building owner. 4. Use a minimal number of colors per sign where possible. o Staff Comment: Per the CSP new signage, per tenant, is limited to two colors. Additionally, prior to submittal for a sign permit, applications must be reviewed and approved by the building owner. 5. Exterior illumination of signs shall comply with the City’s outdoor lighting requirements. Exterior neon is discouraged. o Staff Comment: Proposed CSP complies. 6. Illumination of any sign shall not be directed toward any residential area or adjacent street. o Staff Comment: Proposed CSP complies. 7. Consider using a comprehensive signage plan for larger developments. o Staff Comment: Applicant has proposed a CSP. 8. Encourage the use of monument signs (rather than freestanding signs) with accent landscaping at the base along corridors. o Staff Comment: Proposed CSP complies. 9. Internally lit signs should use an opaque background so only letters are lit. o Staff Comment: Proposed CSP complies. 10. Flashing lights are prohibited. o Staff Comment: Proposed CSP complies. Comprehensive Sign Plan (September 3, 2019 FINAL) 6 STAFF Recommendation Upon reviewing the proposed comprehensive plan, staff believes that the conditions of the proposed CSP are appropriate and supports a recommendation of approval with the following conditions: • Revise CSP to clarify condition that allows no more than three signs above 20-feet, but not higher than 28-feet, and that those three signs may be located in any of the five locations noted. • Revise CSP conditions regarding sandwich [board] signs (on sheet 5) to indicate that, while such signs will not require permits, they must still comply with provisions of Section 34­ 1038(g) items 1 through 6. • Revise CSP, sheet 3, under General Tenant Sign Criteria, to include by reference the following components of Division 4, Section 34 to be applied by reference, unless specifically stated otherwise: o 1024. Definitions o 1025. Permit requirements—generally o 1026. Public liability insurance o 1027. Signs permitted in all districts without permits o 1028. Signs placed by public authority o 1029. Prohibited signs o 1030. Noncommercial signs. o 1034. Illumination • Revise CSP signage area allocations per table at end of this report, not including the monument signs and shopping center sign. These values, including the number of signs allowed, should be incorporated into the final CSP, replacing the summaries on sheets 4 and 5. (Note: Staff’s recommendations result in a combined maximum aggregate signage area of 907 sq. ft. for the 10 tenants. This exceeds the 750 sq. ft. maximum aggregate by 157 sq. ft., however with Hillsdale Place oriented towards three streets, the proposed signage will be on approximately 1,100 linear feet of building façade. The resulting ratio of total signage area per liner foot of frontage is 0.8, which staff finds acceptable in an aggregate view of this retail development.) Suggested motions: Recommendation of Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code and the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines for Signs, I move to find that the proposed comprehensive signage plan satisfies the Design Guidelines, meets the requirements for consideration of such a plan, and is compatible with other properties within Route 29 North and Hydraulic Road Entrance Corridors, and that the ERB recommends to City Council that they should approve this application as submitted with the recommended conditions as follows: Recommendation of Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code and the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines for Signs, I move to find that the proposed comprehensive signage plan does not satisfy the Design Guidelines, does not meets the requirements for consideration of such a plan, and is not compatible with other properties within Route 29 North and Hydraulic Road Entrance Corridors, and that for the following reasons the ERB recommends to City Council that they should deny this application as submitted. Comprehensive Sign Plan (September 3, 2019 FINAL) 7 APPENDIX Applicable Zoning Regulations (Note: If not relevant to this CSP request, some segments are omitted and noted as “n/a.”) Sec. 34-1031. - Maximum number of signs allowed. a) A principal establishment may have no more than two (2) signs per primary street frontage, and one (1) additional sign for each linking street frontage, except where district regulations are more restrictive, or if these limits are varied by an approved comprehensive signage plan (section 34-1045). For purposes of calculation of the number of signs permitted per establishment, only one (1) street frontage shall be designated as primary street frontage. Signs for which a permit is not required shall not be counted in calculating the number of allowed signs. b) Shopping centers shall be permitted one (1) freestanding sign per street frontage. In addition, individual shops and businesses in shopping centers may have one (1) wall sign per establishment equal to one (1) square foot of signage per linear foot of establishment frontage, maximum fifty (50) square feet. Sec. 34-1032. - Maximum sign area. a) Aggregate area limitations: The total area of all signs allowed on one (1) parcel shall not exceed the following, unless as otherwise approved within a comprehensive signage plan: [Entrance Corridor Zoning District: Aggregate Area Limitation is 75 square feet.] b) Any signs erected, installed or maintained in accordance with section 34-1027 and any temporary signs placed pursuant to section 34-1038(h) shall not be included in the calculation of the aggregate area limitation for each parcel. Sec. 34-1034. - Illumination. a) When exposed incandescent lamps are used to illuminate signs, they shall be equipped with gooseneck reflectors or other devices arranged so as to concentrate the illumination upon the area of the sign and to prevent glare. Special attention shall be given to illumination so as to avoid glare upon adjoining residential properties. b) Each outside lighting installation and each illuminated sign shall be controlled by a time switch or externally operable switch which will open all underground conductors and shall be suitable for conditions of installation, such as exposure to the weather. In no case shall the illumination for any sign be directed toward any residential district or toward any adjacent street. c) Exterior illumination of signs shall comply with applicable provisions of sections 34-1000, et seq. of this article (outdoor lighting). Sec. 34-1038. - General sign regulations. (Note: For wall and projecting signs, refer to adjustments per Sec. 34-1044. EC districts—Special regulations.) (a) Awning or canopy sign. (1) All lettering and images comprising any portion of an awning or canopy sign shall be located on the face of the awning or canopy, parallel to the building, and may not project above or below the face. (2) No portion of an awning or canopy sign shall project over any public right-of-way (including, without limitation, any public sidewalk), except as may be allowed pursuant to section 34-1026, Public Liability Insurance. (3) Unless otherwise provided within this article: Comprehensive Sign Plan (September 3, 2019 FINAL) 8 a. No part of any awning or canopy containing a sign shall extend above the height of the bottom sill of any second story window of the building facade to which it is attached. If such sill height is less than the height specified below, then the lesser of the two (2) heights shall govern. b. No part of any awning or canopy shall be lower than eight (8) feet from grade, or as required by the most recently adopted building code. c. No awning or canopy sign shall have an area greater than one (1) square foot per linear foot of awning/canopy, maximum twenty (20) square feet. (b) Freestanding signs. (1) n/a. (2) n/a (3) n/a. (c) Marquee signs. (1) n/a (2) n/a (3) n/a (4) n/a (5) n/a (d) Monument signs. (1) All monument signs shall be located in a landscaped bed. (2) The sign area of a monument sign shall be measured as the entire surface area containing information, excluding the structure. (3) The size of the structure shall be incidental to the size of the sign itself. (4) Unless otherwise provided within this article: a. No monument sign shall exceed a height of six (6) feet. b. No monument sign shall exceed an area of twenty-four (24) square feet. (e) Pole mounted signs. (1) n/a (2) n/a: (f) Projecting signs. (1) Projecting signs are allowed only on buildings having eighteen (18) feet or more of frontage along a public right-of-way. (2) No projecting sign shall project more than three and one-half (3½) feet beyond the facade of the building to which it is attached. All such signs shall be mounted at a ninety-degree angle to the building facade. No such sign shall project over any public right-of-way (including, without limitation, any public sidewalk), except as may be allowed pursuant to section 34­ 1026 (Public liability insurance). (3) No part of any projecting sign shall extend above the height of the bottom sill of any second story window of the building facade to which the sign is attached. If such sill height is less than the height specified below, then the lesser of the two (2) heights shall govern. (4) In any case: a. No projecting sign shall exceed a height of twenty-five (25) feet from grade. b. No part of a projecting sign shall be lower than eight (8) feet from grade, or as required by the most recently adopted building code. Comprehensive Sign Plan (September 3, 2019 FINAL) 9 c. No projecting sign shall exceed an area of thirty (30) square feet. (5) Only one (1) sign per parcel as designated in the city real property tax maps may be freestanding or projecting. (g) Sandwich board signs. (1) Sandwich board signs are permitted subject to the conditions set out in this section. (2) One (1) sandwich board sign, limited to two (2) faces, may be located on property occupied by a lawful use in any zoning districts allowing commercial uses. Only one (1) such sign shall be allowed per city tax map parcel. (3) Such sign shall not exceed a height of four (4) feet, or an area of eight (8) square feet per sign face. (4) Such sign shall allow for at least a thirty-six (36) inch wide clearance if placed within any public pedestrian Right-of-way. (5) Such sign may not be illuminated. (6) No sandwich board sign shall be located in any required off-street parking space, driveway, alley or fire lane. (7) n/a (8) No sandwich board sign may be placed in an architectural design control or entrance corridor district unless it is first approved by the board of architectural review or planning commission, respectively, in the case of new construction, or by the director, in all other cases. (h) Temporary signs. Temporary signs not over thirty-two (32) square feet (not over ten (10) square feet in an ADC District) are permitted. Signs for temporary events, sales or special promotions may not be erected more than one month before the event or activity and shall be removed within forty-eight (48) hours of its conclusion. In no case shall any establishment display temporary signs for a cumulative period of time longer than two (2) months in any calendar year. There shall be no more than one (1) temporary sign per establishment at any time. (i) Wall signs. (1) No use or establishment, residential or non-residential, may have a wall sign unless that use or establishment has its own direct entrance from the outside of the building or is otherwise specifically provided for elsewhere within this chapter. All wall signs for a single building shall be coordinated as to color and lettering. No wall sign shall cover, cross or otherwise hide any column, belt course or other decorative architectural feature of a building, including any balcony. (2) No part of any wall sign may project more than one (1) foot outward from the facade of the building to which it is attached. (3) No part of any wall sign may project above the height of the bottom sill of any second story window of the building facade to which it is attached. If such sill height is less than the height specified below, then the lesser of the two (2) heights shall govern. (4) In any case: a. No wall sign shall exceed a height of twenty (20) feet. b. No wall sign shall exceed an area of one hundred (100) square feet. Sec. 34-1044. - Entrance corridor districts—Special regulations. In addition to other applicable regulations set forth within this article, the following sign regulations shall apply within the city's entrance corridor districts (see section 34-307), except as approved within an optional comprehensive sign plan: Comprehensive Sign Plan (September 3, 2019 FINAL) 10 a) The aggregate sign areas allowed for projecting and wall signs shall be reduced to one-half (½) of the allowances that would be applicable outside an entrance corridor district. b) Wall signs shall be limited to twenty (20) feet in height above grade. c) Monument signs not exceeding six (6) feet in height and twenty-four (24) square feet per face may be placed within one hundred (100) feet of the edge of the right-of-way of an entrance corridor street, provided that they do not obstruct visibility at any intersection or entrance. No other freestanding signs shall be permitted within one hundred (100) feet of the edge of the right-of-way of an entrance corridor street. d) No freestanding sign shall exceed a height of twenty-five (25) feet, or the height of the use or establishment it serves, whichever is less. e) The character of all signs shall be harmonious to the character of the uses, buildings and structures with which they are associated. Among other things, consideration shall be given to the location of signs on the structure in relation to the surrounding buildings; the use of compatible colors; the use of appropriate materials; the size and style of lettering and graphics; and the type of lighting. f) Internally signs, when permitted, shall have an opaque background. Sec. 34-1045. - Optional comprehensive signage plan. a) For a proposed development subject to site plan review, and for any development that is subject to architectural review under Article II, Divisions 2, 3, or 5 of this chapter, city council may modify requirements of this division by approving a comprehensive signage plan for such development or project. b) For the purposes of this section, the term "comprehensive signage plan" refers to a written plan detailing the type, quantity, size, shape, color, and location of all signs within the development that is the subject of the plan, where the number, characteristics and/or locations of one (1) or more signs referenced within the plan do not comply with the requirements of this division. c) City council may approve a comprehensive signage plan, upon a determination that: 1. There is good cause for deviating from a strict application of the requirements of this division, and 2. The comprehensive signage plan, as proposed, will serve the public purposes and objectives set forth within section 34-1021 of this division at least as well, or better, than the signage that would otherwise be permitted for the subject development. d) Applications for approval of a comprehensive signage plan shall be submitted in writing to the director of neighborhood development services, and shall be accompanied by the required application fee, as set forth within the most recent zoning fee schedule approved by city council. e) Each application for approval of a comprehensive signage plan shall include the following information: 1. A written narrative description of the overall plan, including, without limitation: a tally of the total number of signs included within the coverage of the plan, and a summary of how the applicant believes the comprehensive signage plan will serve the objectives set forth within section 34-1021; 2. A color illustration or photograph of each sign included within the plan. For signs with multiple faces, an illustration or photograph shall be provided for each face. For monument and pole signs, an illustration or photograph of proposed landscaping shall be provided; 3. A written description of the type, size (dimensions), materials, and proposed location of each sign; Comprehensive Sign Plan (September 3, 2019 FINAL) 11 4. A map or other written identification and description of all existing signs on the property comprising the proposed development; 5. Color illustrations or photographs of signage existing on adjacent properties; 6. A written description (and illustration or photograph) of proposed lighting (for illuminated signs). Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines re: Signage Chapter 3: Site, I. Signs See Article IX, Division 4 of the City of Charlottesville Zoning Ordinance for detailed sign regulation information. 1. Place signs so that they do not obstruct architectural elements and details that define the design of the building. 2. Respect the design and visibility of signs for adjacent businesses. 3. Use colors and appropriate materials that complement the materials and color scheme of the building, including accent and trim colors. 4. Use a minimal number of colors per sign where possible. 5. Exterior illumination of signs shall comply with the City’s outdoor lighting requirements. Exterior neon is discouraged. 6. Illumination of any sign shall not be directed toward any residential area or adjacent street. 7. Consider using a comprehensive signage plan for larger developments. 8. Encourage the use of monument signs (rather than freestanding signs) with accent landscaping at the base along corridors. 9. Internally lit signs should use an opaque background so only letters are lit. 10. Flashing lights are prohibited. Comprehensive Sign Plan (September 3, 2019 FINAL) 12 Signage Area Maximum Maximum # of Under Aggregate Maximum Canopy Projecting Signs (Wall, Wall Signs Canopy Total Area Area # of Signs Signs Canopy, Under Signs Tenant Projecting Canopy, Signs By Projecting) CSP Staff CSP Staff CSP Staff CSP Staff CSP Staff Staff Code 1 5 1 300 300 0 0 30 15 4 4 334 319 75 319 2 3 1 50 25 20 20 30 15 4 4 104 64 75 64 3 3 1 50 10 20 20 30 15 4 4 104 49 75 49 4 3 1 50 10 20 20 30 15 4 4 104 49 75 49 5 3 1 50 10 20 20 30 15 4 4 104 49 75 49 6 3 1 50 25 0 0 30 15 4 4 84 44 75 44 7 3 1 50 10 20 20 30 15 4 4 104 49 75 49 8 3 1 50 10 20 20 30 15 4 4 104 49 75 49 9 3 1 50 9 18 18 30 15 4 4 102 46 75 46 10 5 1 150 150 20 20 30 15 4 4 204 189 75 189 All Tenants 10 850 559 158 158 300 150 40 40 1348 907 750 907 Central Tower (shopping 1 128 center) Entire 18 10 Building Numbers under “CSP” are per the applicant’s submittal. Numbers under “Staff” indicate staff’s recommended revisions to the proposed CSP. Comprehensive Sign Plan (September 3, 2019 FINAL) 13 Hillsdale Place : Comprehensive Sign Plan Introduction Hillsdale Place is a retail development that includes an existing Whole Foods Market and a proposed retail center that will replace an existing vacant ‘big box’ retail store at the intersection of Route 29 and Hydraulic Road within the Entrance Corridor District. It is the intent of these guidelines to ensure that all of the signage within the Hillsdale Place retail center provides safe, harmonious and visually compelling context for visitors, shoppers, and the surrounding entrance corridor district. The guidelines propose appropriate limitations on signage areas and heights to be visually proportional to the size and orientation of the building and in accordance with the goals of Division 4 of the Charlottesville Zoning Ordinance. Any deviations from Division 4 included in these guidelines are specific to the project's unique conditions and are outlined below for clarity. Signage Height: These guidelines include three specific areas where signage is allowed above twenty (20) feet above grade, but no more than twenty-eight (28) feet. Two of these areas are located at either end of the building where a single large tenant will be occupying the respective spaces and the height of the architecture lends itself aesthetically to higher signage. The third location is at the central architectural feature, where the center's branding location shall be placed (no individual tenant sign above twenty feet). The proportions of the architecture at these areas and the fact that the site is located as much as fifteen (15) feet below the elevation of adjacent Route 29 makes the site appropriate for a minimal amount of signage exceeding twenty (20) feet in height. All other signage shall not exceed a height of twenty (20) feet per Div.4 Sec. 34-1038 (i)(4). Signage Area: These guidelines include two specific locations where the aggregate wall signage area is allowed to exceed 50 SF per tenant and the area of a single wall sign shall be allowed to exceed one hundred (100) SF. These locations are at either end of the building where a single large tenant will be occupying the respective spaces and the proportions of the architecture and length of frontage lends itself aesthetically to larger signage. The total signage for these tenants shall not exceed 300 SF and 150 SF, respectively. Therefore, the total signage area for all tenants shall not exceed 850 SF which is equal to less than 0.65 SF of signage per linear foot of total frontage. This total of 850 SF exceeds the by-right allowance by only one hundred (100) SF (given that, by-right, 10 tenants are allowed a total of 750 SF, 75 SF per tenant). Given the 10.63 acre size of the site and the large amount of frontage, this should provide a total maximum signage area that is consistent with the intent of the ordinance and comparable to similar centers in the Entrance Corridor. See sheet 4 for further information. Note: The Whole Foods Market has existing signage based on criteria included in a previous Comprehensive Signage Plan (CSP) approved on 03/04/11 that will remain in place, attached for reference. Any future modifications to the Whole Foods Market building signage shall comply with that approved CSP. A Whole Foods signage shall be included in the proposed monument sign design per sheet 6. Should there be any conflicting text or illustrations within this CSP, the most stringent of the conditions shall be applied. References to City Code shall be interpreted to be the code as of August 29, 2019. Hillsdale Place : Comprehensive Sign Plan 08.29.2019 1 SITE KEY PLAN PROPOSED FACADE SIGN LOCATIONS MONUMENT SIGN 2 One of three areas where wall signage will be allowed One of three areas where above 20'-0" but no higher wall signage will be allowed One of three areas where than 28'-0", see elevation above 20'-0" but no higher wall signage will be allowed sheets 7-9 than 28'-0", see elevation above 20'-0" but no higher sheets 7-9 than 28'-0", see elevation sheets 7-9 EXISTING FOOD MARKET SIGNAGE APPROVED UNDER PREVIOUS SUBMISSION MONUMENT MONUMENT SIGN 3 SIGN 1 NOTE: ONE (1) MONUMENT SIGN PER ENTRANCE ALLOWED BY RIGHT. NOTE: Signage requirements for future outparcel buildings SITE PLAN must be established by amendments of the CSP. SCALE: 1” = 100’ Hillsdale Place : Comprehensive Sign Plan 08.29.2019 2 GENERAL CRITERIA The CSP must cover all intended signage. If it is not adressed in the CSP, it is not allowed. There is no default to the city code. General Notes The Whole Foods Market signage has been approved under a previous submission. This CSP shall be understood to allow area for the Whole Foods Market on any monument signs within the Hillsdale Place development. Alternative signage or signage not consistent with this CSP will require amendment of the CSP. General Tenant Sign Criteria Permitted signage shall comply with the CSP. All signs shall be related directly to the business, services, or products offered within the premises. No flashing action or other mechanical animation will be allowed on signs. All illuminated signs shall be illuminated with LED lamping, see page 4 for further information. List from Section 34-1038 General Sign Regulations: A. Awning or canopy. Note: Allowed per CSP. See sheets 4 and 5. (Canopy Mounted and Under Canopy) B. Freestanding signs. Note: As defined by 34-1038, not included in CSP; not permitted. C. Marquee signs. Note: As defined by 34-1038, not included in CSP; not permitted. D. Monument signs. Note: Three monument signs per CSP. See sheets 2 and 6. E. Pole mounted signs. Note: As defined by 34-1038, not included in CSP; not permitted. F. Projecting signs. Note: Allowed per CSP. See sheet 5. G. Sandwich board signs. Note: Allowed per CSP. See sheet 5. H. Temporary signs. Note: Not included in CSP. Allowed if they comply with Division 4 Section 34- 1027, Section 34-1028, and section 34-1029. I. Wall signs. Note: Allowed per CSP. See sheets 4,7,8, and 9. Hillsdale Place : Comprehensive Sign Plan 08.29.2019 3 TENANT SIGNS Wall Mounted Tenant Signs Type and Mounting: Signs shall consist of individual channel letters or logo shapes mounted directly to the wall. Wall mounted primary tenant signs shall be mounted parallel to the wall on which they are mounted. Wall Signage: Maximum Aggregate Area per Tenanat (Square Feet = SF) Tenant #1: 300 sf Tenant #2 50 sf Tenant #3 50 sf Tenant #4 50 sf Tenant #5 50 sf Tenant #6 50 sf Tenant #7 50 sf Tenant #8 50 sf Tenant #9 50 sf Tenant #10 150 sf Shopping Center Wall Sign 100 sf Note: The Code allows by-right: 50 SF per tenant. Quantity: The maximum quantity of individual wall mounted signs for the entire building Individual Flush-Mount Individual Reverse/Halo Externally Lit Channel Letter shall not exceed 18. Channel Letter Channel Letter Location: Signs shall be located within the areas designated on the building elevations within this plan. Alternative signage or signage not consistent with this CSP will require Example Wall Mounted Sign Diagrams amendment of the CSP. NTS Lighting: Wall Mounted Signs may be internally lit, halo lit, or externally lit with gooseneck or straight-arm sign lights. Internally lit signs shall have an opaque background. Gooseneck and straight-arm sign light fixtures shall have lamps that External Sign Light: comply with the 'full cutoff' requirements of Div.4 Sec. 34-1034 and 34-1000. All lit BK Denali Series signage shall appear to be lit 'white' at night. Sign Star, Style L When exposed incandescent lamps are used to illuminate signs, they shall be equipped with gooseneck reflectors or other devices arranged so as to concentrate the illumination upon the area of the sign and to prevent glare. Special attention shall be given to illumination so as to avoid glare upon adjoining properties and/or streets. Colors: Illuminated sign faces may consist of a maximum of 2 colors. Alternative signage or signage not consistent with this CSP will require amendment of the CSP. Sign returns shall be painted black, silver, or a color harmonious with the surface on which the sign is mounted. All lit signage shall appear to be lit 'white' at night. Individual Individual Halo Lit Individual Canopy Mounted Tenant Signs Channel Letter Channel Letter with Channel Letter Standing on Background Panel Mounted to Fascia Type and Mounting: Signs shall consist of individual channel letters or logo shapes standing on or mounted to the fascia of a canopy. Canopy Mounted signs may Canopy Edge incorporate a raceway provided that the raceway is painted to match the color of the canopy. Example Canopy Mounted Sign Diagrams Size: Up to 1 square foot per linear foot of canopy per tenant. NTS Canopy Signage: Maximum Aggregate Area per Tenant (Square Feet = SF) Location: Signs shall be located within the areas designated on the building elevations Tenant #1: 0 sf; No canopy noted Tenant #2 20 sf within this plan. Tenant #3 20 sf Tenant #4 20 sf Tenant #5 20 sf Tenant #6 0 sf; No canopy noted Tenant #7 20 sf Tenant #8 18 sf Lighting: Internally lit or halo lit. All lit signage shall appear to be lit 'white' at night. Tenant #9 20 sf Tenant #10 20 sf Colors: Sign faces may consist of a maximum of 2 colors. Alternative signage or signage Note: The Code allows by-right: (1) square foot per linear foot of canopy, maximum of (20) square feet. not consistent with this CSP will require amendment of the CSP. Sign returns shall be Note: Per Section 34-1034 - Illumination: Each outside lighting installation and each painted a color harmonious with the surface on which the sign is mounted. All lit signage illuminated sign shall be controlled by a time switch. shall appear to be lit 'white' at night. Hillsdale Place : Comprehensive Sign Plan 08.29.2019 4 3'-6" Max. TENANT SIGNS Projecting Signs Top of Sign 25' Max. from Grade Type and Mounting: Projecting Signs shall be mounted perpendicular to the building Halo Lit Channel letter/Graphics wall and shall be double sided. Signs shall be fabricated of metal and may incorporate dimensional plastic or metal graphics. Signage must be located on exterior wall space associated with that tenant. Size: 30 SF Maximum, and projecting no more than 3'-6" beyond the facade of the Dimensional Letters/Graphics building to which it is attached. (i.e. push-through letters) Location: No part of a projecting sign shall be lower than 8' above grade or higher than TENANT 20' above grade LOGO Lighting: Projecting signs may incorporate internal lighting or external lighting and illuminated letters. All lit signage shall appear to be lit 'white' at night. Colors: Signs may consist of a maximum of 2 colors. Additionally, corporate logos are allowed with a max of 4 colors. Alternative signage or signage not consistent with this Fabricated Metal Sign Body CSP will require amendment of the CSP. Colors shall be harmonious with surface to which the sign is mounted. Front View Side View NTS NTS Example Projecting Sign Diagrams Projecting Signage: Maximum Aggregate Area per Tenanat (Square Feet = SF) Under Canopy Signs NTS Tenant #1: 30 sf Tenant #2 30 sf Tenant #3 30 sf Tenant #4 30 sf Tenant #5 30 sf Tenant #6 30 sf Type and Mounting: Under Canopy Signs shall be hung from the bottom of a projecting Tenant #7 30 sf Tenant #8 30 sf canopy. Signs shall be fabricated of metal and may incorporate dimensional plastic or Tenant #9 30 sf Tenant #10 30 sf metal graphics. Note: The Code allows by-right: No projecting sign shall exceed an area of (30) square feet. Size: 4 SF Maximum per tenant. Maximum of (1) sign per tenant. Under canopy signs shall be located only wihtin areas indicated on the elevations for Canopy Signs. Under Canopy Signage: Maximum Aggregate Area per Tenanat (Square Feet = SF) Location: No part of an Under Canopy Sign shall be lower than 8' above grade or higher Tenant #1: 4 sf Tenant #2 4 sf than 20' above grade or higher than area indicated on elevations for Canopy Signs. Tenant #3 4 sf Tenant #4 4 sf Lighting: Under Canopy Signs may incorporate internal lighting and illuminated letters. TENANT Tenant #5 Tenant #7 4 sf 4 sf Tenant #6 Tenant #8 4 sf 4 sf LOGO Tenant #9 4 sf Tenant #10 4 sf All lit signage shall appear to be lit 'white' at night. Note: The Code does not specifically limit "Under-Canopy" signage. Colors: Signs may consist of a maximum of 2 colors. Additionally, corporate logos are allowed with a max of 4 colors. Alternative signage or signage not consistent with this CSP will require amendment of the CSP. Colors shall be harmonious with surface to which the sign is mounted. Dimensional Letters/Graphics w/ optional internal lighting Fabricated Metal Sandwich Signs Sign Body Allowed with owner's approval, but may be placed only on the concrete walk at the Note: For illustration only. Front View Side View storefronts and must be removed after hours. Sign designs to be provided by NTS NTS tenants. Example Under Canopy Sign Diagrams NTS Hillsdale Place : Comprehensive Sign Plan 08.29.2019 5 MONUMENT SIGNS Quantity: 3 Fabricated Aluminum Sign Cabinet Size: 24 SF maximum sign area. 6' tall maximum. Fabricated Aluminum Tenant Panels Location: See Site Key Plan Lighting: Internally lit. All lit signage shall appear to be lit 'white' at night. Illuminated Acrylic Push-Through letters (Logos and Lettering Materials: Aluminum sign cabinet with push-through Provided by Tenant) style letters. Accent materials may include phenolic panel or materials to match the building facade. Finishes: Building finishes per Sheet 19 of drawings approved for Entrance Corridor CoA, 5 August 2019. Landscaping: Signage structure. No signage information to be included in this area. Shrubs (+/- 5'-0" from typical monument sign) Dwarf Inkberry Holly, 24"-30" Height Trees (+/- 15'-0" from typical monument sign) White Oak, 10'-12' Height Monument Sign (For Illustration Only, Design Subject to Change 1"=1' Note: Tenant panel layout is conceptual and may be altered as necessary within the maximum allowable signage area of 24 SF. Hillsdale Place : Comprehensive Sign Plan 08.29.2019 6 Areas shown represent acceptable locations for signs, not actual One of three areas where wall signage will be SIGN LOCATIONS sign sizes. See page 4 for allowable wall mounted sign sizes. allowed above 20'-0" but no higher than 28'-0" Match Line Wall Sign Location Wall Sign Location 28'-0" 20'-0" 8'-0" Partial Front Elevation Shopping Center Wall Sign Match Wall Sign Location One of three areas Match Wall Sign Location Wall Sign Location Line where wall signage will Line Canopy Sign Location be allowed above 20'-0" Canopy Sign Location 28'-0" but no higher than 28'-0" 20'-0" 8'-0" Partial Front Elevation One of three areas where wall signage will be Canopy Sign Location Wall Sign Location allowed above 20'-0" but no higher than 28'-0" Match Line Wall Sign Location 28'-0" Canopy Sign Location 20'-0" 8'-0" Note: Signs shall be located within the areas designated on the building elevations within this Partial Front Elevation plan. Sign Locations shown do not represent the proprosed or mandatory location for any sign. Elevations are for conceptual illustration only and are subject to change. Building Elevations Hillsdale Place : Comprehensive Sign Plan 08.29.2019 7 Scale: 1/16”=1’-0” Areas shown represent acceptable locations for signs, not actual SIGN LOCATIONS sign sizes. See page 4 for allowable wall mounted sign sizes. One of three areas where wall signage will be allowed above 20'-0" but no higher than 28'-0" Wall Sign Location 28'-0" 20'-0" 8'-0" Left Side Elevation One of three areas where wall signage will be allowed above 20'-0" but no higher than 28'-0" Canopy Sign Location 28'-0" 20'-0" 8'-0" Right Side Elevation Note: Signs shall be located within the areas designated on the building elevations within this plan. Sign Locations shown do not represent the proprosed or mandatory location for any sign. Elevations are for conceptual illustration only and are subject to change. Building Elevations Hillsdale Place : Comprehensive Sign Plan 08.29.2019 8 Scale: 1/16”=1’-0” Areas shown represent acceptable locations for signs, not actual SIGN LOCATIONS Match sign sizes. See page 4 for allowable wall mounted sign sizes. Line Wall Sign Location 20'-0" 8'-0" Partial Rear Elevation Match Match Line Line 20'-0" 8'-0" Partial Rear Elevation Wall Sign Location Wall Sign Location Match Line 20'-0" 8'-0" Partial Rear Elevation Note: Signs shall be located within the areas designated on the building elevations within this plan. Sign Locations shown do not represent the proprosed or mandatory location for any sign. Elevations are for conceptual illustration only and are subject to change. Building Elevations Hillsdale Place : Comprehensive Sign Plan 08.29.2019 9 Scale: 1/16”=1’-0” ADJACENT PROPERTIES - EXISTING SIGNAGE Whole Foods (East of Hillsdale Dr.) Kroger (South of Hydraulic Rd.) Seminole Square (East of SeminoleTrail) Shops at Stonefield (West of Seminole Trail) Hillsdale Place : Comprehensive Sign Plan 08.29.2019 10