Agenda PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DOCKET TUESDAY, June 9, 2020 at 5:30 P.M. Virtual Meeting I. Commission Pre-Meeting (Agenda discussion(s)) Beginning: 5:00 p.m. Location: (Electronic/Virtual) II. Commission Regular Meeting Beginning: 5:30 p.m. Location: (Electronic/Virtual) A. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS B. UNIVERSITY REPORT C. CHAIR'S REPORT D. DEPARTMENT OF NDS i. CvillePlansTogether Update 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 – February 12, 2020 – Pre- meeting and Regular meeting 2. Minutes – February 26, 2020 –Work Session 3. Minutes – March 10, 2020 – Pre- meeting and Regular meeting 4. Site Plan – 1617 Emmet Street 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. ZM20-00001 - Flint Hill PUD – Landowners Belmont Station, LLC have submitted an application seeking a rezoning of approximately ten (10) acres of land, including multiple lots identified within City tax records as Tax Map and Parcel 200259310, 200259301, 200259290, 200259280, 200259270, 200259260, 200259370, 200259380, 200259350, 200259340, 200259330, 200259320, and a portion of 200196000 (collectively, “Subject Property”). The Subject Property has frontage on two unimproved platted streets (Flint Drive and Keene Court) and is accessible by stub-outs on Longwood Drive and Moseley Drive. The application proposes to change the zoning district classification of the Subject Property from R-1S (low density Residential Small Lot) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) subject to certain proffered development conditions (“Proffers”) and an approved PUD Development Plan. The Proffers include: (1) the density shall not exceed a maximum of sixty (60) residential units; (2) 15% of the residential units constructed on the site shall be Affordable Dwelling Units (ADUs) accessible to residents between 25% and 60% of the area median income with affordability provisions guaranteed through 30+ year deed restrictions. The rezoning would create a PUD referred to as “Flint Hill PUD” containing up to sixty (60) residential units divided between townhomes and multifamily buildings at an approximate density of 6 dwelling units per acre (DUA), with open space in the amount of about 5.1 acres. The Comprehensive Land Use Map for this area calls for Low Density Residential (15 DUA or less). The PUD Development Plan promises a development with the following unique characteristics and amenities: approximately thirty-four to forty- four (34-44) townhome style units, units off Flint Drive shall be rear loading, approximately sixteen to twenty (16-20) condominium style units distributed between two (2) multifamily buildings at the southern end of Keene Court, nature trails, and a central teardrop road with on street parking. The Subject Property’s current R-1S zoning does not allow townhouse or multifamily developments. The PUD Development Plan proposes construction of new streets to serve the constructed townhouses and multifamily units, and would require City Council to approve a vacation of the platted locations of Flint Drive and Keene Court. Review of the proposed vacation of streets for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan will be conducted as part of the public hearing process. The PUD Development Plan calls for disturbance of land within Critical Slopes area; this application also presents a request for a Critical Slopes Waiver per City Code Sec. 34-516(c). Information pertaining to this application may be viewed online at www.charlottesville.gov/agenda. Persons interested in this Rezoning may contact NDS Planner Matt Alfele by e-mail (alfelem@charlottesville.org). IV. COMMISSION’S ACTION ITEMS Continuing: until all action items are concluded. 1. Entrance Corridor – 1617 Emmet Street V. FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE/ADJOURN Tuesday, July 14, 2020 – 5:00 PM* Pre- Meeting Tuesday, July 14, 2020 – 5:30 PM* Regular Rezoning - ZM19-00004 – 909 Landonia Meeting Circle Site Plan – 167 Chancellor *if authorized 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, Accessory Dwelling Unit, Middle Density zoning and Affordable Dwelling Unit Site Plan and Entrance Corridor – Chick-fil-A Barracks Rd Entrance Corridor – Preston Turn Lane Project, Gallery Court Hotel Comp Plan Amendment – Small Area Plan – Starr Hill, Cherry Avenue Special Use Permit - Seminole Square (internal parcel – drive through) Site Plan – 612 West Main Street, Kappa Kappa Gamma (503 Rugby Rd), Chi Psi Fraternity (167 Chancellor St) 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. Individuals with disabilities who require assistance or special arrangements to participate in the public meeting may call the ADA Coordinator at (434) 970-3182 or submit a request via email to ada@charlottesville.gov. The City of Charlottesville requests that you provide a 48 hour notice so that proper arrangements may be made. During the local state of emergency related to the Coronavirus (COVID19), City Hall and City Council Chambers are closed to the public and meetings are being conducted virtually via a Zoom webinar. The webinar is broadcast on Comcast Channel 10 and on all the City's streaming platforms including: Facebook, Twitter, and www.charlottesville.gov/streaming. Public hearings and other matters from the public will be heard via the Zoom webinar which requires advanced registration here: www.charlottesville.gov/zoom . You may also participate via telephone and a number is provided with the Zoom registration or by contacting staff at 434-970-3182 to ask for the dial in number for each meeting. LIST OF SITE PLANS AND SUBDIVISIONS APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY 3/1/2020 TO 5/31/2020 1. Preliminary Site Plans 2. Final Site Plans a. 10th & E. High Medical Office Building – May 12, 2020 3. Site Plan Amendments a. Dairy Road Shared Use Path Site Plan Amendment #2 – March 13, 2020 b. Health Department ADA Improvements Site Plan Amendment – March 17, 2020 c. 317 Montebello Circle – Lumos Fiber Plan – April 30, 2020 d. Sigma Phi Epsilon Site Plan Amendment #2 – May 5, 2020 e. Ting Preston Avenue Cabinet - May 5, 2020 f. 324 Oak Street – May 8, 2020 g. Segra Fiber Build – Alderman Road Utility Plan – May 13, 2020 h. Shentel Emmet Street Utility Plan – May 15, 2020 i. Piedmont Avenue Infill Houses (TMP 17-61.1, 17-61, 17-60, 17-59) May 19, 2020 4. Subdivision a. BLA – 10th and High Street Consolidation – April 24, 2020 b. David Terrace (TMP 22-59) - May 12, 2020 The following items are provided at the end of the packet: 1. Minutes – February 12, 2020 – Pre- meeting and Regular meeting 2. Minutes – February 26, 2020 –Work Session 3. Minutes – March 10, 2020 – Pre- meeting and Regular meeting CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPT. OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A FINAL SITE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MEETING DATE: Tuesday, June 9, 2020 DEVELOPMENT NAME: 1617 Emmet Street (Starbucks) Final Site Plan APPLICATION NUMBER: P19-0146 Reason for Planning Commission Review: Final site plan reflects the proposed development of a property that is the subject of an existing or proposed special permit Planner: Joey Winter Date of Staff Report: May 21, 2020 Applicant: Mr. Alan Taylor, Riverbend Development Applicant’s Representative: Mr. Scott Collins, Collins Engineering Owner of Record: Angus & Emmet, LLC Application Information Property Street Address: 1617 Emmet Street North (“Subject Property”) Tax Map | Parcel Number: TM 40C-2 | 40C002000 Site Area (per GIS): 0.500 acres (21,780 ft2) Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Plan): Mixed Use Zoning District: Highway Corridor Mixed Used District (HW) Overlay District(s): Entrance Corridor Overlay Applicant’s Request Riverbend Development is seeking Planning Commission approval for the 1617 Emmet Street North (Starbucks) Final Site Plan. The owner is redeveloping the property at 1617 Emmet Street North as a Starbucks restaurant with a drive through window and Wells Fargo ATM. On June 3, 2019, City Council approved Special Use Permit SP19-00001 to authorize the establishment and operation of a restaurant with a drive through window at 1617 Emmet Street North. As per the City’s Zoning Ordinance, Planning Commission shall review this final site plan because it reflects the proposed development of property that is subject to a Special Use Permit. Page 1 of 5 P19-0146 1617 Emmet Street North (Starbucks) Final Site Plan Vicinity Map Context Map - General Land Use Plan, 2013 Comprehensive Plan Purple: Mixed Use; Yellow: Low Density Residential; Orange: High Density Residential Page 2 of 5 P19-0146 1617 Emmet Street North (Starbucks) Final Site Plan Standard of Review Site plan approval is a ministerial function of Planning Commission in which no discretion is involved. If this final site plan contains all required information then it must be granted approval. If Planning Commission disapproves this plan, it shall set forth in writing the specific reasons therefor. The reasons for disapproval shall identify deficiencies in this plan which cause the disapproval, by reference to specific ordinances, laws or regulations. If this plan is disapproved, Planning Commission must also generally identify modifications or corrections that will permit approval of this plan. Site Plan Requirements A. Compliance with applicable zoning district regulation [City Code - Sec. 34-756 to 34-760] Staff has determined that this site plan complies with requirements of the Highway Corridor Mixed Use District (“HW”). B. Compliance with the City’s Erosion and Sediment Control ordinance [City Code - Chapter 10] Staff has determined that this final site plan complies with the City’s Erosion and Sediment Control ordinance. A full Erosion and Sediment Control Plan is not required because disturbed area is under 6,000 ft2. C. Compliance with the City’s site plan requirements [City Code - Sec. 34-827 to 34-828] Staff has determined that this site plan contains the following information as required: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS [Sec. 34-827(d)] SHEET(S) 1. General site plan information 1 2. Existing condition and adjacent property information 2 3. Phasing plan N/A 4. Topography and grading 4 5. Existing landscape and trees 2 6. Name and location of all water features N/A 7. One hundred-year flood plain limits N/A 8. Existing and proposed streets and associated traffic information 1 9. Location and size of existing water and sewer infrastructure 3 10. Proposed layout for water/sanitary sewer facilities & storm drain facilities 3 11. Location of other existing and proposed utilities and utility easements 4 12. Location of existing and proposed ingress to and egress from the property 4 13. Location and dimensions of all existing and proposed improvements 4 14. All areas intended to be dedicated or reserved for public use N/A 15. Landscape plan 5 16. Where deemed appropriate due to intensity of development: a. Estimated traffic generation figures based upon current ITE rates 6 b. Estimated vehicles per day 6 Page 3 of 5 P19-0146 1617 Emmet Street North (Starbucks) Final Site Plan FINAL SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS [Sec. 34-827(d)] SHEET(S) 1. Signage information 1 2. Specific written schedules or notes as necessary ALL SHEETS 3. Information on residential units N/A 4. Proposed grading: maximum two-foot contours 4 5. Detailed plans for proposed water and sanitary sewer facilities 3, 6 6. Detailed stormwater management, construction, drainage, & grading plans 4 7. Typical street sections, ingress/egress from site 3 8. Information on parking and loading areas 1, 3 9. Final landscape plan 5 10. Signature panel for the preparer ALL SHEETS 11. Signature panels for City officials 1 D. Additional information to be shown on the site plan as deemed necessary by the director or Commission in order to provide sufficient information for the director or Commission to adequately review the site plan. The Special Use Permit approved by City Council on June 3, 2019 includes the following conditions for the 1617 Emmet Street North (Starbucks) Final Site Plan: 1. No alteration of any existing building, structure or canopy on the Subject Property shall be commenced prior to the landowner obtaining a certificate of appropriateness from the City’s entrance corridor review board as required by City Code §§34-306 et seq. NO ALTERATIONS WILL OCCUR PRIOR TO ENTRANCE CORRIDOR REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL 2. The final site plan for the Special Use shall depict the type, size and location of additional signage and pavement markings (to include both lane lines and text) to designate the vehicular travelways for the drive-through window as well as non-drive-through vehicular traffic. All vehicular traffic within the Subject Property shall be one-way traffic. SEE SHEET 3 OF THE SITE PLAN 3. The landowner shall establish and maintain on the Subject Property a handicapped access lane that extends to and connects with the sidewalk along Angus Road. SEE SHEET 3 OF THE SITE PLAN PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED No public comment was received during the final site plan review process. A public site plan conference was held on November 6, 2019. Page 4 of 5 P19-0146 1617 Emmet Street North (Starbucks) Final Site Plan STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the 1617 Emmet Street North (Starbucks) Final Site Plan be approved. ATTACHMENTS 1) 1617 EMMET STREET NORTH (STARBUCKS) FINAL SITE PLAN – for approval 2) SP19-00001 - RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO AUTHORIZE THE ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF A RESTAURANT WITH A DRIVE-THROUGH WINDOW AT 1617 EMMET STREET (RT. 29) NORTH – approved by City Council on June 3, 2019 3) CITY CODE SECTION 34-827 – Preliminary site plan contents 4) CITY CODE SECTION 34-828 – Final site plan contents Page 5 of 5 "'·<¥1Cltl J.TY,, MAP ' =1.,500"' 0 1617 EMMET STREET SCALEf'1" GENERAL NOTES: OWNER: ANGUS & EMMET, LLC f 6<6 ) Big Lot s 455 2ND STREET <-!!, CHARLOTIESVILLE, VA 22902 DEVELOPER: RIVERBEND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEER: 455 2ND STREET CHARLOTIESVILLE, VA 22902 COLLINS ENGINEERING 200 GARRETI STREET, SUITE K CHARLOTIESVILLE, VA 22902 FINAL SITE PLAN THE MEADOWS PROPERTY: TMP 40C002000 1617 EMMET STREET N CHARLOTIESVILLE, VA 22902 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA !! LOCATION OF PROJECT: 1617 EMMET STREET, CHARLOTIESVILLE, VA 22902 TOTAL ACREAGE OF SITE: TOTAL ACREAGE: 0.50 ACRES EXISTING ZONING: HW WITH DRIVE-THRU WINDOW AND ENTRANCE CORRIDOR REVIEW. A SPECIAL USE PERMIT ---..:-:---­ PROJECT SITE- - - - 2 (SP19-00001) WAS APPROVED ON JUNE 3, 2019 FOR THE RESTAURANT DRIVE-THRU WINDOW, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS SHALL BE OBTAINED FROM THE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR 1r REVIEW BOARD PRIOR TO ANY ALTERATIONS OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE OR CANOPY. 2. THE FINAL SITE PLAN SHALL INCLUDE ADDITIONAL SIGNING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS, INCLUDING BOTH LANE LINES AND TIEXT, TO DESIGNATE THE TRAVEL WAYS FOR DRIVE THROUGH AND NON-DRIVE THROUGH TRAFFIC AND SPECIFY THAT ALL TRAFFIC IS ONE WAY. U> 3. THE HANDICAP ACCESS LANE SHALL BE EXTENDED SO THAT IT CONNECTS WITH THE SIDEWALK z EXISTING USE: ON ANGUS ROAD. COMMERCIAL BANK WITIH DRIVE-THRU WINDOW 0 ....U> PROPOSED USE: STORMWATIER MANAGEMENT RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE-THRU WINDOW AND DRIVE-THRU ATM MACHINE EXISTING SITE IS PRIMARILY IMPERVIOUS. NO ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS AREA IS PROPOSED WITH THIS .... APPLICATION. THE AREA OF DISTURBANCE ON TIHE PROPERTY IS LESS THAN 6,000 SF; THEREFORE, NO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IS REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT. IN ADDITION, THE TOTAL ONSITE > w CONCRETE: RETAINING WALL IMPERVIOUS AREA IS BEING REDUCED WITH THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, SEE OVERALL IMPERIOUS -­ w- w- ­ WA Tf:RLINE ~ AREA CALCULATIONS BELOW. SETBACKS: PRIMARY STREET FRONTAGE: 5' MINIMUM AND 30' MAXIMUM - s -­ s - SANITARY SEWER LINKING STREET FRONTAGE: 5' MINIMUM AND 20' MAXIMUM ___ ., - - ­ OVERHEAD UllLITY SIDE AND REAR: NONE REQUIRED (ADJACENT TO EXISTING HW PROPERTY) --UGT-­ UNDERGROUND UllLITY USGS DATUM: NAD 83 EAR7H DITCH MAXIMUM HEIGHT: MINIMUM HEIGHT = NONE, & MAXIMUM HEIGHT = 80' (EXISTING 1~ STORY BUILDING WITH CANOPY) DRIVEWAY CUL VERT GROSS FLOOR AREA: 2,375 +/- SF * BENCH MARK SITE PHASING: LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE: PROJECT TO BE DEVELOPED IN (1) PHASE PROPOSED LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE = 5,960 SF (SEE SHEET 2 FOR LIMITS OF LOD) -··-··-··­ LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE VDOT STANDARD STOP SIGN FLOODPLAIN: THERE ARE NO FLOODPLAIN LIMITS WITHIN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY PER FEMA MAP#51003C0286D, -------;!(}(]------­ EX/SllNG CONTOUR PANEL #0286D DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2005. ----<@>--­ PROPOSED CONTOUR STREAM BUFFER: THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT IMPACT A STREAM BUFFER. WATERCOURSE, OR FLOODPLAIN. NONE OF THESE ARE LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY. ~ 240.55 PROPOSED SPOT ELEVA llON TBC DENOTf:S TOP/BACK OF CURB l!J SURVEY: UTILITIES: BOUNDARY OF THE SITE AND SURVEY WAS PROVIDED BY ROUDABUSH, GALE & ASSOCIATES, MAY 2018. THE SITE WILL BE SERVED BY PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER. LIGHT FIXTURE z - CRITICAL SLOPES: NONE THAT MEET THE CONDITIONS OF THE CITY ORDINANCE SECTION 34-1120 FOR LOT REGULATIONS Sheet List Table AREAS PUBLIC USE: CURRENTLY, THERE IS NO LAND ON THIS PROPERTY THAT IS PROPOSED FOR PUBLIC USE. ..• Sheet Number Sheet Title . a INGRESS AND EGRESS: ACCESS TO BUILDING PARKING SHALL BE FROM ANGUS ROAD AND FROM AN ACCESS EASEMENT . 1 COVER SHEET & LAYOUT THROUGH THE BEST BUY ENTRANCE ON EMMET STREET. SITE CIRCULATION AS SHOWN ON SHEET 3. .. 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS & DEMOLITION PLAN LIGHTING PLAN: ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING IS EXISTING AND THE LAMP FIXTURES SHALL BE REPLACED WITH THE •· .. . . .. . . I .: ···­ ...... . ... . .. .. . r-------T--­ -~., ... '.v .... ; :. . -­ . . ... . "' .• . .. ·~ ... -~ .... ... .. " .·. . ­ .·· .... ,. . 3 LAYOUT, SITE AND UTILITY PLAN N w ' : PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. NOTE, ONE LIGHT FIXTURE THAT SHALL BE SHIFTED 2.5' WITH THE ' .... -. ..... • • ·.• .• . ... v 4 GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN 0 MODIFICATIONS OF THE DRIVE THROUGH AISLE. THIS SHIFT IN THE LIGHT FIXTURE WILL NOT AFFECT 20 0 20 40 60 5 LANDSCAPING PLAN O> N z THE OVERALL LIGHTING ACROSS THE PARKING LOT, NOR WILL IT CAUSE ANY ADDITIONAL LIGHTING TO ··~-~-~-~-~~~~~~1-----1·----~ US ROUTE 29 6 NOTES & DETAILS ::i w :; N LEAVE THE SITE. THE UPDATED LIGHTING SHALL BE FULL OBLIQUE SHIELDING OUTDOOR LIGHTING, WHICH SHALL NOT EMIT LIGHT ABOVE THE LINE OF SIGHT TO THE LIGHT SOURCES WHEN VIEWED ~···· SCALE: 1"=20' I EMMET STREET VARIABLE WIDTH R/W 6 TOTAL SHEETS a.. w FROM THE PROTECTED PROPERTIES. THE SHIELD SHALL BLOCK DIRECT ILLUMINATION OF PROTECTED PROPERTIES AND THE FIXTURE SHALL COMPLETELY CONCEAL AND RECESS THE LIGHT SOURCE FROM FIRE 1. 2. DEPARTMENT NOTES: ALL SIGNAGE AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE MUTCD. IFC 505- THE BUILDING STREET NUMBER TO BE PLAINLY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET FOR EMERGENCY RESPONDERS. NOTES: CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ON PLANS IN AREAS OF CONSTRUCTION PRIOR TO STARTING WORK. CONTACT ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF LOCATION OR ELEVATION IS OIFFERENT FROM THAT SHOWN ON THE PLANS. z >- - w ...J ft I­ V> - z ALL VIEWING POSITIONS EXCEPT THOSE POSITIONS PERMITIED TO RECEIVE ILLUMINATION. SPILLOVER IF THERE APPEARS TO BE A CONFLICT, AND UPON DISCOVERY OF ANY UTILITY NOT SHOWN ON THE PLJ\NS. 3. IFC 506.1-AN APPROVED KEY BOX SHALL BE MOUNTED TO THE SIDE OF THE FRONT OR MAIN ENTRANCE. TIHE CHARLOTTESVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT CARRIES THE KNOX ...J LIGHT FROM LUMINARIES ONTO PUBLIC ROADS AND ONTO ADJACENT PROPERTY SHALL NOT EXCEED BOX MASTER KEY. A KNOX BOX KEY BOX CAN BE ORDERED BY GOING ONLINE TO WWW.KNOXBOX.COM. TIHE KNOX BOX ALLOWS ENTRY TO THE BUILDING WITHOUT THE CONTRACTOR MUST LOCATE ALL SURFACE AND SUB-SURFACE UTILmES PRIOR TO ANY WORK ONSITE. _J DAMAGING THE LOCK AND DOOR SYSTEM. (1 /2) FOOT CANDLES. ANY SIDEWALK AND/OR CURB DAMAGE IDENTIFIED IN THE SITE ~CINm' DUE TO PROJECT CONSTRUCTION ACTMTIES PS DETERMINED BY THE Cf) <( l!J - 4. STRUCTURES WITH FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS SHALL INDICATE THE LOCATION OF ANY FIRE LINE TO THE BUILDING(S) AS WELL AS THE LOCATION OF FIRE DEPARTMENT CITY INSPECTOR SHALL BE REPAIRED AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. SIDEWALK WILL BE REPLACED AT THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY SITE TRIP GENERATION AND LAND USE ITE CODE 10TIH EDITION: SEE TIA ANALYSIS - SHEET 5 CONNECTIONS. INSPECTOR. ANY EXISTING SIDEWALK THAT IS CURRENTLY DAMAGED AND IN NEED OF REPAIR OR NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT w ~ STANDARDS SHOULD BE REPLACED AS PART OF THIS PROJECT AS WELL IN ADDITION, ANY EXISTING CG-12S ALONG THE PERIMETER OF ~ 5. FIRE HYDRANTS, FlRE PUMP TEST HEADER, FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONS OR FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTIEM CONTROL VALVES SHALL REMAIN CLEAR AND EXISTING VEGETATION: LANDSCAPING AND TREES AROUND THE EXISTING BUILDING AND PARKING LOT UNOBSTRUCTED BY LANDSCAPING, PARKING OR OTIHER OBJECTS. THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE NO LONGER ALLOWS ANY TYPE OF LANDSCAPING TO BE PLACED IN THE SITE SHOULD BE UPGRADED TO MEET CURRENT STANDARD IF NEEDED. u.. w z FRONT OF AND WITHIN 5 FEET OF FIRE HYDRANTS, FIRE PUMP TEST HEADERS, FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONS OR FlRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM CONTROL VALVES. ALL SIGNING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHAU. BE CONSISTENT WITH THE MUTCO. PARKING REQUIREMENTS: 6. AN APPROVED WATER SUPPLY FOR FIRE PROTECTION SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE AS SOON AS COMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL ARRIVES ON THE SITE. 0 I PARKING REQUIRED: 7. ALL PAVEMENT SHALL BE CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING FIRE APPARATUS WEIGHTING 85,000 LBS. A TEMPORARY STREET CLOSURE PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR CLOSURE OF SIDEWALKS, PARKING SPACES AND ROADWAYS AND IS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE Cm' TRAFFIC ENGINEER. ...J {,/) 1 SPACE PER 125 SF OF PUBLIC FLOOR AREA + 1 SPACE PER 400 SF OF NON-PUBLC 8. IFC 1404.1-SMOKING TO BE ALLOWED IN ONLY DESIGNATED SPACES WITH PROPER RECEPTACLES."NO SMOKING" SIGNS SHALL BE POSTED AT EACH BUILDING SITE AND 0:: ~ WITHIN EACH BUILDING DURING CONSTRUCTION. SPECIFICALLY, SMOKING WILL ONLY BE ALLOWED OUTSIDE TIHE CONSTRUCTION SITE ENTRANCE. SITE AND BUIWING CONSTRUCTION SHALL MEET 2006 IBC SECTION 3409 FOR ACCESSIBILITY AND VA USBC 103.3 FOR CHANGE OF <( AREA 2,375 SF = 2,000 SF (PUBLIC SPACE) & 375 SF (NON-PUBLIC SPACE) (2000 SF x 1 SPACE / 125 SF) + (375 SF x 1 SPACE / 400 SF) = 17 SPACES 9. 10. 11. 12. IFC 1404.2-WASTE DISPOSAL OF COMBUSTIBLE DEBRIS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE BUILDING AT TIHE END OF EACH WORKDAY. IFC 1410.1-ACCESS TO TIHE BUILDING DURING DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE MAINTAINED. IFC 1404.6-CUTTING AND WELDING. OPERATIONS INVOLVING THE USE OF CUTIING AND WELDING SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTIER 26, OF TIHE INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE, ADDRESSING WELDING AND HOTWORK OPERATIONS. IFC 1414.1-FIRE EXTINGUISHERS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITIH NOT LESS THAN ONE APPROVED PORTABLE FIRE EXTINGUISHER AT EACH STAIRWAY ON ALL FLOOR LEVELS OCCUPANCY. ACCESSIBLE ROUTES FROM THE PARKING AREAS TO THE BUILDINGS AND THE MtENmES SHALL BE PROVIDED WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT, AS SHOWN ON SHEET 3. THE SITE INCLUDES A MINIMUM OF 60X ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCES FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. w I (.) 6 u w TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED = 17 SPACES WHERE COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS HAVE ACCUMULATED. THE CROSS SLOPE OF ALL WALKING SURFACES SHALL NOT BE STEEPER THAN 2Jli. ALL SIDEWALKS SHALL HA.VE A CROSS SLOPE OF 271i 13. REQUIRED VEHICLE ACCESS FOR FIRE FIGHTING SHALL BE PROVIDED TO ALL CONSTRUCTION OR DEMOLITION SITIES. VEHICLE ACCESS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO WITHIN OR LESS. ~ U1 PARKING PROVIDED: 24 SPACES BICYCLE PARKING: 1 SPACE PER 1,000 SF OF PUBLIC SPACE 1DO FEET OF TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONS. VEHICLE ACCESS SHALL BE PR0\4DED BY EITHER TIEMPORARY OR PERMANENT ROADS, CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING VEHICLE LOADING UNDER ALL WEATHER CONDITIONS. VEHICLE ACCESS SHALL BE MAINTAINED UNTIL PERMANENT FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS PUBLIC USE AND COMMON USE AREAS SHALL BE READILY ACCESSIBLE TO AND USABLE BY A PERSON WITH DISABILITIES. ALL DOORS DESIGNED TO ALLOW PPSSAGE INTO AND WITHIN ALL PREMISES WITHIN SUCH DWELLINGS SHAU. BE SUFFICIENTLY WIDE TO ALLOW PPSSAGE w I­ 1 SPACE/1000 SF x 1,800 SF OF PUBLIC SPACE = 2 SPACES REQUIRED ROADS ARE AVAILABLE. BY HANDICAPPED PERSONS IN WHEELCHAIRS; AND ALL PREMISES WITHIN SUCH DWEWNGS CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING FEATURES OF -=> z ADAPTABLE DESIGN, INCLUDING AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE INTO AND THROUGH THE DWEWNG, LIGHT SWITCHES, ELECTRICAL OUTLETS, 14. OVERHEAD WIRING OR OTIHER OBSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE HIGHER THAN 13 FEET 6 INCHES. THERMOSTATS, AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS IN ACCESSIBLE LOCATIONS, REINFORCEMENTS IN BATHROOM WALLS TO ALLOW LATER REQUIRED BICYCLE PARKING: 2 SPACES 15. ALL SIGNS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE IX, SECTION 34-1020 CITY CODE. INSTALLATION OF GRAB BARS, AND USABLE KITCHENS AND BATHROOMS SUCH THAT AN INDIVIDUAL IN A WHEELCHAIR CAN MANEl.NER ABOUT 16. VSFPC 506.1.2- AN ELEVATOR KEY BOX SHALL BE PROVIDED / INSTALLED. THE SPACE. Cf) -...J PROVIDED BICYCLE PARKING: 2 SPACES 17. VSFPC 905.3.1 - A CLASS I STANDPIPE SYSTEM MUST BE INSTALLED IN ADDITION TO THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM SINCE THE FLOOR LEVEL OF THE HIGHEST STORY IS ft ALL ACCESSIBLE FACILITIES ON SITE SHALL BE CONNECTED WITH AT LEAST ONE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE FROM PEDESTRIAN ARRIVAL POINTS. IMPERVIOUS AREA: EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA MORE THAN 30 FEET ABOVE THE LOWEST LEVEL OF FIRE DEPARTMENT VEHICLE ACCESS. 1­ 18. VSFPC 903.5.2 - A SECONDARY WATER SUPPLY TO THE BUILDING's FIRE PUMP IS REQUIRED SINCE THE PROPOSED BUILDING HAS AN OCCUPIED FLOOR LOCATED MORE ALL INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR SPACES PRO't1DED PS PART OF OR SERVING AN ACCESSIBLE DWELLING UNIT OR SLEEPING UNIT SHALL BE w BUILDING/CANOPY: 3,090 SF BUILDING/CANOPY: 3,090 SF 19. TIHAN 75' ABOVE THE LOWEST LEVEL OF TIHE FIRE DEPARTMENT VEHICLE ACCESS. VSFPC 912.2.1- ALL FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONS, FDC, SHALL BE LOCATED ON THE STREET SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE UNLESS OTIHERWISE APPROVED BY THE FIRE ACCESSIBLE AND BE LOCATED ON AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE. MOREOVER, THE FHA REQUIRES A 32" CLEAR WIDTH FOR ENTRY TO THE DUMPSTER DOOR. w PAVEMENT/PARKING: 14,370 SF PAVEMENT/PARKING/DUMPSTER: 13,225 SF CODE OFFICIAL. GREASE TRAPS SHALL BE PRO't1DED FOR Al<( BUILDING THAT MAY PRODUCE WASTES CONTAINING MORE THAN 100 PARTS PER MIWON OF 0:: SIDEWALK: 360 SF SIDEWALK: 360 SF 20. VSFPC 3311.1 - WHERE A BUILDING HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED TO A HEIGHT GREATER THAN 50 FEET OR FOUR ( 4) STORIES, AT LEAST ONE TEMPORARY LIGHTED FATS, OILS, OR GREASE. I­ STAIRWAY SHALL BE PROVIDED UNLESS ONE OR MORE OF THE PERMANENT STAIRWAYS ARE ERECTED AS THE CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSES. BMP DATA FOR THIS PROJECT· C/) = OPEN LANDSCAPING AREA: PAVED PARKING AND CIRCULATION: 5, 105 SF (0.12 ACRES) - 13,225 SF 23.4% OPEN SPACE / LANDSCAPING AREA (LOT COVERAGE 76.6%) 21. 22. VSFPC 3312.1 - AN APPROVED WATER SUPPLY FOR FlRE PROTIECTION SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE AS SOON AS COMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL ARRIVES ON THE SITE. VSFPC 3313.1 - BUILDINGS FOUR OR MORE STORIES IN HEIGHT SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH NOT LESS THAN ONE STANDPIPE FOR US DURING CONSTRUCTION. SUCH BMP OWNERSHIP INFORMATION: ANGUS & EMMET, LLC 455 2ND STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 ...J ~ AREA TO BE DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USE: NONE STANDPIPES SHALL BE INSTALLED WHEN THE PROGRESS OF CONSTRUCTION IS NOT MORE THAN 40 FEET IN HEIGHT ABOVE TIHE LOWEST LEVEL OF FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS. SUCH STANDPIPE SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH FlRE DEPARTMENT HOSE CONNECTIONS AT ACCESSIBLE LOCATIONS ADJACENT TO USABLE STAIRS. SUCH w CONSERVATION AREA: SIGNAGE: NONE SIGNS SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED, ERECTED, PAINTED, CONSTRUCTED, STRUCTURALLY ALTERED, HUNG, 23. STANDPIPES SHALL BE EXTENDED AS CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSES TO WITHIN ONE FLOOR OF THE HIGHEST POINT OF CONSTRUCTION HAVING SECURED DECKING OR FLOORING. GUARDRAILS REQUIRED AT THE TOP OF ALL RETAINING WALLS WITH A GRADE DIFFERENCE EXCEEDING 30". TYPE OF BMP INSTALLED: GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION (HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE} NONE LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF EMMET STREET &ANGUS ROAD (PREDOMINANT HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP TYPE 121C} 0 0:: 0:: <( u 24. HANDRAILS REQUIRED AT BOTH SIDES OF STAIRS. 1nc ..... ,,·1:;, ~~ REHUNG OR REPLACED EXCEPT IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS APPROVED SITE PLAN. ANY CHANGES IN 0 0 25. 5' SIDE SETBACKS HAVE A RESTRICTIVE BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENT FOR % OPENINGS AND EXTERIOR WALL FIRE RATINGS. THESE CALCULATIONS WILL BE SHOWN ON ULTIMATELY DISCHARGING INTO: RIVANNA RIVER WATERSHED (!) c SIGNS FROM THIS APPROVED SITE PLAN OR ANY ADDITIONS TO THE NUMBER OF SIGNS SHALL BE TIHE BUILDING AND ARCHITECTURAL PLANS. No. OF ACRES TREATED BY BMPs: 0.50 ACRES TOTAL {EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA - NONE TREATED WITH THIS SITE PLAN AMENDMEND "c ~ ~ 0 26. A MINIMUM OF 98" HEIGHT CLEARANCE IS REQUIRED AT PARKING GARAGE DOORS AND CLEARANCE AT HANDICAP PARKING SPACES. TIHIS CLEARANCE WILL BE SHOWN 0 wn E . ALLOWED ONLY AFTER AMENDMENT OF TIHIS SITE PLAN BY THE DIRECTOR OF NEIGHBORHOOD DESCRIPTION OF REQUIRED NONE 0 ON THE BUILDING AND ARCHITECTURAL PLANS. " w DEVELOPMENT SERVICES OR TIHE PLANNING COMMISSION. MAINTENANCE: N g ·~ 27. A PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR FIRE LINE INSTALLATION. A DETAILED DRAWING (2 SETS) SHOWING FITTINGS AND THRUST BLOCKS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITIH THE PERMIT tu u " FIRE FLOW: THERE ARE EXISTING FIRE HYDRANTS ALONG EMMET STREET AND ANGUS ROAD THAT PROVIDE FIRE APPLICATION. ONCE INSTALLED, THE FIRE LINE REQUIRES A VISUAL INSPECTION AND PRESSURE TEST INSPECTION BY THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE. OWNER's SIGNATURE AGREEING w :c ~~ ~ 28. AN OUTSIDE STAND-ALONE OR WALL MOUNTED ELECTRICALLY MONITORED POST INDICATOR VALVE IS REQUIRED ON THE FIRE LINE AND ITS LOCATION SHALL BE TO MAINTAIN FACILITY: U) ,Q .: PROTECTION FOR THE SITE. BASED ON THE FIRE FLOWS FROM THE EXISTING WATERLINES, THE FIRE INDICATED ON TIHE SITE PLAN. ~ ~ WATER FLOW CALCULATIONS: FLOW SHALL EXCEED 1500 GPM. SEE SHEET 6 FOR THE WATER FLOW AND WATER METER CALCULATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED USE 29. ALL PAVEMENT SHALL BE CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING FIRE APPARATUS WEIGHING 85,000 LBS. SIGNATURE PANEL I II t-""'"'J"'o"'B"'N:-:!o•.- - 1 092033 u " °20 0 u t--==,...---1 c SCALE o ~ £ SEWER FLOW CALCULATIONS: 50 GPD/SEAT x 37 SEATS = 1,850 GPD 1"=20' §8 DIRECTOR, NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT------------­ 1-------1o__ e- SHEET NO. w 5_ NOTE: THE _ATM _ _MACHINE SHALL _ _ REMAIN _ _ _ CLOSED UNTIL ALL SITE WORK _ _IS _COMPLIETED. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.... ~ . __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ____ ____ __ __ __ 1OF6 ~ 0~ --­ --­ --­ ---­ ---­ ---­ ----­ I \ I DEMOLITION NOTES: \ ---­ --­ --­ ---­ I I 1. PRIOR TO DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION, A FIRE PREVENTION PLAN MEETING MUST OCCUR AND A FIRE PREVENTION PLAN MUST BE SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BY THE FIRE MARSHAL. \ NOTE: THIS PROJECT DOES NOT REQUIRE AN EROSION CONTROL I I 2. THE CONIBACTOR SHALL ASSUME RESPONSIBILIT'I FOR ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOT SHOWN PLAN OR A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN, AS THE TOTAL I ON THIS PLAN SHEET AND SHALL DEMOLISH ALL DISCOVERED UTILITIES IF NOT IN USE, AS REQUIRED. LIMITS OF LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY IS LESS THAN 6,000 SF. I I I 3. THE CONIBACTOR SHALL VIDEO AND INSPECT ALL SANITARY SEWER PIPES AND MANHOLES SLATED TO REMAIN TO DETERMINE ADEQUATE SIBUCTURAL INTEGRIT'I. IF EXISTING SANITARY SEWER IS \ I DAMAGED, THE CONIBACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEER. \ THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE AWARE THAT IF THIS PROJECT DOES I 4. THE CONIBACTOR SHALL EXAMINE THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRIT'I OF EXISTING STORM SEWER I ---­ \ --------------­ EXCEED 6,000 SF LIMIT DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SITE I STRUCTURES TO REMAIN AND REPLACE TOPS AS NECESSARY. THIS CONDITION SHALL BE REFLECTED I \ l --­ --­ ,._IMPROVEMENTS A STOP WORK ORDER AND FINE WILL BE I IN THE CONTRACTOR BID. ---~--- ;--­ \ ISSUED BY THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, AND THE PROJECT WILL BE DELAYED WHILE AN OFFICIAL E&S AND SWM PLAN IS TMP 40C-1 N/F ANGUS INVESTORS, LLC I I I I • I • I I S. All EXISTING WATER, SANITARY, AND STORM SEWER SLATED FOR DEMOLITION SHALL BE REMOVED TO THE PROPERT'I LINE OR MAIN, AS DETERMINED BY THE ENGINEER AND INSPECTOR, UNLESS THEY ARE TO REMAIN. UTILITIES THAT ARE DISCONNECTED SHALL BE PROPERLY ABANDONED ATTHE MAIN LINE. FOR \ 6. \ CREATED FOR THE OVERALL SITE DEVELOPMENT. DB 1006 PG 306 I I I " WATER SERVICE LINES, THE CORP STOP MUST BE TURNED OFF ATlHE MAIN LINE AND THE SERVICE ---­ \ \ ZONING: HW I I I I • • I I DISCONNECTED FROM THE MAIN. FOR SEWER LATERALS, THE LATERAL TAP MUST BE SEALED AT THE MAIN LINE SO THAT IT JS WATER TIGHT AND THE LATERAL REMOVED FROM THE MAIN LINE. FOR SANITARY MANHOLES TO BE ABANDONED THE TOP 2' OF THE MANHOLE STRUCTURE SHALL BE \ \ \ USE: COMMERCIAL RETAIL I I I REMOVED, ALL LINES DISCONNECTED, AND THE MANHOLE SHALL REMOVED, ALL TAPS MUST BE \ \ I • LOCATED AND DISCONNECTED PER PROCEDURE ABOVE WHERE APPLICABLE. DB.1006, PG.306 \ I I I \ I STEEP SLOPE \ I 7. EXISTING ROOF DRAINS SLATED TO BE DEMOLISHED SHALL BE DISCONNECTED AND REMOVED; \ \ I • ROOFDRAINS TO BE REROUTED SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE ARCHITECT. \ \ AREAS '\\ I I 8. EXISTING DOMINION OVERHEAD/UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC LINES AND OVERHEAD UTILITIES THAT \ I • " \ ARE ACTIVE SHALL BE DISCONNECTED AND REROUTED. I I I \ I 9. ANY EXISTING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS FOUND SHALL BE PROPERLY DRAINED AND \ \ SDMH I • 5DMH/ DISPOSED OF BY THE OWNER AND CONTRACTOR. \ TOP=4B0.25' I SOMH /SDMH TOP=478.03~ 10. THE EXISTING MAINTENANCE BUILDING IS PROPOSED TO BE DEMOLISHED. WHERE A BUILDING IS \ I \ \ INV. IN=476.00' N3T58°00"E 172.89' TOP=480.1J' I I 1: INV. IN=471.43/ " BEING DEMOLISHED AND A STANDPIPE IS EXISTING WITHIN SUCH A BUILDING, THE CllY REQUIRES \ \ INY. OUT=476.DO' . '"'19!00471.Jll/ - t \ SN 476.84TC • #51003C0286D, DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2005. I - '-.. '-.. • I I I 2. BEFORE BEGINNING SITE WORK, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INVESTIGATE AND VERIFY THE EXISTENCE AND LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND z \ '-.. EXISTING CONCRElE ENTRANCE TO BE REMOVED • I UTILITIES, MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS, AND OTHER 0 ....U> \ \ "- -..._ AND RECONSTRUClED \IHH NEW ADA ACCESSIBLE _ __,_, '-.. SIDEWALK AT THE ENTRANCE. EXISTING STONE • I CONSTRUCTION AFFECTING THE WORK. BEFORE CONSTRUCTION THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE LOCATION AND INVERT ELEVATIONS AT \ \ \ x 475.66 -..._BASE TO REMAIN. PORTION OF ASPHALT DRLVEWAY TO BE RE-WORKED FOR TIE-IN • I I " POINTS OF CONNECTION OF SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER, AND WATER-SERVICE PIPING; UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL SERVICES, AND .... \ ATM / BYPASS LANE ' " " EXISTING STRIPING LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE TOTAL AREA: 4,695 SF CONiili::Q9N OF PARKING LOT TO THE ENTRANCE 475.89 '­ x ~ • • I I OTHER UTILITIES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH LOCATION DATA FOR WORK RELATED TO PROJECT THAT MUST BE PERFORMED BY PUBLIC UTILITIES SERVING THE PROJECT SITE. > w TO BE REMOVED I 6'\ 76.50 • 3. ALL WATER AND SANITARY SEWER LATERALS BEING DEMOLISHED SHALL ~ I \ \ 47S.7S x DEMO CURB AND SIDEWALK, / \ • I • I BE IDENTIFIED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND DEMOLISHED BACK TO THE MAIN WATER LINE AND SANITARY SEWER LINES IN THE STREET WHERE APPLICABLE. NEW SERVICES SHALL BE INSTALLED FOR THE PROPOSED BUILDINGS. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY SIZE, lYPE & LOCATION OF EXISTING MAIN STARTING AT THIS LOCATION \ - LINES. I 475.9BTC 0.6% - ----r•· UG "" 476.30TC \ I \ 476.43 475 " GENERAL NOTES: f SAW~UT EXISTING ;,r.-.~ /c-~=ll< SAWCUT EXISTING SN 1. THIS PLAT HAS BEEN PREPARED lllTH THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT \ L '-­ ASPHALT FOR _Q__ PREPARED BY CHICAGO lllLE INSURANCE COMPANY lllTH AN COMMITMENT • ASPJ;IALT FOR I -..._ 476.44 GAS UTILITY -­ I GAS UTILITY 2. DAlE OF MAY 9, 2018, COMMllMENT NO. SHTC18-736. THIS PLAT HAS BEEN PREPARED FROM AN ACTUAL FIELD SURVEY PORTION OF CURBING /i::i~~4~1s~·~:_~-+j__::IN~tALLATION 476.49 '-.. EXISTING EXT. LIGHT INSTALLATION COMPLElED ON MAY 18, 2018 USING MONUMENTS FOUND TO EXIST AT THE TO REMAIN TO BE RELOCATED TIME OF THIS SURVEY. \ \ ..i 15.6a .I f " 3. NO E"1DENCE OF RECENT EARTH MOVING WORK, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION, TMP 40B'r 1 \ EXISTING SIDEWALK ~ (/) I OR BUILDING ADDlllONS WAS OBSERVED IN THE PROCESS OF CONDUCTING THE FIELDWORK. l!J I~ 4. NO PROPOSED CHANGES IN STREET RIGHT OF WAY LINES, EVIDENCE OF N/F BEST BU~Y STORES, \ TO REMAIN REMOVE/DEMOLISH EXISTING z RECENT STREET OR SIDEWALK C N N z ::i ::s z '­ 474.S2 • I • I I " APPEARING OF RECORD IN DECLARATION RECORDED IN DEED BOOK 336, PAGE 177 AND IN DEED BOOK 349, PAGE 397; BUT OMITllNG ANY COVENANTS OR RESTRICllONS. IF ANY, BASED UPON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTAllON, FAMILIAL STATUS. MARITAL STATUS, DISABILITY, HANIJICAP, NATIONAL ORIGIN, ANCESTRY, OR SOURCE OF INCOME, AS SET FORlH IN APPLICABLE w :; a.. a.. w 0z - STATE OR FEDERAL LAWS, EXCEPT TO lHE EXTENT lHAT SAID COVENANT OR RESTRICTI~ / lHE LOCATION CANNOT BE DETERMINED FROM lHE RECORD DOCUMENT J. EASEMENT: GRANTED UNTO R. A. SAUNDERS DATED NOVEMBER 25, 1958, RECORDED IN ALBEMARLE DEED BOOK .549, PAGE 394. - ...J > _J ...J 0 I GRANTS EASEMENT Fill SE\\£R LINE ANO APPURTENANCES !HERETO, AT DESIGN ATEO ANO UNDESIGNATED LOCATIONS, \111H RIGHTS OF Cf) <( :E - '- '­ 20' WATER EASEMENT (AREA DOES NOT INCLUDE ,,, ,,, LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE--r INGRESS, EGRESS AND CLEARAGE. PLAT RECORDED 1HERE\111H SHOWS EASEMENT. w z w ACCESS EASEMENT DB 996 PG 557 I '- '-DB 929 PG 533 --.._ LIMITS OF BUILDING) SAWCUT PAVEMENT AND DEMO EXISTING CURB AND ~ __.,...­ SIDEWALK TO BE ~ ~ REMO)![!}- ~ TOTAL AREA: 165 SF AS SHOWN ON RELD SURVEY 4. EASEMENT: GRANTED UNTO R.A. SAUNDERS DATED NOVEMBER 25, 1956, RECORDED IN DEED BOOK 356, PAGE 578 IN THE CLERK'S OFFlCE OF lHE (ll'f OF CHARLOffiSVILlE, '.1RGNIA. GRANTS EASEMENT FOR SEWER LINE ANO APPURTENANCES lHERETO, AT l!J ~ u.. Cl Cl z DESIGNATED AND UNDESIGNATED LOCATIONS, \111H RIGHTS OF INGRESS, EGRESS AND CLEARAGE. I '\ PAVEMENT, SIDEWALK, AND CURBING / "'· I AS SHOWN ON FlELD SURVEY 0 z<( WITHIN THIS AREA / 5. PLAT MAOE BY \\IWAMS. ROUDABUSH. JR.. C.L.S.. DATED AUGUST 27. 1974. llllED "PHYSICAL SURVEY OF PROFERT'I LOCATED ...J I \ / 0:: 1­ --- --­ 474.04 AT lHE SOUlHWEST CORNER CJ" lHE INTERSECTI Cl ~ 1­ z U1 -=>w AS SHOWN ON RELD SURVEY I I ~~), ABAND N/DEMOLI H EXISTING I WATER METER BA K TO THE ORP o;m TOP=472.ZC' I I d. 60' BUILDING LINE PER DB 330 PG 177, 60' BUILDING LINE EXPIRED JULY 11, 1967. DOES NOT AFFECT SUBJECT PROPERTY. I­ w u0 ::E J INV. WT=46B.66' - s --s s -Is __ls B. PLAT MADE BY \\IWAM S. ROUDABUSH, ..R .. DAlED SEPTEMBER 12, 1967, z STOP N THE MAI WATERLIN ~ INV. ~=469.58' 472. 6 472.aui-r­ - ~72.67TC 472.23 • 12" R / Till.ED "PLAT SHOl'llNG A SURVEY OF PROPERT'I OF GULF OIL CORPORAllON LOCATED Cf) ::E l9 z - - I WV " AT lHE SOUlHWEST CORNER CJ" lHE INTERSECTI = UC T '- (j GT TSB / INV. IN D= 466.:32 12" RCP It.IV. IN E= 466.4i) 12" RCP AS SHOWN ON RELD SURVEY d. TELEPH4) r,'\4". EXIST DI WAlERLINE J.5 MIN. J MIN. ) --~Rt-A - MlNIMUM OF 85,000 LBS. ----- ---- --- N/F ANGUS INVESTORS, LLC I I I • I THAN 5%. 5. PER ADA 206.2.2 AT LEAST ONE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE SHALL CONNECT ACCESSIBLE BUILDINGS, FACILITIES, ELEMENTS AND SPACES ON THE SAME SITE. iS'slQNAL %'11 ROSSIN; DB 1006 PG 306 ---- ---- I •I 0 JB1tu\,';;-·' '--=-pmJt>os~-., . .,u~ ,_4_7_00 NOTE: 4 70 15 ,\ ZONING: HW I I I • I I ALL SIDEWALK \\1THIN THE LIMITS OF THE PROPERTY SHALL BE PRIVATE SIDEWALKS AND SHALL BE PRIVATELY h.IAINTAINED. I . ' Mlt .] // \ USE: COMMERCIAL RETAIL I I I I 0 MIN. ',, / PROPOSED ASPHALT PARKING LOT '\ • PARKING SPACES: I 1.5 Ml~ LATERAL TIE-IN PROPOSED \\ DB. f00 6, PG. 306 I PATCH- SEE PAVEMENT DETAIL, El i I 1. ALL PARKING SPACES SHALL BE 8.5'x18', EXCEPT AS NOTED. 2. PARKING SPACES MAY HAVE A MINIMUM DIMENSION OF 8.5'x16' WITH A 2' GRASS EXbT. 4" F,VC 15" RCP s· ORh.t CG-2 CURB INTO EXISTlNG ! SHEET 6 " f 0 OVERHANG AREA. h.IOST OF THE PARKING SPACES ARE EXISTING PARKING SPACES AS LINE SEWER CRO ,SING WITH A DIMENSION OF 9'x18'. 465 (1.5' Ml~.) 465 CONCRETE CURB ',, ' SDMH TOP=4B0.25' - SDMH : I PROPOSED NEW . . / .ADA A JsDMH 5DMH,· TOP=478.o:r I 3. HANDICAP PARKING SPACES SHALL BE 8'<18'. THERE IS (1) HANDICAP PARKING SPACE PROPOSED, AND THE HANDICAP SPACE SHALL BE VAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES. ALL HANDICAP PARKING SPACES SHALL BE INDICATED WITH A \ ~ INV. IN=476.00' HP=480.1J' I CONCRETE.SIDEWALK INV. IN=471.43i"< 0 SIGN. \ 1-- - - -""c-- - - - - - - - - - - - --'l.-----'iE'ii Xl:o;TI;;Frr'i S,;;NG E. LIG " rr. ~:"H'-'T_ ___,,~·~;:'"'"'·oo"'T,_·•"'""'' '--._ _ _ _ __:N.::3:.:7..:8' '5::::-o,._ "o"_.,_ E ,,..., 172,..,.8..,' 75,,.95,_·---~!-'1---~--- __.- 9_ ""'"-·'""uT,. .-4.,, ~ AT ENJRANCE INTO PARCEL I f ~\ "'· ouT-•11il '==========~~========================= r ' ""' ~~""' ~=======~=QfD -ftl13't ~EPLA=~~====== ·, ~~~~=rJ~~~~~~~~~'i'i~~~~~jj=====::::::::*':=-'."~__..--;:::.:::::::=:::::::::;::;""Ex SDMH J A. II I I l " 'Q f S D M H I Sl;ESfiEET4FORDETAILS. )~ , i I PAVEMENT DESIGN: 1. ALL PAVEh.IENT REPAIR SHALL HAVE A PAVEMENT CROSS SECTION OF 8" 21A 460 460 If ""' I I I I I I I I I EXISTING """ ',, • ~~ 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 , 1 18 • HOPE 1 1 1 ~'.,_I 1 1 /0 EXT. LIGHT BE REPLACED _ ~ __.., 48Q'NOTE: SIDEWALK SHALL BE FLUSH WITH PAVEMENT & NO CROSS ~LOPE , / 1• • J Q SUB-BASE AND A 3" SM-9.A ASPHALT TOPCOAT. I ~ >> WW ~~~~~~~~~-- ~~~~~~===============~====~~t;;:.~~~~~4~ 7B ~~~;;;;~~=',~~~~~ I SITE NOTES• ~LP <: ~ i 1. ALL SIDEWALKS AND WALKWAYS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM CLEAR WIDTH OF 5' -'-' \ WW " ):,LP CONCRETE RETAINING WALL SN " 0 2. ALL WALKWAY CROSSINGS SHALL MEET MINIMUM ADA ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS U> ~ .,___=__ =~.,.-=~20·==-==-::r==:~- _ _ _ =8·-=r=-=====~==;0:::5~=~~ . ..= . ==~001~~~ ~~~ //~ /~~ ,7?,/"?=L=r~~\ ~ ~·.. ...~:tt . ; ~,TR:~~~Tk~l~~~¢iLK z AND SHALL HAVE A CROSS SLOPE OF 2% OR LESS. @~ " fj. t. ; g - . . rrr ' ========r= . . . . . . .= 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN A TEMPORARY STREET CLOSURE PERMIT FOR CLOSURE OF SIDEWALKS. PARKING SPACES & ROADWAYS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL 0 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 .:... • v: : . . • "'· 7 .. "' , - ~ _(T,\7~1-- - (TYP.) __ ......_ ..._ / //'. / V ·· ..• SIDE>'b.LKTO~LAT .«; .;,_:': • SIDEWAIJ< AT EN RANCE BY THE CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION IN THESE EXISTING AREAS. 4. ALL SIGNING & PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE INSTALLED CONSISTENT WITH ....U> .... PROPOSED PARALLEL ......_ ....._ • - · , (FLUSH lf\'ITH PA EMENT) MUTCD STANDARDS. IGAS PROFILE I · • · • "' PARKING SPACES (8'x20') . ·~ I 5. ALL SIGNS IDENTIFYING ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES SHALL BE AT LEAST 60 INCHES ABOVE THE GROUND/SURFACE (FROM BOTTOM OF SIGN) AND INCLUDE THE INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL OF ACCESSIBILITY. ACCESSIBLE VAN PARKING SPACES > I \ I , - · .. · ·. " . . . /' PROPOSED PAVi;MtNT PROPOSED 10' DRIVE-THRU LA/NE WITH (8) CAR STACKING «« TIE-IN NEW CURB ~\ 30: . •: • • I Q SHALL CONTAIN THE DESIGNATION 'VAN ACCESSIBLE". 6. ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES SHALL BE LOCATED ON THE SHORTEST ACCESSIBLE ROUTE FROh.t PARKING TO AN ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE. 7. RAMPS OVER 30" IN ELEVATION CHANGE REQUIRE HANDRAILS. LU ~ \, PRb POSED ASPHALT PARKING LOT - - ­ -.. • • • • "'· · ,/ / REPAIR AREA / / ~~=========!:==;=f========~==r==~ ~~'.;:;,"·;- ·~ ~TO EXISTING CG-2 PROPOSED MOUNTABLE ' \ 24' . . . .... .. ~ :• ·~ • J I~ 8. NOTE, ANY SIDEWALK DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE REPLACED WITH THE CITY STANDARD SIDEWALK (5' CONCRETE SIDEWALK). SEE DETAIL, SHEET 5. _II_II_ I . :'\:\\ \ • / e::n m er ~ '°· ~~ o ~ '" ·~· wi~/,i · ~~~·t-~~ · >-- ·~~/', , PATCH- SEE PAVEMENT DETAIL, 0 ~ w. ~ .~· - · , G~: · e:., ;; i?i~ I SHEEIT 6 :z / ;p CONCRETE MEDIAN . · _L/ u . .. 1· I ACCESSIBLE ROUTE PROPOSED LANE ~ I , /-<\', CllRB & . THROUGH THE SITE \ MARKINGS S_ I "" 12. 1 ll:it\~~~ fa~===r~·~~r======:"'.~T · - • / - • · " =¥~~~ ' · ··~ "-·· ·. ·.·.· · · , ;: '• . j,,. / ----~""- GENERAL UTILITY NOTES: ·: ."" -:l uct 1. BUILDING AND WALL FOUNDATIONS SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN 1D' A •~ ~ : ~r· "•"'u"'i=~~~.,.,,"' sH:rrnALILnl vR... \ TIE-IN PRO.f:OSED :e OF ANY PUBLIC STORM, SANITARY, WATER OR GAS MAIN, THIS INCLUDES •I • • • • • . = ' ... ~~~,i\'.''c0~~"sn'~~~'~I. Mt--IL. •~~~ ALL STRUCTURES THAT ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE UTILITY SYSTEM. - LP ~. / .,.181 ..181 v =. -·~ • / LP,. {s-~ MILL/OVERLAY ENTIRE 1 SN ,.,._, ~-·. •HAN DIGA TEST PIT 2. A MINlh.IUM OF 18" VERTICAL & 10' HORIZONTAL SEPARATION SHALL BE ~-----~::Y:=-: I ·. -j-1' \ L=-:'- ":'-:=:":'=-"=-lc-~~===="" ·· ~==~'1==~~=,---h · !$... "" ~ I '0"""' '0"""' I \, to I I ".:>I ' "' EXISTING. EXIT DOOR WITH NEW EXISTING EXT. LIGHT PROPOSED PROPOSED2"GASLATERAL. LOCATION OF GAS METER WITH (2)4" ·r \ I ASPHALT PARKING LOT \ _Q_ "1 '. \ • ) . ... ~ ' UP / ·, IN HIS LOCATION "".~,, MAINTAINED BETWEEN WATER LINES & SANITARY SEWER. A MINIMUM OF 12" VERTICAL AND 5' HORIZONTAL SHALL BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN PARALLEL ~OTR~"l'HPERCORPOOSSSEINDG2'?F I • -.>. ~ ':ii.. rl:.-=--~-'"""'·.--+--1'1-11-~IHI-~· g' i ,' . -, " E~i!i~l~~EWITHTHE SANITARY AND STORM SEWER. i I "'-\ \ EXISTING"lttlr. 480- - CONCRETE ISLAND ~TIH ATM MACHINE ......._ .· - • v .. ' .• • •. ..... '-EXISTING CG-2 TO BE REPLACED CANOPY OVERHANG STEELBOLLARDSINFRONTOFMETER EXISTINGEXT.LIGHTTOBE REPLACED&RELOCATED2.5'TO ~ 2'R 1,.- L SEE DETAIL, SHEET 6 PROPOSED DRIVE-THRU ·- ~ • ~ © GW· i!ESTORMSEWER 3. MINIMUM DEPTH OF COVER FOR WATER LINES SHALL BE 3'. / 4. MINIMUM DEPTH OF COVER FOR SANITARY SEWER SHALL BE 2'. ~-----•• 5. AT ALL UTILITY CROSSINGS A MINIMUM VERTICAL SEPARATION OF 12" . l!J '-""­ r-< " ~~~~ I TMP 40B'r 1 \ (TO REMAIN). ATM TO - r CONC. CURB EXISTING CONC. ACCOMMODATE DRIVE-THRU LANE MODIFICATIONS I V- .,,,, " I. ... DIRECTIONAL SIGN :' .• C::. 1•..,_, 01 TRANSITION SHALL BE MAINTAINED. A h.llNIMUM VERTICAL SEPARATION OF 1B" IS N/F BEST BU~Y STORES, \ BE UPGRADED TO NEW Bollard 0 v o flollard ·v . ·j • SIDEWALK PROPOSED CG-2 / II IT . 18' ' :. /g~-- ·/~ o si~~~~~~M REQUIRED BETWEEN THE BOTTOM OF THE WATER LINE AND THE TOP OF l \~~XlJQ.'_ z NOTE: CONTRACTOR TO ...o111 2 ' -' THE SANITARY SEWER LINE. LP / \ MACHINE. \ . v. 1NsTALLAKEYKNoxBox EXISTING 1 STORY BUILDING cuRBING .,,. v' ,.. · DRIVE AISLE o g· PRoPosEo ... ·~ l slDEWALKTOFLAT 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT IRENE PETERSON OF CHARLOTTESVILLE GAS BUILDING / ~ ...... A A - ONCE CONSTRUCTION HAS BEGUN ( 434-970-3812.) I DB. 2019, P .1363 I ~ollard ...,,, • AT THE MAIN ENTRANCE TO THE RESTAURANT AREA = 2,375 SF PROPOSED SIGNAGE .7 ' A HANDICAP RAMP WITH :: - "' - ,....,- SIDEWALK AT ENTRANCE (FLUSH 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL UTILITY TIE-IN CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING i3§ - Bollar o o • '1~-tJ--w---....-- .- ' •. ·~ , •.1J-~.~". • ZONING: LTP I ON BLDG. J/11. r"-B EDGE _ • ~ •- /a 0 WITH PAVEMENT) OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION INFRASTRUCTURE. CONTRACTOR IS USE· COMMERCI4L RETAIL .\ ACCESS EASEMENT ' PROPOSED BIKE RACK PROPOSED MAIN ENTRANCE INTO PROPOSED ORDER C~ ~ ~ /'-.:_ V'-J ' " • ;;. ~ ,>- ~ ~· RESPONSIBLE FOR NOTIFYING THE ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE EXISTING UTILITIES AND THE PROPOSED UTILITIES. f:;; j~ I~~ g a I DB 360 'RG 50 z c .il'ollard we" ·• 11 (2) SPACES - U SHAPED BIKE PROPOSED THE RESTAURANT POINT CANOPY J g' : ·. 8. GATE VALVES SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE CURBS, GUTTER ~· ~ 0 r-- - - - - ..l.- - - - - - - - "--..- _- - - - - - \ - -· .. v ~'--\\11 llff-"' EXISTING EXT. LIGHT ON BLDG. BAR \_ . HAND. PARKING --...;::-- ;Y · r- - OFFICIAL, SHALL BE PROVIDED AND INSTALLED BY THE OWNER OR HIS/HER AGENT jG . ~1 ; o ~ /-d' OF THE PROPERTY INVOLVED. N i: rff]FD ,= .. ;GJ \ h ::;:;: \ \ -.._ ,., LP I f- . • CI 1: 85,000 LBS. w 0 O> N z ::i ___ . L - . ,( nvr i i [ } m •V V . . _ ..... ), ' ~ • . ' ..~ ~ ;I , 12. PER THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WATERWORKS REGULATIONS (PART II, N w :; IJIJ.l.LJl'fil // / PROPO:t."D ~ ~ ~-·~ ' " r • .- • ' HANDICAP o ::;;: I'= ARTICLE), SECTION 12 VAC 5-590 TI-IROUGH 630). ALL BUILOINGS THAT HAVE THE a.. . \ . ) •• ., •• .• CO~C. S~DWALK . !;!. ...1~ -1_!..ti•1a;.1~~. ?~~~\):. ~\l'.?18\~~ /..~ ;: - / 7 ~· ~ : ' l>ARKINGflGN I;g POSSIBILITY OF CONTAMINATING THE POTABLE WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (HOSPITALS, INDUSTRIAL SITES, BREWERIES, ETC.) SHALL HAVE A BACKFLOW PREVENTION w v. - DEVICE INSTALLED WITHIN THE FACILITY. THIS DEVICE SHALL MEET SPECIFICATIONS OF ~ ~Y:i'.;l;'~1\>:l\"..-l'C<' ~ ~!h ·~ z - I '"' "'..-1 '-"'~ ~, f"\ •• ,, •. /• I " I­ - • . . v - • • -- ·- . Q THE VIRGINIA UNIFORM STATEWIDE BUILDING CODE, SHALL BE TESTED IN REGULAR ft EXISTING CONC. SLAB · I . "'--- I _/_ w z /f TO REMAIN .,.· . INTERVALS AS REQUIRED, AND TEST RESULTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE REGULATORY w · · PROPOSED CG-2 w .; '°"'»'» ; ...J ~XIS:~~:A~~RT::~E~:NT «« ~ :.~~;~~:R~~~~~~ ·.·.· .·'.r.·~'" '~c-:i,. .·•-c:. ,.o" 'Jf ~~~~=~~" ,cr1;;,:: " :.~'iifilr.~~"'"' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR IN THE DEPARTMENT OF UTILITIES. - :5 CJ) I ....... "o'o""'"'"""'w'" / 13. ALL BUILDINGS THAT MAY PRODUCE WASTES CONTAINING MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED (100) PARTS PER MILLION OF FATS, OIL, OR GREASE SHALL INSTALL A GREASE TRAP. THE GREASE TRAP SHALL MEET SPECIFICATIONS OF THE VIRGINIA UNIFORM STATEWIDE - ...J > _J 0.. ~ _,, ., . / Cl) <( - ~ BUILDING CODE, MAINTAIN RECORDS OF CLEANING AND MAINTENANCE, AND BE :~~ :~~~s ~il~~~~~low, SEE DETAIL w z ...... ACCESS EASEMENT, -'-"'D~B.'='9~9~6~PG~5"°5~7-'+----+--+-----"------''"'-....._-=----------;:; 1 I N:;-J I ......_...._DB 929 PG 533 --_--_ "'- ..._ »» "' Cl PROPOSED (4) NEW PARKING SPACES 1 '"1·.··.·.·. »» "' 2§ '"' '---- MILL/OVERLAY ENTIRE ----....... ASPHALT '- ~ __.. __.. ~~ ROUTE I = :" / lI ~ I INSPECTED ON REGULAR INTERVALS BY THE REGULATORY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR IN THE DEPARTMENT OF UTILITIES. 14. PLEASE CONTACT THE REGULATORY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR AT 970-3032 WITH ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE GREASE TRAP OR BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICES. l!J ~ ...J u.. I­...... z PARKING LOT ,- _,, EXISTING c:WURREBi t -- - - _ j "'· / \ 1 "'1 . SEE DETAIL, SHEET 6 "' & GUTTER EXISTING DROP ·~ " : ~o 15. ALL CURB & GUTTER MUST BE INSTALLED AND FINAL GRADE MUST BE WITHIN 6" PRIOR TO THE INSTALLATION OF THE GAS MAIN. 0 ::> I I \ .... ! . .. ., p~g;g!~~ON /// g'INLET \ ; .· .i ~/~ FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES: ...J 0:: 1­ w cXS I I '- . .I ~ ... ·" GR~ASE TRAP I :: - ..... <( w - - / UJ ~'c~===~~·~j I ~~ CJ::: 1. ALL FIRE HYDRANTS. FIRE PUMP TEST HEADER. FIRE DEPARTMENT I I ,- - __.. . ' "· ...· . . . ·...··!7\ «.·.·.. · ..··.·4··.. ·. 0 ' ·.1.. ··.. - - ,_ - - - - - - r ' 3 TYP g' TYP. g' TYP. g' TYP :' , J "-JI' CONNECTIONS OR FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM CONTROL VALVES SHALL REMAIN I w 1-­ ...... / " ' TYP• . . g' TYP. \..!) ;,, ' ., ,.- - - - - ,/ ~ I CLEAR AND UNOBSTRUCTED BY LANDSCAPING, PARKING OR OTHER OBJECTS. (.) ~ IM~='rH~::----f-~~~+.;_-'.'..'.~i . ~ Cf) v ~\.Ill,¥ 0 ·. i . I ., EXISTING . . ....... SSNH . e-- g' TYP c::i A 3' CLEAR STRIPED AREA HAS BEEN PROVIDED IN FRONT OF EACH FDC _,,., . ' I­ ~ · ...,..-. INY-:'· INc"'·"~(<' ~;::;;:;:;_:. ~ :-- . ·..·· .· ·. · \ i.·-.· . ~ TOP=<;~'.~j I ,.,co, ~ ~0 ~ I METER FOR FIRE ACCESS. --~,1 - - - SIGN - - - I - . - . LAT) . . . . _ "v -;CROUPROBSCEUDT2' _ . \..:!...) f5\ f4\ ~ EXISTING DROP CIJT-<68.o/s· • ., J/ """'/ 2. THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FIRE FLOW FDR ALL BUILDINGS IS 1.500 GALLONS PER MINUTE. THE OVERALL FIRE FLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT IS IN EXCESS OF V> I­ ' ~ ... INY. I f I / ' · · .· '·"' 0UM•a10· . ~ PROPOSED 2 ,. ii; .., 1,500 GALLONS PER MINUTE. 1­ 0::> I --~I I I -~s 1 I EXl~NG 8'~SAN. SWR 5/ / 474/ 5 .·.·.· .· .· ..·.·.· .· .· 3NS~ 5 .· ... / / ,)1 CURB CUT-~ """ INLET GRAT£ ' ;~v~=E::~: 1~i~~:~G r+ I q, :. i:; 3. SMOKING TO BE ALLOWED IN ONLY DESIGNATED SPACES WITH PROPER RECEPTACLES. "NO SMOKING" SIGNS SHALL BE POSTED AT EACH BUILDING SITE AND ~THIN EACH BUILDING DURING CONSTRUCTION. SPECIFICALLY, SMOKING U1 w ­=> I- w ::E ~ -s --s J S __ Is J.J_ L s / ' ' ; gSSMH .· I ·'1 D"' WILL ONLY BE ALLOWED OUTSIDE THE CONSTRUCTION SITE FENCING. z $. 5 "' : wv· \ " - ~/ ' J >Vl~TINr. EXT. Ll"UT • ~. • • • • • • • i'. ",...Li '1 J 4. FIRE LANES SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 20 FEET IN WIDTH. SIGNS AND MARKINGS Cl) ::E \ I 0 TO DELINATE FIRE LANES AS DESIGNATED BY THE FIRE OFFICIAL SHALL BE w -...J PROVIDED AND INSTALLED BY THE OWNER OR HIS/HER AGENT OF THE ft ~ " - VARIABLE WIDTHshvER-•-•-• · - ; . ii;o·w ---! D¢-- : / / • 75 • • • l.. • :_p--- • .. .. , "5 'oo·w .• -· .. • • • • • • • • • • • • , • • •/"rol3E ~EPL'Ac~ • • • j .· ~VI· - •4;, / PROPERTY. FIRE APPARATUS ROADS 20' TO 26' IN \\1DTH SHALL BE POSTED 1-­ w '""' 1 539 3 OR MARKED ON BOTH SIDES "NO PARKING-FIRE LANE". ~ PROPOSED PRIVATE ~LP 1 500 T"'"'I EXISTING ENTRANCE @ EMMET STREET- "- "-.._ EASEMENT DB 996 PG 557 Lf Q. LIGHT ~l 1. THE LOCATION OF THE GAS SERVICES SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE C/) NEW TOP ELEVATION=473.32 6" LATERAL INV. IN= 468.40' EXISTING SEWER SHALL BE PLUGGED AND ABANDONED IN PLACE. LATERAtl FRGMGREASE fRAf> S-HAtl T'i-F'(N I \ / - \,'IV ..... I ,.- ~ GGMH_ y - - G - LG IN~ GMH uGT ,0r:o ..._ 1Hv ooT- 24" RCP 465.87' ,.. ' " j .. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE GAS REQUIREMENTS. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ~TH THE GAS COMPANY ON THE FINAL LOCATION OF THE GAS SERVICE METERS. ...J ~ 4" LATERAL INV. IN= 468.75' LATERALS SHALL BE BOOTED AND INVERT - TO MANHOLE AT THE LOCATION OF THE - - - - '.\ - ( UP G - G EXISTING G GAS %#-- G -- G _ __,­ G GMH w 0 HANDRAIL7 SHAPING SHALL BE APPLIED TO THE MA~HOLE ___f \IWAL'J< - OJ_f!H__::-:----"'---'/l):b!:~~=-=a~t- 9' . t> \7' I'> • ·: t- :v .!> 'I>'' ·t> v·. . · 1>· ·. v · · . v !. \ ';: ?>­ • 'V"v "' v l> I> ~ INV. ~ 463.81 . SDMH . 1 v ' - - '\ ===t::!·~'~·~':;'•;]:~·l, (14 BARS (TTP) (!) 0 0 c . v • ~· v .\ • • : ·~ ; ' : v ~"' • ;• ; ' : • v : v .. -\ : • v ·_ ~ ~· • • v °" - v • • • • "> .- -)ii "• ,"',;•~ •15~ ;CP .'TS~:-:.- ~~ 1'-o"oc ~AX SPACING J."- + ' '• ['-..._~~ . •• ~ .• ·!1!tl'T'r'f' qj ~7"1~.:·4> PRIVATE WALi< OR LANDING ·1 /2N THROUGH JbiNT 0 0 N "c ~ wn E . " w g ·~ ~ 0 tvC' ~ 1~.:~-:.;:.~ ~'.::'.:'.::= lu u " NOTE: CONTRACTOR SHALL ADJUST MANHOLE TOP TO NEW RE~OVE ENTRANCE AND \. PROPOSED DOMESTIC WATERLINE_ CURB & GU TIER / SIDE ELEVATION J.'.=.Q:._ w :c ~~ ~ PAVEMENT ELEVATION. IN ADDITION, THE MANHOLE CONE EXISTING DROP CONCRETE STEPS AND WALLS U) Q .: _ __,.JO"'B"'N""D~.- - t ~ ~ SHALL BE ROTATED TO ENSURE THATTHE MANHOLE COVER IS INSTALL NEW CONC. SIDEWALK 2" TYPE K SOFT COPPER LINE INLIET DETAILS-SECTION N-N (3 STEPS) NOT LOCATED WITHIN THE GUTIER PAN. A NEW VACUUM TEST SHALL BE PERFORMED ON THE MANHOLE FOR ACCEPTANCE. CONNECTED TO A 1" WATER METER VAULT. 2" COPPER LINE SHALL BE APPROVED BY NOS. RO UTE 29 us 4'-o'' l--·~·-~ 0 ·--1 SCALE: N.T.S. 092033 --=,.,,..--I " °20 u c 0 EMMET STREET £ SCALE o ~ -rl-TOP ELEV. 474.20 10 0 10 20 30 I 12" STEPS TREAD 7.5" t.1AX SlEPS RISER An- - , I 1"=10' §8 ·-.-~~-~-~-~~~~~~1-----1·--- Ce e e e • ..I VARIABLE WIDTH R/W 1 88' · ELEVATION TOP OF SIDEWALK---.. BOTTOM ELEV. 472.45 I so-rTo1.1 ELEV. 472.90 ------in_ e- SHEET NO. w 5_ SCALE: 1"=10' 3 OF 6 ~ ~ L..--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------....IL-----------------~F=RO~NT~E=~~~~Tl~ON:;_ ______ .J..._ _ _ _ _ ...Jl...----...J~ o --­ ----­ ----------­ ---­ \ I \ -----­ ---­ -------­ -------­ I \ ----------------­ I I ~TH Op I ~y ~ ---'~------------ ~ I 1'.lQ \ I I \ I I I ~SCOTT R. COLLINS§ I I 0 No. 35791 ;,,. \ I I ib I \ 1------­ ----------­ @ ___ ____ \ \ -----------­ TMP 40C-1 I I • l'>4) r,'4". ----­ N/F ANGUS INVESTORS, LLC I I I • I iS'slQNAL "Eo'il I \ \ ------­ ---------­ DB 1006 PG 306 I •I " ,\ ZONING: HW I I I I I I • ', \ USE: COMMERCIAL RETAIL I I I I \ I • \ \ : ', \ DB. 1006, PG. 306 I ', ' I I I ~ I\ ~ " • I ~ I 0 0 \ I I ::r:: I ', \ '-... SDMH TOP=4B0.25' - SDMH I I I / / JsDMH SDMH/ TOP=478.o:r ;;;: I " \ INV. IN=476.00' N • , .E TOP=480.1J' I _......./ ,;4: l 'i INV. IN=471.43il' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~==,.---,,~~'~,~~~~~ ~INY~.oo~T~-·~"~oo~·~~~~~-"':.:...::=..::"--':~~17~2~.8~9_ ' ~"'~-o~ur~-·~"~"~'~~~~~1 1 ~~~~--- ~ ~ \~~ ltifll 91®471~ 37 58 00 \ .--::::::­ / \ ~::::c===================================";~====~ :;::; ~~l~~r:Tn=~~~~~~~~~fi=~~~~~====* O (0) 1 I =c=::~;;:::~=::::::::::::;;-~ ,/ ,,..,, 478.05 /,. , 1 I ·,, soMH 11 1 1 l , , , , , , , , , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • , , " isoMH 480 47 8 05 M'-F+c,IJl'77.9 5 \ 1 \ \ I \ \ \\ 1 ( ~t/j .~m"'. :: "''" ~: ~ ;~~~ : ~~ ~~ r =="'====r= =_ ____ =_=. === _=_=_ 1 _ = _ = _ ~ - = =- = =~======r========1, ~,~'=, = , =,==== ~~~7: ~ ~ ~ ~~%7~7'.7~ / ~ 7:. ;/.; ;::; : n,55TC L.. : c ~ ; ~:~:~~ .,· ~~~:~ r, 7 .~. 477.50 TC ~ I I 476.B4TC 410 -qLP SN t f?"'"/ -6.0% • U> z 0 ....U> \ \ \ :r0?i·. .- ­ •• < % 476.~G.f" :;~:~: ~~ 47~.6~ : 475.~ " § l " / / / / ' ' '-.. «« ,. • .: •'--O.O% .... \ l ~· k:;]jj·. " . •• /,' /// /7 '> 3'.25% 476.6~ ·~ "v f I i ,,,.. "' "' «« 475.66 x 475.80 Tv'i x 475.66 x 0.0% v > LU EP~~ ~ \ .'.::--.. · .. 477.50 • • • • . ":= E~ I ' / 475,90 475.50 "" 6'\ \ 476.50 EP .. . · !;< : 476.50 • •00:­ 476.50 »» -.·.':.-··.' .· / / 1 \, 0 :~~:~~ ~~ I • o:r m ::r:: / 476$5, ' / / I 475.85 TC \ ·1' bl~~Rt~<{~~:;::rn~ ::~ :;;:~g ~ TT;~5.6'0\ ~;:: I \ I \ 9_ I 476.63 477.53 I /\ \ -, 475.35 l­ \\ CURB & GU EP •• 0.0% .,i El ~~~1 1 7 . •'­ I ilf7__J1j\~~b~~~~~~~=!;!~~47~5.97f8TC~~o~.%~==v=~=f=::::,;~ 6 \ I I I \ ""' "" \'-.. 3 1~ ~-I J 1 ~ Ii x ~ T "r..__4"1 ~~ ~ .61TC \ 476045TC ~ 476.35TC 476.30TC ~3 L ! 476.44 4~Ji v .; ·~ .v ~ • 4~2 , • " .· : ii ' LP,_ ~ \ ~\ \ \ _ ; : '/' ~==="""'"""'"""'"476.01 ~ .,; ~3.4% ~' I~ ,; : ., . j ; 75,60 E~ ... UG G_E_N_E_RA_L_G_RA_D-IN_G_&_D...RA--IN_A_G_E_N_O_T_E_S_:______.,. '-.. V 476 6 ' 476 / 49 "' · · ,/ r 1. BUILDING AND WALL FOUNDATIONS SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN 10' OF ANY '-.. - _ 480 _ - · · / 75 ·9• . • · f 475 80 UP PUBLIC STORM, SANITARY, WATER OR GAS MAIN, THIS INCLUDES ALL STRUCTURES THAT \ 477.52TC .• · if'6.80 TC 0 75 .Si . ''. ' ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE UTILITY SYSTEM. I 477,02EP ~ v < • : 475.75 TC +---,j-• . · " 474.24 EP ·. f,ie% .. 1­ ; 473.80 • GUARDRAILS ARE REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 2012 VA CONSTRUCTION CODE 1013 AT N \ \ '"' LP J­ f- 47 6.3' . /. N z ::i '-""-.=,:_ :'= -=-~?:o=======7id:; ' ~~ ' _ _ • ·. · ,/~ ~ • ~ ~·V ~.~ 0 \' ­ . : . •• - •• •CON. C. S•IO~~..-.A~l..-."',,-.-.~~. .,,.....-..,,.... ""l ,-, A:'l7""6~.3'-3"~,:;-.-.L--.!.•. ,-, r • , . .,.· .•• _ - _ ·"- ·., ~ ·• •• ·~ 475.70 · '"' 0 0 . _L . J ·~.·~,·! . 7£\';:C~ ~v x474.52.4x74.25 . " ~ 474 2 z' · -.1___5TtFCP "\ -~ 4 2 /le ..; ' ,: i ·, 8. GRADE CHANGES SHOWN. DURING CONSTRUCTION THE ACTUAL WALL HEIGHTS MAY VARY FROM THE DESIGN & THE PROPOSED WALL ELEVATIONS ARE AN APPROXIMATION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSULT A w :; N a.. w - c _,... / / v _ v • ,. 3% ·~ - ~ x . ' ~· --"'~ ' - _ - ' ' '72.90 PROFESSIONAL LICENSED STRUCTURAL ENGINEER FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE '-.. _, 476.50TC . TC _ . :;; .~ 474 20 • RETAINING WALLS. DESIGNS ARE NOT FURNISHED BY COLLINS ENGINEERING AND ALL FINAL z I­ ft 476.00EP 476 23 474.80 4°74.40 - ./ ~- • . / DESIGNS OF THE RETAINING WALLS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO COLLINS ENGINEERING PRIOR w ,...­ ~ / / V • ~72.45 • TO CONSTRUCTION FOR VERIFICATION. WALL DESIGN SHALL INCORPORATE ALL SITE ...J CJ) ', 20· WATER EASEMENT "'~ .>~ / 474 07 . 4}4.15' !~!·.~~~~ 1~.E °; .: J / / , 9. PLANIMETRICS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY VEHICULAR GUARDRAILS, PEDESTRIAN 1 ~~~~:~~:~~~L~GG:~~ET~~E:~::sG~uA:~~~~~~Ai~~~UILDING sucH TiiAT RUNOFF - - ...J > _J <( - Cf) "'~ '!'~ J " w z ACCESS EASEMENT1 DB 996 PG 557 I I '-.. ,DB 929 PG 533 '-.. --­ --­ ~~ ~~ __.. - - - - - ,.,/" ~ .,, \ "' :. • J ~ c:::i I DRAINS AWAY FROM IT, ENSURING POSITIVE DRAINAGE AT ALL TIMES. PATIOS, SIDEWALKS AND PAVEMENT SHALL BE SLOPED AWAY FROM THE BUILDING WITH A MAXIMUM!" PER 1' CROSS SLOPE WHERE LOCATED WITHIN THE ACCESSIBLE ROUTES AND PERVIOUS l!J ~ u.. I "'- '­ L/L/ I" z L/L/ .-- .-­ 473·63 I \ 474.00 EP "'/ EXISTING DROP "'• / .;;¥ o-· : ,:, . I ~o LANDSCAPING SHALL BE SLOPED A MINIMUM OF LOCATED WITHIN TI-IE PROPERTY LIMITS. PER 1' FOR THE INITIAL 10' WHERE 0 ...J I I \ 474.00 EP 474.50TC __.."' INLET \ /t;O · ..: •I ~II !; 10. CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AT ALL TIMES WITHIN THE PARKING LOT. 0:: 1-­ I 474.25 EP L -474.SOTC,,..v==:::::,_ ---1 174.24 ·? 474 4 / _,... __.. ~ ':.:: THE SITE SHALL HAVE POSITIVE DRAINAGE THROUGHOUT AND SHALL DIRECT RUNOFF TO <( w I I :;::;:;:::::::~~~c;;z==='~ · ===h: l = :t_ •1 w 474.75TC -"' , 474.38 473.69, 473.24i • PROPOSED OR EXISTING DRAINAGE STRUCTURES. I :;: ; ,,- ­ __.. \\ __ ,_ ­ - -t'.) STlNGo ROP r :is,_ y~====~~J;•JI! :' • v:t Q •I f:?/(: I w / r--~ -~ ~ _, _,... 1 I\ _ - - 1-­ - - - - - IN ET ' 472.65"-/' / / :'>. i '."-' i-r: ;: 11. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL TIE-IN CONNECTIONS FOR THE PARKING LOTS TO THE EXISTING ROADS. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR NOTIFYING THE ENGINEER OF ANY (.) ~ I­ / .i - - - 07 _?-""""'1 TOP=m. 11«,,.........,,20 ;_.. - 473.50 EP EXISTING TOP=<;~'.~ / ,,. .: ~ <-;" '• DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE EXISTING ROADS AND/OR CURB AND GUTTER AND THE I 474 OOTC • PROPOSED ROADS, CURB & GUTTER. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT ENGINEER TO INSPECT V> I 11 / ' - - --­ - - - ~-___,, ,. -----­ -----­ "'· 1N=4'9.lcr{4' LAT.) NY~. • ~ __.. ~ I PAVEMENT TO EXISTI G DROP IHY. OOT=<68.o/o' .-". ~ .; • ,_ I """'/ CURB, ROADWAY & PAVEMENT CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING ROADS, PRIOR TO ANY CONCRETE ~ 1-­ U1 our="'·"' \ ?1 • ..., OR PAVEMENT BEING PLACED. • . ~ w r .. I I I I / I / / 474 473.80 EP ,474 .lOTC 473.30 EP473. 25 EP , REMAIN INLET omr TOP~472.21l' r+ I I Qi / . ' "' • •, 9. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ENGINEER SURVEY WORKSHEETS OF ALL PARKING LOTS, w I­ I -­ ~ -­ s ~s 1 r 1 s R V A""670lC._ s 473 .5STC 473 .00TC "~,o.J~=:::~: "" SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUTS, WATER METERS AND DRAINAGE STRUCTURES PRIOR TO -=> ::E z - s -­ s ] 3 - --4- s -­ s -­ s -­ s -­ s s s s s I INSTALLATION OF CURBING, DRAINAGE, OR UTILITIES TO COLLINS ENGINEERING FOR 47 ~·b 6 12" .R~~ ~...J' l\~ " - / 1 I \ \ ./. ' I/ NS " cSMH ./ 473.40TC • / , , • •• : .. I' I REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. COLLINS ENGINEERING SHALL VERIFY ::E I "' ~ 472 95rc ~• I \ ·, ~ Cf) WV'" " - ~ IF . 472 ,67TC 472 ·23 • •• / I •• ALL SURVEY SHEETS TO ENSURE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AND PROPER ELEVATIONS FOR w - - - , _ ,\ - - "- ' 472.20TB / NS - "' 1 ::::- 111 - ,... CONSTRUCTION. -...J ft ~~ ~\ ~·-·vARIABLE.WIDTHslwiM-•-w-w ·-;;7~58':"00"W -:!'. w l.. .w w w • • w • w w w •4;, 10. THE PROPOSED PARKING LOTS AND ITS STORM SEWER ARE PRIVATE. 1­ ""' w w w w w w w :__ ...:---- w .• " .. ·• .• .• w w w w w w w • w w w ·/ . w • v " EASEMENT "" l T.14'-­ - - - r:;LP S39'53'oo·w 145.86' / I - r; 51JMH 11. ALL STORM DRAIN LINES LOCATED WITHIN PUBLIC CITY RIGHT OF WAY SHALL BE w '-... DB 996 PG 557 j - ".. \ - q.LP r:;-· / / v "A=""'" 24• " ' ropQ.iesJ2' " CONSTRUCTED WITH RCP OR HOPE AND HAVE A MINIMUM DIAMETER OF 15 WITH A w T"""'I ..0 " I - - - 2/ .:: INV IN El= "'"' 15' RCP t!PPROK) MINIMUM SLOPE OF 0.50%. 0:: '-. uGT uU\I AJ uGT -­ - - - " __.. - - - - - - .47 T"""'I " _ JJ c T 472 __ucT ,\ Gw .______ LJI 0 T -vc T " - o cT / zz: INY c- '"· 1 If' RCP IH INV IND= 466.:32 12" RCP '~,', ~i= :;:~'i :r- :~: 0 12. ALL STORM DRAIN LINES, BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, SHALL BE CLASS III RCP OR HOPE I­ ~ TsB • "".. . u I C/) .-. 0-J-1­ > = WITH MINIMUM sToNE BED REQUIREMENTS. G - ...,/ 1 _ _ _ "' lUP - _ _ _, ~ y GMH_ 0 0 - - - c -0-GcMH-­ GMH T ___,. .....~'Ar:o ~YJJ'_- .. 24 .. RCP •• ~ 13. CONTRACTOR SHALL GRADE THE SITE TO AVOID STANDING WATER. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE A SMOOTHLY GRADED TRANSITION FROM DISTURBED AREAS TO UNDISTURBED AREAS. FINISH GRADE SHALL HAVE A CLEAN TOPSOIL. CONTRACTOR SHALL SEED AND ...J ~ 0._ ) -- -- -- -- -­ " /­ G _ 0 0 c _ STRAW, AND/OR LANDSCAPE ALL BARE AND DISTURBED AREAS. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE w 0 0:: 0 '­ \, 'G OH - - - - - ­ OH O>_f:H'.._:-------"-~JJ):b!"~~='"""""°'6~f"oc ..Qli_ j ' - /OH - GROUND COVER MATERIALS OR SOD FOR SLOPES STEEPER THAN 20%. FOUNDATION ~ HH - 470 ....-­ - ~ __ -- -- -- -- ­ -- -- -- ­ -- ~ - - LP :;. 0 o 0 ~~ c -- c _J PLANTINGS SHALL BE PLANTED IN THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING, OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF 0:: ~ ~ c.· 0 .....~~-v--~-:;-:.~~;c----~~.~.~-;--~~---.~..L·~.,h=:vd,,l:J:l.!~""'-:::~--:-::--:-------~---~~------~~------.....,..,.~~~---~~-,.....--,~--",,,'E~~-.r:~~~~~~~~~,~TS;--P "''geur•:YJi; * ' 0 · "~ • 458 \= 0 0 ~~~;~~~~g~s;~~~~I~. ~~~~~~~~B~L~~~~ss~;~~~~~~~~~~~~~LOSEOUT. <( u ~~ -~---~---'7"'~;_-'--;;;-'>~~,;:,,.:?~=--,.,,--~ ·.v • .,. . t> .EHH t> .V' '1 • ·.­ • -:---· soMH . .• • i; • • •• ' : ­ t>v v v i:.: Vt> t>. 0~ r.....­ '-, - 14. CONTRACTORTOREMOVEALLDEADBUSHES,TREES,TREE-STUMPS,ANDTiiEIR (!) o "c ~ 0 c ~ ~· ·~ 0 • 0 v • • . · , • .v. 0 • • . " • v • "" 0 0 • . · • "' • . . .,. • __...-.;,,....­ ABOVE-GROUND ROOTS AND REMOVE ALL PORTIONS OF TREE BRANCHES THAT OVERHANG 0 wn ~ ~ ,~"('ll -~ 0 • • • · • '7 - • '!. · _,... •• • 1 ' • • v ' ROOFS AND ALL BRANCHES THAT COME WITHIN 10 FEET OF ROOFS. 0 E . " w \ , • I.I 15. CONTRACTOR SHALL WORK DIRECTLY WITH THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER AND THE N g ·~ 15" RCP tu u " J CURB & GUTIER / STRUCTURAL ENGINEER AND SHALL ENSURE ALL OF THEIR DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ARE MET. w :c ~~ ~ U) Q .: EXISTING DROP _......,.JO"'B"'N"°'O~.- - t ~ ~ INLET US ROUTE 29 092033 " o.1J u 0 0 --=.,..,,...--tc£ EMMET STREET SCALE o ~ 10 0 10 20 30 1"=10' §8 -·~·11;;J•11;;J•11;;J•~~. . . . . . . .l~~~~-1 r. e e e • ......... I VARIABLE WIDTH R/W ------in_ e- SHEET NO. w 5_ SCALE: ! "=10' . __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.... ~ 0 4 OF 6 ~ ~ SP19-00001 RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO AUTHORIZE THE ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF A RESTAURANT WITH A DRIVE-THROUGH WINDOW AT 1617 EMMET STREET (RT. 29) NORTH WHEREAS, Riverbend Development, Inc. (“Applicant”), as contract purchaser with authorization of current landowner Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., has requested City Council to approve a special use permit pursuant to City Code § 34-796, specifically to authorize the establishment of a coffee shop restaurant with a drive-through window (the proposed “Special Use”) at 1617 Emmet Street, identified on City Tax Map 40C as Parcel 2 (Tax Map Parcel Id. # 40C002000) (“Subject Property”). The Subject Property is within the City’s Highway Corridor Mixed Use (“HW”) zoning district, subject to Entrance Corridor Overlay; and WHEREAS, the proposed Special Use is described and depicted within the Application materials submitted in connection with zoning application number SP19-00001, and the proposed Special Use is allowed by special use permit within the HW zoning district, pursuant to City Code 34-796; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Application materials, and the City’s Staff Report, and following a joint public hearing, duly advertised and conducted by the Planning Commission and City Council on May 14, 2019, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that City Council should approve the requested Special Use, subject to certain conditions recommended for Council’s consideration; and WHEREAS, upon consideration of the comments received during the public hearing, and of the Planning Commission’s recommendations, the factors set forth within Sec. 34-157 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, and additional site layout materials submitted by the Applicant after the public hearing for review by City Council, this Council finds and determines that granting the requested special use permit subject to suitable conditions would serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that, pursuant to City Code §34-796, a special use permit is hereby approved and granted to authorize a drive-through window to be established and operated on the Subject Property for and in connection with the coffee shop restaurant described and depicted within the Application materials for SP19-00001, subject to the following conditions: 1. No alteration of any existing building, structure or canopy on the Subject Property shall be commenced prior to the landowner obtaining a certificate of appropriateness from the City’s entrance corridor review board as required by City Code §§34-306 et seq. 2. The final site plan for the Special Use shall depict the type, size and location of additional signage and pavement markings (to include both lane lines and text) to designate the vehicular travelways for the drive-through window as well as non-drive-through vehicular traffic. All vehicular traffic within the Subject Property shall be one-way traffic. 3. The landowner shall establish and maintain on the Subject Property a handicapped access lane that extends to and connects with the sidewalk along Angus Road. Approved by Council June 3, 2019 Kyna Thomas, CMC Clerk of Council Sec. 34-827. - Preliminary site plan contents. (a) Sixteen (16) clearly legible blue or black line copies of a preliminary site plan shall be submitted along with an application for approval. In addition, a three-dimensional drawing or model of the proposed site and the surrounding areas showing massing in context shall be submitted along with any preliminary site plan that is to be reviewed by the planning commission. If revisions to the submitted preliminary site plan are necessary, then sixteen (16) full-sized revised copies, and, if the preliminary site plan is to be reviewed by the planning commission, an additional ten (10) revised copies shall be submitted by the revision deadline. (b) All waiver, variation and substitution requests shall be submitted with the preliminary site plan, and the applicant shall clearly state the specific items being requested for waiver, variation or substitution. (c) The preliminary site plan shall be prepared to an engineering scale of 1:20, unless, in the determination of the director a different scale will allow a better representation of the development. (d) The preliminary site plan shall contain the following information: (1) The name of the development; names of the owner(s), developer(s) and individual(s) who prepared the plan; tax map and parcel number; zoning district classification(s); descriptions of all variances, zoning proffers and bonus factors applicable to the site; description of affordable dwelling unit requirements applicable to the subject property pursuant to section 34-12(a) or section 34-12(d)(1); city and state; north point; scale; one (1) datum reference for elevation (where a flood hazard overlay district is involved, U.S. Geological Survey vertical datum shall be shown and/or correlated to plan topography); source of the topography; source of the survey; sheet number and total number of sheets; date of drawing; date and description of latest revision; zoning district, tax map and parcel number, and present use, of each adjacent parcel; departing lot lines; minimum setback lines, yard and building separation requirements; a vicinity sketch showing the property and its relationship with adjoining streets, subdivisions and other landmarks; and boundary dimensions. (2) Written schedules or data as necessary to demonstrate that the site can accommodate the proposed use, including: proposed uses and maximum acreage occupied by each use; maximum number of dwelling units by type; gross residential density; square footage of recreation area(s); percent and acreage of open space; maximum square footage for non-residential uses; maximum lot coverage; maximum height of all structures; schedule of parking, including maximum amount required and amount provided; maximum amount of impervious cover on the site; and if a landscape plan is required, maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation areas. (3) If phasing is planned, phase lines and proposed timing of development; (4) Existing topography for the entire site at maximum five-foot contours; proposed grading (maximum two-foot contours), supplemented where necessary by spot elevations; and sufficient offsite topography to describe prominent and pertinent offsite features and physical characteristics, but in no case less than fifty (50) feet outside of the site unless otherwise approved by the director. Topographic information submitted with a preliminary plat shall be in the form of a topographic survey, which shall identify areas of critical slopes, as defined in section 29-3, natural streams, natural drainage areas, and other topographic features of the site. (5) Existing landscape features as described in section 34-867 (requirements of landscape plans), including all individual trees of six (6) inch caliper or greater. (6) The name and location of all watercourses, waterways, wetlands and other bodies of water adjacent to or on the site. (7) One hundred-year flood plain limits, as shown on the official flood insurance maps for the City of Charlottesville, as well as the limits of all floodway areas and base flood elevation data required by section 34-253. (8) Existing and proposed streets, access easements, alley easements and rights-of-way, and other vehicular travelways, together with street names, highway route numbers, right-of-way lines and widths, centerline radii, and pavement widths. (9) Location and size of drainage channels, and existing and proposed drainage easements; and a stormwater management concept detailing how the applicant will achieve adequate drainage post- development, including a description of the specific design concept the applicant plans to apply. References to specific types of stormwater management facilities, specific treatments, BMPs, LID techniques, etc. shall be provided, The stormwater management concept shall be prepared by a professional engineer or landscape architect, as those terms are defined within Virginia Code § 54.1- 400, and shall describe the manner in which stormwater runoff from the subdivision will be controlled in order to minimize the damage to neighboring properties and receiving streams, and prevent the discharge of pollutants into surface waters, in accordance with the requirements of City Code Chapter 10. (10) Location and size of existing water, sanitary and storm sewer facilities and easements, and proposed conceptual layout for water and sanitary sewer facilities and public storm sewer facilities. (11) Location of other existing and proposed utilities and utility easements. (12) Location of existing and proposed ingress to and egress from the property, showing the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection. (13) Location and dimensions of all existing and proposed improvements, including: buildings (maximum footprint and height) and other structures (principal as well as accessory); walkways; fences; walls; trash containers; outdoor lighting; landscaped areas and open space; recreational areas and facilities; parking lots and other paved areas; loading and service areas, together with the proposed paving material types for all walks, parking lots and driveways. (14) All areas intended to be dedicated or reserved for public use. (15) Landscape plan, in accordance with section 34-867, if the proposed site plan is subject to entrance corridor review. (16) Where deemed appropriate by the director due to intensity of development, estimated traffic generation figures for the site based upon current VDOT rates, indicating the estimated vehicles per day and the direction of travel for all connections to a public road. The director or the commission may require additional information to be shown on the preliminary site plan as deemed necessary in order to provide sufficient information for the director or commission to adequately review the preliminary site plan. (9-15-03(3); 6-6-05(2); 1-20-09; 11-18-13; 5-19-14, § 2, eff. 7-1-14) Sec. 34-828. - Final site plan contents. (a) A final site plan, together with any amendments thereto, shall be prepared and sealed, signed and dated by an architect, professional engineer, land surveyor or certified landscape architect licensed to practice within the Commonwealth of Virginia. (b) Ten (10) clearly legible blue or black line copies of the master drawing shall be submitted to the department of neighborhood development services, along with an application for approval of the final site plan. If review is required by the commission, then the applicant shall also provide one (1) reduced copy of the final site plan, no larger than eleven (11) inches by seventeen (17) inches in size. (c) The final site plan shall be prepared to the scale of one (1) inch equals twenty (20) feet or larger, or to such a scale as may be approved by the agent in a particular case. No sheet shall exceed thirty-six (36) inches by forty-two (42) inches in size. The final site plan may be prepared on one (1) or more sheets. If prepared on more than one (1) sheet, match lines shall clearly indicate where the sheets join. The top of the sheet shall be approximately either north or east. (d) The final site plan shall reflect conditions of approval of the preliminary site plan, and shall meet all requirements set forth within Code of Virginia § 15.2-2240 et seq. In addition, the final site plan shall contain the following information: (1) The location, character, size, height and orientation of proposed signs, as proposed to be installed or erected in accordance with Article IX, sections 34-1020, et seq. of this chapter; and elevations of buildings showing signs to be placed on exterior walls. Signs which are approved in accordance with this section shall be considered a part of the approved site plan. Thereafter, signs shall not be installed, erected, painted, constructed, structurally altered, hung, rehung or replaced except in conformity with the approved site plan. Any changes in signs from the approved site plan or any additions to the number of signs as shown on the site plan shall be allowed only after amendment of the site plan by the director of neighborhood development services or the planning commission. (2) Specific written schedules or notes as necessary to demonstrate that the requirements of this chapter are being satisfied. (3) Indicate if residential units are sale or rental units; number of bedrooms per unit; and number of units per building if multifamily; specifications for recreational facilities; and reference to the specific deed(s), agreement(s) or other evidence of the property owner's binding obligation to provide affordable dwelling units applicable to the subject property pursuant to section 34-12(a) or section 34-12(d)(1), consistent with regulations approved pursuant to section 34-12(d). (4) Proposed grading: maximum two-foot contours. (5) Detailed plans for proposed water and sanitary sewer facilities, including: all pipe sizes, types and grades; proposed connections to existing or proposed systems; location and dimensions of proposed easements and whether such easements are to be publicly or privately maintained; profiles and cross sections of all water and sewer lines including clearance where lines cross; all water main locations and sizes; valves and fire hydrant locations; all sanitary sewer appurtenances by type and number; the station on the plan to conform to the station shown on the profile, and indicate the top and invert elevation of each structure. (6) Detailed stormwater management plans, and construction drainage and grading plans, showing: a. Profiles of all ditches and channels, whether proposed or existing, with existing and proposed grades; invert of ditches, cross pipes or utilities; typical channel cross sections for new construction; and actual cross sections for existing channels intended to remain. b. Profiles of all storm drainage systems showing existing and proposed grades. c. Plan view of all drainage systems with all structures, pipes and channels numbered or lettered on the plan and profile views. Show sufficient dimensions and bench marks to allow field stake out of all proposed work from the boundary lines. d. A drainage summary table for culverts, storm drainage facilities and channels. e. A legend showing all symbols and abbreviations used on the plan. f. Information, details, calculations, construction plans and other documents or data required by Chapter 10 for a final stormwater management plan shall be included, along with such other information, plans, calculations, and details sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the standards for drainage set forth within Article IV of the city's subdivision ordinance. g. Information, details, calculations, plans and other documents or data required by Chapter 10 for an erosion and sediment control plan. (7) Typical street sections together with specific street sections where street cut or fill is five (5) feet or greater; centerline curve data; radius of curb returns or edge of pavement; location, type and size of proposed ingress to and egress from the site; together with culvert size; symmetrical transition of pavement at intersection with existing street; the edge of street surface or face of curb for full-length of proposed street; when proposed streets intersect with or adjoin existing streets or travel-ways, both edges of existing pavement or travelway together with curb and gutter indicated for a minimum of one hundred (100) feet or the length of connection, whichever is the greater distance. (8) For all parking and loading areas, indicate: size, angle of stalls; width of aisles and specific number of spaces required and provided, and method of computation, indicating type of surfacing for all paved or gravel areas. (9) A final landscape plan. (10) Signature panel for the preparer, consistent with the requirements of paragraph (a), above. (11) Signature panels for the director and the city engineer. (9-15-03(3); 6-6-05(2); 1-20-09; 4-20-09; 11-18-13; 5-19-14, § 2, eff. 7-1-14) CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT APPLICATION FOR A REZONING OF PROPERTY JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF HEARING: June 9, 2020 APPLICATION NUMBER: ZM20-00001 Project Planner: Matt Alfele, AICP Date of Staff Report: May 18, 2020 Applicant: Belmont Station, LLC Applicants Representative: Charlie Armstrong (Belmont Station, LLC) Current Property Owner: Belmont Station, LLC Application Information Property Street Address: 100 – 109 Keene Ct., 304 -306 Flint Dr., and 306 Camellia Dr. Tax Map/Parcels #: 200259310, 200259301, 200259290, 200259280, 200259270, 200259260, 200259370, 200259380, 200259350, 200259340, 200259330, 200259320, and a portion of 200196000. The Subject Property has frontage on Flint Drive (the unimproved portion) and Keene Court (unimproved), and is accessible by stub-outs on Longwood Drive and Moseley Drive. The entire development contains approximately 9.81 acres or 427,323 square feet. Total Square Footage/ Acreage Site: Approx. 9.81 acres (427,323 square feet) Comprehensive Plan (General Land Use Plan): Low Density Residential Current Zoning Classification: R-1S Tax Status: Parcels are up to date on payment of taxes. Completeness: The application generally contains all of the information required by Zoning Ordinance (Z.O.) Sec. 34-41 and (Z.O.) Sec. 34-490. Other Approvals Required: Critical slopes waiver (P19-00013); as part of the PUD application. The vacation of Keene Court and Flint Drive by City Council. Page 1 of 22 Comp Plan Land Use Goal: TĴı ĵŀŅ’Ŀ ĻĹļľıĴıĺĿĵłı Pĸĭĺ ĭĺİ Lĭĺİ UĿı Mĭļ įĭĸĸĿ IJĻľ ŀĴı area to be used and developed for low density residential uses. Low density residential in the Comprehensive Plan is defined as single or two-family housing types with a density of no greater than 15 DUA. !pplicant’s Request (Summary) TĴı ļľĻļĻĿıİ PU ıłıĸĻļĹıĺŀ Pĸĭĺ ĵĿ ŀĵŀĸıİ “ ĸĵĺŀ Hĵĸĸ PU ıłıĸĻļĹıĺŀ Pĸĭĺ İĭŀıİ March 6, 2020”Ǝ Charlie Armstrong (of Belmont Station, LLC, landowner) has submitted an application pursuant to City Code 34-490 et seq., seeking a zoning map amendment to change the zoning district classifications of the following thirteen (13) parcels of land: 100 – 109 Keene Ct., 304 – 306 Flint Dr., and a portion of 306 Camellia Dr. (Tax Map and Parcel 200259310, 200259301, 200259290, 200259280, 200259270, 200259260, 200259370, 200259380, 200259350, 200259340, 200259330, 200259320, and a portion of 200196000) (ŀĻijıŀĴıľƋ ŀĴı “SŁĮĶıįŀ PľĻļıľŀŅ”)Ǝ The application proposes to change the zoning classification of the Subject Property from “R-1S” (Residential Small Lots) ŀĻ “PU” (Planned Unit Development) subject to proffered development conditions. Summary of Proffers: The proffered development conditions include: (i) Density: the density shall not exceed a maximum of 60 residential units; Staff Comment: The proposed number of units renders approximately 6 dwelling units per acre (DUA). For purposes of comparison: in the current R-1S zone, in theory 9.81 acres of land (427,323 square feet) could have a maximum by-right buildout of 71 units. 427,323sqft / 6,000sqft minimum lot requirement = 71 single family lots (townhouse developments are not allowed within R-1S zones). This is an approximation that does not take into considerations site limitations and road placement. The true number would be lower, but not as low as 6 DUA as proposed by the applicant. The applicant is using a PUD style of development to consolidate İıĺĿĵŀŅ ŀĻ Ļĺı ĭľıĭ ĻIJ ŀĴı İıłıĸĻļĹıĺŀƋ ĸıĭłĵĺij ĭ ĸĭľijı ļĻľŀĵĻĺ ļľıĿıľłıİ ĭĿ “Ļļıĺ Ŀļĭįı”Ǝ This calculation is not taking into consideration Accessory Apartments which are permitted in the proposed proffered Use Matrix (Attachment A, page 5). The application materials do not indicate how Accessory Apartments (internal or external) will function in the development. There is the possibility of conflict, with the development rıĭįĴĵĺij ŀĴı ļľĻIJIJıľıİ ĹĭńĵĹŁĹ “60 ľıĿĵİıĺŀĵĭĸ ŁĺĵŀĿ” ĮıIJĻľı ĭĸĸ townhouses and multifamily buildings shown on the development plan are Page 2 of 22 completed. If 30 townhouses are built and each unit has an Accessory Apartment, no additional townhouses or proposed multifamily buildings could be built. No guidance is given within the PUD Development Plan on how internal or external accessory apartments will be addressed related to the multifamily buildings. (ii) affordable dwelling units: (a): The Developer shall cause a minimum 15% of the residential units constructed on the site to be Affordable Dwelling Units (ADUs) accessible to residents between 25% and 60% of area median income (as defined in City Code 34-12(c) and 34-12(g), with affordability provisions guaranteed through 30+ year deed restrictions which include, at a minimum, a first right of refusal to repurchase the property, appreciation-sharing provisions, and forgivable and/or no-interest mortgages to the qualified home buyer. (b): During home construction ADUs shall be provided incrementally such that at least 1 incremental ADU shall be under construction prior to the issuance of every 10th Certificate of Occupancy. At ŀĴı LĭĺİĻŃĺıľ’Ŀ ĻļŀĵĻĺƋ ĵIJ ŀĴı LĭĺİĻŃĺıľ įĻĺłıŅĿ ŀĻ HĭĮĵŀĭŀ IJĻľ HŁĹĭĺĵŀŅƋ ĮŅ recorded deed, any of the ADU lots pursuant to this proffer, then: (i) the conveyed !U ĸĻŀ(Ŀ) ĿĴĭĸĸ Įı İııĹıİ ŀĻ Įı “Łĺİıľ įĻĺĿŀľŁįŀĵĻĺ” ĭĿ ĻIJ ŀĴı İĭŀı ĻIJ ľıįĻľİĭŀĵĻĺ of the deed of conveyance from Landowner to Habitat, containing the required ADU restriction; and (ii) the landowner shall provide the City with a binding commitment from Habitat for Humanity promising that, if any of the initial owners of the ADUs sell or otherwise transfer ownership of the affordable dwelling unit to a person other than the Habitat for Humanity organization or a qualifying heir, within the first twenty (20) years following issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the unit sold or transferred, then Habitat will use any profit-sharing proceeds from the sale or transfer for construction of a replacement affordable dwelling unit within the City of Charlottesville. Staff Comment: SŀĭIJIJ ĺĻŀıĿ ŀĴĭŀ ŀĴı ļľĻIJIJıľ’Ŀ ĻIJIJıľ ŀĻ ijŁĭľĭĺŀıı ĭIJIJĻľİĭĮĵĸĵŀŅ ŀĴľĻŁijĴ ĿļıįĵIJĵį İĻįŁĹıĺŀĿ ľıIJıľ ŀĻ HĭĮĵŀĭŀ’Ŀ ĺĻľĹĭĸ ĭľľĭĺijıĹıĺŀĿ ŃĵŀĴ ĵŀĿ families, which are very different provisions than—for example—a deed restriction/ covenant requiring a unit to be occupied only by a low-income household over a specific period of years. Also, Staff finds the language in the proffer statement inadequate to ensure that any affordable units will be built in a timely manner. The proffer does not speak to the potential of the sites of the ADUs being land banked until funding is available for construction. By stating the ADUs Ńĵĸĸ Įı İııĹıİ “Łĺİıľ įĻĺĿŀľŁįŀĵĻĺ” ĭĿ ĻIJ ŀĴı İĭŀı ĻIJ ľıįĻľİĭŀĵĻĺ ĻIJ ŀhe deed of conveyance from the landowner to Habitat, the development runs a real risk of being completed for years prior to any ADUs being built by Habitat. Even if at least 1 ADU must be under construction prior to issuance of every 10 Certificate of Occupancy (COAs)Ƌ ŃĴĭŀ’Ŀ ŀĴı ľıĸĭŀĵłı ŀĵĹıĸĵĺı Ļĺ ŃĴĵįĴ ŀĴı !U’Ŀ ĹŁĿŀ Įı Page 3 of 22 completed? For reference, below are the two code sections indicated in the proffer language: 34-12(c): For purposes of this section, "affordable dwelling units" means dwelling units that are affordable to households with incomes at not more than 80% of the area median income and that are committed to remain affordable for a term of not more than thirty (30) years. However, the city may establish a minimum term as it deems necessary to ensure the establishment of committed affordable dwelling units provided pursuant to subsection (a), above, or (d)(1), below. 34-12(g): The city council may from time to time adopt regulations by resolution, for the administration of the provisions of this section. Pursuant to section 34- 82(b)(1), the failure of any person to comply with such regulations shall constitute unlawful conduct in violation of this section. Key Features and Material Representations about the Specifics of the Proposed PUD Development: The PUD Development Plan for this proposed development includes the following key components ĭĺİ ŀĴı ĭļļĸĵįĭĺŀ’Ŀ ľıļľıĿıĺŀĭŀĵĻĺĿ ĭĿ ŀĻ ŀĴı ıĸıĹıĺŀĿ ŀĴĭŀ Ńĵĸĸ be included within the development:  7 rows of townhouses, in the general or approximate locations depicted within the PUD Development Plan, with architectural elements as follows: three story townhouses with traditional and modern facades illustrated in the PUD application materials.  2 multifamily dwellings, in the general or approximate locations depicted within the PUD Development Plan, with no architectural elements other than a height of two stories.  A use matrix that allows residential and related uses such as single-family attached, townhouses, family day home, and residential treatment facilities up to 8 residents; non-residential uses such as house of worship, ball fields, and swimming pools. The use matrix prohibits such uses as, nursing homes, animal shelters, and gas stations.  The proposed PUD Use Matrix allows MFD, SFA, SFD, TH and Duplexes by-right. Separately, the PUD narrative states that “ŀĴı İıłıĸĻļĹıĺŀ Ńĵĸĸ ļľĻłĵİı ĮĻŀĴ Ŀĵĺijĸı family attached (SAF) and neighborhood-scale condominium housing types (MFD). Among those housing types will be several subtypes of various square footages, widths, styles and price points; rear-alley-loaded garage townhomes, and proffered ADUs to guarantee affordability and variety.” Sıı Attachment A, p. 7 of 8.  The PUD narrative states an Architectural Review Board will be established by the homeowner association to create a coordinated architectural style.  A private road to access townhouses to the northeast of Flint Drive. These lots will be landlocked as they will not have frontage on a City maintained road. Page 4 of 22 Notes: ĭįįĻľİĵĺij ŀĻ ŀĴı ĵŀŅ !ŀŀĻľĺıŅ’Ŀ OIJIJĵįı (1) ŀĴı ĵŀŅ’Ŀ SŁĮİĵłĵĿĵĻĺ Ordinance §29-161 requires every residential lot to have frontage on either a public street, or a private street within a townhouse development; City ĻŁĺįĵĸ įĭĺĺĻŀƋ ĮŅ ĭļļľĻłĵĺij ĭ PU PĸĭĺƋ ĭĹıĺİ ŀĴı ĵŀŅ’Ŀ Ŀŀľııŀ ĿŀĭĺİĭľİĿ)ƌ (2) Based on the general layout shown within the PUD Plan, the private street would meet the requirements of section 34-390 of the zoning ordinance. The TH private-street-access requirements ĭľı ĺĻŀ “İĵĹıĺĿĵĻĺĭĸ ľıĽŁĵľıĹıĺŀĿ” (Ŀıı §34-500) that can be altered by approval of a PUD Plan.  5.1 acres of open space, in the general or approximate location(s) depicted with the PUD Development Plan. Among other specific promises, the applicant is promising to preserve roughly half of existing trees, streams, and sensitive topography on site.  SĴıĸŀıľıİ 5’ ĿĵİıŃĭĸķĿ ĸĻįĭŀıİ ĭĸĻĺij Kııĺı ĻŁľŀ ĭĺİ ĸĵĺŀ ľĵłıƌ ĺĭŀŁľĭĸ ŀľĭĵĸĿ dedicated for public use within the development site to provide access to open space.  On-street parking generally located as depicted within the PUD Development Plan. Including parking at the end of Keene Court that will be maintained by the City.  Rear loaded parking will be provided behind townhouses constructed on Flint Drive.  No on-site parking for the two (2) MFD at the end of Keene Court. All parking will be provided on the street and maintained by the City.  A teardrop layout of Keene Court.  A preliminary landscape plan with screening to the east and west of the site and general location of street trees. Additional street trees might be required to meet section 34-870 during site plan review.  No phasing. The PUD is proposed to be developed all at once. o Note: if the development is not to be constructed in sections or phases, then the developer would be required to substantially complete all public streets (including sidewalk, curb, gutter, extension of utility mains, and stubs of water/ sewer laterals for each lot) prior to the date on which the first building or structure would be eligible for occupancy. Subdivision Ordinance §29-260(a)(i). Page 5 of 22 Vicinity Map Zoning Map Yellow: (R-1S) Residential Small Lots, Orange: (R-2) Residential two-family, Green: (PUD) Longwood Drive Page 6 of 22 2018 Aerial 2013 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Yellow: Low Density Residential, Blue: Public or Semi-Public: Purple: Mixed Use, Green: Parks Page 7 of 22 Rezoning Standard of Review City Council may grant an applicant a rezoning request, giving consideration to a number of factors set forth within Z.O. Sec. 34-41. The role of the Planning Commission is to make an advisory recommendation to the City Council, as to whether or not Council should approve a proposed rezoning based on the factors listed in Z.O. Sec. 34-41(a): (a) All proposed amendments shall be reviewed by the planning commission. The planning commission shall review and study each proposed amendment to determine: (1) Whether the proposed amendment conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the comprehensive plan; (2) Whether the proposed amendment will further the purposes of this chapter and the general welfare of the entire community; (3) Whether there is a need and justification for the change; and (4) When pertaining to a change in the zoning district classification of property, the effect of the proposed change, if any, on the property itself, on surrounding property, and on public services and facilities. In addition, the commission shall consider the appropriateness of the property for inclusion within the proposed zoning district, relating to the purposes set forth at the beginning of the proposed district classification. Planned Unit Development Standard of Review Sec. 34-490. - In reviewing an application for approval of a planned unit development (PUD) or an application seeking amendment of an approved PUD, in addition to the general considerations applicable to any rezoning the city council and planning commission shall consider whether the application satisfies the following objectives of a PUD district: 1. To encourage developments of equal or higher quality than otherwise required by the strict application of zoning district regulations that would otherwise govern; 2. To encourage innovative arrangements of buildings and open spaces to provide efficient, attractive, flexible and environmentally sensitive design. 3. To promote a variety of housing types, or, within a development containing only a single housing type, to promote the inclusion of houses of various sizes; 4. To encourage the clustering of single-family dwellings for more efficient use of land and preservation of open space; 5. To provide for developments designed to function as cohesive, unified projects; 6. To ensure that a development will be harmonious with the existing uses and character of adjacent property, and/or consistent with patterns of development noted with respect to such adjacent property; 7. To ensure preservation of cultural features, scenic assets and natural features such as trees, streams and topography; Page 8 of 22 8. To provide for coordination of architectural styles internally within the development as well as in relation to adjacent properties along the perimeter of the development; and 9. To provide for coordinated linkages among internal buildings and uses, and external connections, at a scale appropriate to the development and adjacent neighborhoods; 10. To facilitate access to the development by public transit services or other single- vehicle-alternative services, including, without limitation, public pedestrian systems. Preliminary Analysis The applicant is proposing the rezoning in conjunction with a critical slope waiver and a road vacation request to accommodate the construction of up to sixty (60) townhouses distributed within seven rows and two multifamily buildings. The proposed development would also re-plat the right-of-ways for Flint Drive and Keene Court and involve road improvements that would connect Longwood Drive to Mosely Drive. Currently Flint Drive and Keene Court are unimproved platted roads with subdivided lots of record that have never been developed. A by-right development at this location would result in twelve single family homes and the connection of Keene Court to Longwood Drive, Mosely Drive, or both. Zoning History of the Subject Property Year Zoning District 1949 Subject Property was in the County 1958 Subject Property was in the County 1976 R-2 Residential 1991 R-2 Residential 2003 R-1S Residential Small Lots Z.O. Sec. 34-42 1. Whether the proposed amendment conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the comprehensive plan; a. Land Use TĴı ĭļļĸĵįĭĺŀ’Ŀ ĻŃĺ ĭĺĭĸŅĿĵĿ ĻIJ ŀĴı İıłıĸĻļĹıĺŀ’Ŀ įĻĺĿĵĿŀıĺįŅ ŃĵŀĴ ŀĴı Comprehensive Plan, as required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(d)(2), is provided in the Page 9 of 22 development plan and supplemental information packet (Attachment A & B). Staff Analysis The Subject Property is currently zoned R-1S. The R-1S district was established to provide and protect quiet, low-density residential areas wherein the predominant pattern of residential development is the single- family dwelling. R-1S districts consist of low-density residential areas characterized by small-lot development. The 2013 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map indicates the Subject Property remain Low Density Residential. Low Density Residential is described as land occupied by single or two- family types of housing. The density in these areas by-right should be no greater than 15 units per acre. The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the Subject Property to PUD to accommodate different types of housing units that are not currently allowed in the R-1S district or in the Low Density Residential areas of the City. Although the overall density for the site would be below the max 15 DUA as designated for Low Density Residential (the DUA for this site would be approximately 6 DUA) townhouses and multifamily buildings are not permitted in the R-1S district or Low Density Residential areas. Due to the unit type and configuration of the site, the subject property would be considered High Density Residential per the 2013 Land Use Map. High Density Residential includes all land intended to be occupied by multifamily residential types of housing (townhouses, apartments, and condominiums) and the density in these areas should be greater than 15 units per acres. According to the Development Plan Use Matrix (Attachment A) uses permitted within the PUD would be consistent with most of the current R-1S uses, with some exclusions and additions. Multifamily, Rowhouse/Townhouse, two-family, surface parking lot, surface parking lot (more than 20 space), and temporary parking facilities are added while libraries and indoor recreational facilities are removed. Should the rezoning be approved the maximum DUA of 6 would conform to the 2013 Land Use Map, but the building type of townhouse and multifamily units would not. Page 10 of 22 The Subject Property is bordered by: Direction Zoning District Current Use East R-2 and PUD Duplexes and Townhouses on Longwood Drive South R-1S Undeveloped land West R-1S Single family homes on Mosely Drive North R-1S Single Family homes that front on Mosely Drive SŀĭIJIJ IJĵĺİĿ ŀĴı ļľĻļĻĿıİ ľıņĻĺĵĺij ĵĿ įĻĺĿĵĿŀıĺŀ ŃĵŀĴ ŀĴı ĵŀŅ’Ŀ Comprehensive General Land Use Plan Map for density, but not consistent with housing type. The development would contribute to other goals within the Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff also finds the type of use, residential, would be consistent with the existing development pattern in this area. A transition of single-family attached and two-family dwellings from the higher intensity development on the south end of Longwood Drive (townhouses) to the lower intensity development on Mosley Drive (single family detached) would be more appropriate on the subject property than a continuation of townhouses and multifamily buildings that would abut single family homes. Staff is also concerned that the project is being proposed as one phase, but with a proffer statement that could convey a portion of the property to Habitat for Humanity. This could create complications during site plan review and construction. The nature of a PUD requires additional information be provided during site plan review to insure the site plan complies with the PUD Development Plan. If a portion of the development is conveyed to Habitat, they might not be at the same stage of construction as the rest of the development and unable to provide information needed to ĵĺĿŁľı ĭļļľĻłĭĸ ĻIJ ĭ “Ļĺı ļĴĭĿı” Ŀĵŀı ļĸĭĺƎ Staff does find that the development would contribute to goal 2.3 by enhancing pedestrian connections between residences. The new road and sidewalk would connect Longwood Drive and Moseley Drive, and the townhomes that front on Flint Drive would encourage more residential interaction. Page 11 of 22 b. Community Facilities Staff Analysis TĴı ĵŀŅ’Ŀ ĻĹļľıĴıĺĿĵłı Pĸĭĺ ĵİıĺŀĵIJĵıĿ įĻĹĹŁĺĵŀŅ IJĭįĵĸĵŀĵıĿ ĭĿ fire protection, police enforcement, and emergency response services; public utilities and infrastructure; and public parks and recreation opportunities. Each of these Departments reviewed the Development Plan and provided the following analysis.  Public Utilities: Per Z.O. Sec. 34-517(ĭ)(7)Ƌ ŀĴı ĵŀŅ’Ŀ PŁĮĸĵį UŀĵĸĵŀĵıĿ Department has verified that water and sewer infrastructure has capacity for the proposed land uses.  Fire Protection: Per Z.O. Sec. 34-517(ĭ)(8)Ƌ ŀĴı ĵŀŅ’Ŀ ĵľı MĭľĿĴĭĸ verified that adequate fire flow service exists for the proposed land uses. o No details were provide as to the type of curbing to be used, the applicant has indicated it will be Roll-over curbing as is the preferred standard for fire in townhouse development. o The loįĭŀĵĻĺ ĻIJ “NĻ Pĭľķĵĺij” ĿĵijĺĿ ĭľı ĺĻŀ ĵĺįĸŁİıİ ĵĺ ŀĴı application materials. c. Economic Sustainability Staff Analysis Staff finds no direct conflict with Chapter 3 (Economic Sustainability) of the Comprehensive Plan with a change of use from R-1S to PUD as the residential ŁĿı Ńĵĸĸ ĿŀĭŅ ŀĴı ĿĭĹıƎ ıĺĿĵŀŅ ĭĺİ Łĺĵŀ ŀŅļı Ńĵĸĸ įĴĭĺijıƋ ĮŁŀ “ľıĿĵİıĺŀĵĭĸ” ĭĿ ĭ “ŁĿı” Ńĵĸĸ ĿŀĭŅ ŀĴı ĿĭĹıƎ NĻ įĻĹĹıľįĵĭĸƋ ľıŀĭĵĸƋ ĵĺİŁĿŀľĵĭĸƋ ŀıįĴĺĻĸĻijŅƋ Ļľ business uses will be added or removed. d. Environment Staff Analysis The Development Plan was reviewed by the City’Ŀ ĺłĵľĻĺĹıĺŀĭĸ Department and generated no comments. e. Housing Staff Analysis: see analysis of the Housing Proffer on page 3 of this report. Page 12 of 22 f. Transportation Staff Analysis TĴı ıłıĸĻļĹıĺŀ Pĸĭĺ ŃĭĿ ľıłĵıŃıİ ĮŅ ŀĴı ĵŀŅ’Ŀ TľĭIJIJĵį ıļĭľŀĹıĺŀ ĭĺİ provided the following analysis:  Parking for this development would meet minimum standards.  Staff is concerned all parking for the two MFD will be on street and maintained by the City. No off street (onsite) parking is provided. Streets that Work Plan The Streets that Work Plan (approved September 2016 as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan) and can be viewed at: http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and-services/departments-h- z/neighborhood-development-services/streets-that-work/streets-that- work-plan Keene Court and Flint Drive are platted streets, but have never been ĵĹļľĻłıİ ĭĺİ ĭįįıļŀıİ ĵĺŀĻ ŀĴı ĵŀŅ’Ŀ Ŀŀľııŀ ĺıŀŃĻľķƎ !Ŀ ļĭľŀ ĻIJ ŀĴı PU application, the developer is requesting the vacation of Keene Court and Flint Drive from City Council. They would then re-plat the streets in generally the same area, but with modifications to accommodate the proposed PUD layout. As the streets would be new, they would not be listed in the current Street Typology. Based on the location and use associated with this development, the new streets would have a typology of Local Streets. Local streets are found throughout the City, and provide immediate access to all types of land uses. Although local streets form the majority of the street network, there is no specific typology associated with them. This is due in part to the many variations in context and ROW, as well as the commuĺĵŀŅ’Ŀ expressed desire to replicate as nearly as possible the feel of older local streets that do not meet current engineering and fire code standards. Local Streets do not have priorities and Neighborhood A or B should be looked at when determining design elements. !Ŀ ļĭľŀ ĻIJ ŀĴı ĻĹĹĵĿĿĵĻĺ’Ŀ ľıłĵıŃ ĻIJ ŀĴĵĿ ĭļļĸĵįĭŀĵĻĺƋ ŀĴı ĻĹĹĵĿĿĵĻĺ should consider whether the vacation of Keene Court and Flint Drive, as currently platted, and re-establishment in a slightly different layout would be substantially in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. As Keene Court and Flint Drive would be new streets, Neighborhood A typology should be Page 13 of 22 examined for design elements. The Streets that Work Plan notes the highest priority design elements for Neighborhood A Streets are sidewalks with a minimum of five (5) to six (6) feet of clear zone and bicycle facilities such as 5 feet bike lanes and 6 feet climbing lanes. On street parking is also a high priority for Neighborhood A Streets. Staff believes the new Keene Court and Flint Drive would meet these criteria. g. Historic Preservation & Urban Design Staff Analysis The proposed PUD is not within or adjacent to any of the City Architectural Controlled Districts. Staff also reviewed the development based on Urban Design and notes the following:  The proposed layout does not create a development of a higher quality than otherwise allowed by zoning per Section 34-490(1), nor provide an innovative arrangement of building and open space per Section 34-490(2). The proposed development is non-distinguishable form a typical development that would be allowed by-right in other zoning districts in the City wherein both townhouses and multifamily units are allowed. In particular, the double-stacked townhouses in the northern area of the site do not provide an attractive living arrangement for those occupying the rear units.  The PUD narrative notes a variety of housing sizes will be included, which is shown to some degree in the illustrative graphics, but the plan graphics show townhouse building footprints of relatively the same size. While varying building heights and varying materials can help to visually break up large building masses, horizontal variation is also important. In addition, building materials are specified within the PUD proposal, so it is not certain the built environment will employ varying materials to break up building mass.  The pedestrian experience proposed through the PUD leaves much to be desired and does not meet Goal 1 of the Transportation chapter of the 2013 Comprehensive Plan: INCREASE SAFE, CONVENIENT AND PLEASANT ACCOMMODA TIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS, BICYCLISTS AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES THAT IMPROVE QUALITY OF LIFE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY AND WITHIN INDIVIDUAL NEIGHBORHOODS. The layout requires pedestrians to constantly cross driveways while on the sidewalk, which is neither comfortable nor enjoyable, and does not meet Goal 2.3 of the Transportation chapter of the 2013 Comprehensive Plan: Improve walking and biking Page 14 of 22 conditions by discouraging and/or minimizing curb cuts for driveways, garages, etc. in new development and redevelopment. The Landscape Plan shows few streets trees, including only four in the area of the condominium buildings, which are an important component of pedestrian comfort. PUD zoning provides an opportunity to meet Goal 1.4 of the Historic Preservation and Urban Design chapter of the 2013 Comprehensive Plan by developing a pedestrian friendly environment. The ability to determine PUD lot size and road layout allows homes to be set around a larger center green with a private road access to parking in the rear instead of in the proposed location. This would create a much improved layout that fosters community interaction and pedestrian comfort.  The open space within the traffic loop does not provide much beyond visual interest. Use of the southern open space is limited due to steep slopes. 2. Whether the proposed amendment will further the purposes of this chapter and the general welfare of the entire community; Staff Analysis Staff finds that a land use change from R-1S to PUD, with proffers, as described in the application materials, will benefit the community by providing additional residential housing of a type that is not prevalent in this area of the City and substantial open space. 3. Whether there is a need and justification for the change; Staff Analysis !įįĻľİĵĺij ŀĻ ŀĴı ĵŀŅ’Ŀ 2013 Future Land Use Map, this portion of the City should be Low Density Residential and allow single and two-family dwellings types. The proposed PUD would not alter the density range in this area of the City, but would change the housing type allowed (townhouse and multifamily). Based on the application materials presented, staff is not of the opinion that the proposed development would further the PUD Objectives in Sec. 34-490 or promote the public welfare, convenience or good zoning practice. 4. When pertaining to a change in the zoning district classification of property, the effect of the proposed change, if any, on the property itself, on surrounding property, and on public services and facilities. In addition, the commission shall consider the appropriateness of the property for inclusion within the Page 15 of 22 proposed zoning district, relating to the purposes set forth at the beginning of the proposed district classification. The location of the subject property is currently undeveloped, but would be served by public utilities and facilities. Staff Analysis Any development on the subject property would be evaluated during site plan review and need to meet all current regulations related to public utilities and facilities. Due to the location of the subject property, staff believes all public services and facilities would be adequate to support any development contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan for this area. Planned Unit Development Standard of Review Sec. 34-490. - In reviewing an application for approval of a planned unit development (PUD) or an application seeking amendment of an approved PUD, in addition to the general considerations applicable to any rezoning the city council and planning commission shall consider whether the application satisfies the following objectives of a PUD district: 1. To encourage developments of equal or higher quality than otherwise required by the strict application of zoning district regulations that would otherwise govern; TĴı ĭļļĸĵįĭĺŀ’Ŀ ĻŃĺ ĭĺĭĸŅĿĵĿ ĻIJ ŀĴı İıłıĸĻļĹıĺŀ’Ŀ įĻĺĿĵĿŀıĺįŅ ŃĵŀĴ ŀĴı Ŀŀĭĺİĭľİ ĻIJ review is found in the Development Plan (Attachment A page 7). Staff Analysis Staff finds the development of townhouses at this location, with the architectural features and sizes proposed, would be equal in quality to townhouses located in other areas of the City that are by-right. Staff does not see anything in the proposal that would indicate buildings within the development or their location would be of higher quality. Although townhouses might be appropriate in this location, the same building type could be achieved by rezoning to an existing district (like R-3). Staff does find that the addition of open space and the preservation of sensitive areas adjacent to Moores Creek introduce elements that are of a higher quality than a new subdivision of single-family homes under the R-1S standards, or construction of townhouses under City standards within an R-3 zoning at this location. Staff does find the portion of the development that fronts on Flint Drive to be designed to a higher quality than otherwise required by the strict application of the zoning district regulations. These townhouses are sited close to the road and activate the street while providing a comfortable pedestrian experience. The Page 16 of 22 townhouses proposed directly behind the ones on Flint Drive (fronting on the ŁĺĺĭĹıİ “Ŀŀľııŀ”) are not equal or higher quality than otherwise required by the strict application of the zoning code. These units would be landlocked with no sidewalks or pedestrian access to Flint Drive. The application materials also indicate two (8) eight unit multifamily condominium buildings will be built at the end of Keene Court. No architectural information is provided related to these buildings, but staff finds the general size and location within the development would add to a variety of housing types. Small multifamily buildings within the context of other unit types, such as single family detached, two- family, and townhouses, offeľĿ ŀĴı “ĹĵĿĿĵĺij Ĺĵİİĸı” Ŀįĭĸı ŀĴı įĻĹĹŁĺĵŀŅ ĭĿ ĭ ŃĴĻĸı is looking for. Staff is concerned with the parking layout and lack of street trees/landscaping for these units. 2. To encourage innovative arrangements of buildings and open spaces to provide efficient, attractive, flexible and environmentally sensitive design. Staff Analysis Staff does find the portion of the development that fronts on Flint Drive to be designed in an innovative arrangement with regards to building placement. These units are located close to Flint Drive with parking in the rear. Pedestrians will be able to walk from Longwood Drive to Moseley Drive, crossing many homes, but only Ĵĭłĵĺij ŀĻ Ĺĭķı Ļĺı “Ŀŀľııŀ” įľĻĿĿĵĺijƎ SŀĭIJIJ IJĵĺİĿ ŀĴı ľıĿŀ ĻIJ ŀĴı development is not innovative in its arrangement of buildings and open space. 3. To promote a variety of housing types, or, within a development containing only a single housing type, to promote the inclusion of houses of various sizes; Staff Analysis Staff finds the developer is proposing two housing types (townhouse and multifamily), although the proposed Use Matrix also allows the following other housing types, by right: MFD, SFA, SFD, TH. No additional information is provided on the multifamily units, but within the townhouses, the development plan indicates additional variety. This includes units of varying size, style, and parking location (see P. 4 and 7 of the PUD Development Plan) for information regarding the size restrictions that will apply to the units within the development. Staff finds the development, as presented, would meet this section of the PUD objective. 4. To encourage the clustering of single-family dwellings for more efficient use of land and preservation of open space; Page 17 of 22 Staff Analysis The development plan indicates the townhouses and multifamily buildings will be clustered in a way that will preserve open space. 5. To provide for developments designed to function as cohesive, unified projects; Staff Analysis Nothing within the development plan indicates it would not function as a cohesive project. Nothing in the plan indicates this is a phased development, in fact, the application materials indicate that there will be no phasing. Because this is not a phased development, the City will require all public improvements, and site amenities be in place prior to issuing the first CO. As a one phase development, staff is concerned with the proffer statement that could convey a portion of the property to Habitat for Humanity. This could create complications during site plan review and construction. The nature of a PUD requires additional information be provided during site plan review to insure the site plan complies with the PUD Development Plan. If a portion of the development is conveyed to Habitat, they might not be at the same stage of construction as the rest of the development and unable to provide information needed to insure approłĭĸ ĻIJ ĭ “Ļĺı ļĴĭĿı” Ŀĵŀı ļĸĭĺƎ 6. To ensure that a development will be harmonious with the existing uses and character of adjacent property, and/or consistent with patterns of development noted with respect to such adjacent property; Staff Analysis The PUD is partly harmonious with development patterns of the surrounding neighborhood but could benefit from more of a transition to the existing housing stock on Moseley Drive. The applicant is proposing landscape screening on the edges of the development to screen it from the single family homes on Moseley Drive and duplexes on Longwood Drive, but landscape screening is common per the normal City development standards. 7. To ensure preservation of cultural features, scenic assets and natural features such as trees, streams and topography; Staff Analysis Page 18 of 22 The development will impact critical slopes and require the removal of some large existing trees. By clustering the development, large portions of the property can be preserved as open space. 8. To provide for coordination of architectural styles internally within the development as well as in relation to adjacent properties along the perimeter of the development; Staff Analysis The application materials indicate a variety of architectural styles that could be used in the development. All the styles would be compatible with the surrounding built environment. Staff notes, however that the PUD Plan itself does not make any binding representation(s) that specific architectural styles, sizes, etc. will or will not be used. In addition, the development plan indicates the Homeowners Association will have an Architectural Review Board. Staff is concerned this board would not be in place until after all the units are built and occupied and would only effect upgrades or changes to future existing buildings. 9. To provide for coordinated linkages among internal buildings and uses, and external connections, at a scale appropriate to the development and adjacent neighborhoods; Staff Analysis Coordinated linkages among internal buildings, open space, and the surrounding neighborhood is provided and to scale with the neighborhood. Residents of the development and the neighborhood would have access to the new park land by a trail on the western edge of the development. A key element of the proposal would be the linkage of Longwood Drive to Mosely Drive by way of an improved Flint Drive. This would create more connectivity in the neighborhood for pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles. The portion of the development that fronts on Flint Drive provides a friendly pedestrian experience as the parking is located behind the buildings and the townhouses are sited closer to the street. The sidewalk around Keene Court requires pedestrians to cross many driveways. This is not as pedestrian-friendly as the proposed Flint Drive portion. In addition, the townhouses with frontage on the unnamed street are not pedestrian-friendly as no sidewalk is provided to get from the units to Flint Drive. Page 19 of 22 10. To facilitate access to the development by public transit services or other single-vehicle-alternative services, including, without limitation, public pedestrian systems. Staff Analysis Sheltered 5’ sidewalks will provide better pedestrian access for the neighborhood and create an alternative route for students to Jackson-Via Elementary. No new bus route is planned, but the development would be served by CAT route 4 (Cherry Ave & Harris Rd.). Public Comments Received Community Meeting Required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(c)(2) On January 22, 2020 the applicant held a community meeting at Cherry Avenue Christian Church as part of the FSNA monthly meeting. The applicant gave an overview of the project as it related to the need for a rezoning. The meeting was well attended, but a majority did not comment on the project. Below are the concerns that were raised:  The density is too high. The City does not have the infrastructure to support more development (roads, sidewalks…)  Traffic will be a problem.  Parking will be a problem and will impact the surrounding neighborhood.  The development could change the character of the neighborhood. As of the date of this report (May 18, 2020), staff has received the following concerns through email, phone calls or in person conversations (any email staff received were forwarded to Planning Commission and City Council Attachment D):  Parking will be a problem and the development should include a Community parking garage.  The current road system cannot handle 60 more residential units in this area. Staff Recommendation Staff finds the proposed development, as presented in the application materials could contribute to some goals within the City’s Comprehensive Plan such as additional housing and increased pedestrian connectivity. The uses presented in the proposed development are not consistent with the current R-1S District because of the housing type being proposed. As presented in the application, staff finds the PUD to be desirable as to open space, density, and connectivity along the Flint Drive. Staff is concerned about other aspects and recommends denial for the following: 1. Significant portions of the development as presented are very similar to townhouse and multifamily developments allowed by-right in the R-3 districts and do not meet Page 20 of 22 the stricter intent of a PUD. The portion of the development fronting on Flint Drive is more constant with innovative Urban Design promoted by PUD Objectives 2 and 9. 2. Staff is concerned with the affordable dwelling unit language in the proffer statement. It does not address several key details or provide sufficiently concrete information regarding establishment of a timetable for affordable units. Summarizing the Standard of Review, staff finds: (1) Whether the proposed amendment conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the comprehensive plan. Staff finds the proposed rezoning (as presented in the application materials) would not comply with the City’s Comprehensive General Land Use Plan Map, but would contribute to other chapters of the City’s 2013 Comprehensive. (2) Whether the proposed amendment will further the purposes of this chapter and the general welfare of the entire community. Staff finds the proposed rezoning (as presented in the application materials) would further the purposes of this chapter and the general welfare of the entire community. (3) Whether there is a need and justification for the change. Staff finds no justification for the change. (4) When pertaining to a change in the zoning district classification of property, the effect of the proposed change, if any, on the property itself, on surrounding property, and on public services and facilities. In addition, the commission shall consider the appropriateness of the property for inclusion within the proposed zoning district, relating to the purposes set forth at the beginning of the proposed district classification. Staff finds the proposed rezoning (as presented in the application materials) would have an impact on public services or facilities (road layout for Keene Court and utility layout for sanitary sewer). (5) City Code §29-200(b) Public water and sanitary sewer mains shall be located within dedicated public street right-of-way, unless topography renders that impractical. When any such mains must be located on private property, public easements shall be dedicated to allow for the placement of the mains and related facilities, and perpetual access thereto by the city and its authorized agents. Unless otherwise determined to be necessary by the director of public works, such easements shall be no less than twenty (20) feet in width: approval of a PUD Plan does not relieve a developer from its obligation to comply with other state and local laws (Subdivision Ordinance standards for public streets, utilities, etc.)_Staff and the City Attorney’s Office are concerned about the prospect of approving a private street with public utilities running through them. Page 21 of 22 Suggested Motions 1. I move to recommend that City Council should approve ZM20-00001, including the critical slope waiver requested in P20-00011, on the basis that the streets proposed within the PUD Development are laid out in a manner substantially in accord with the Comprehensive Plan, and approval of the proposed PUD Development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. OR, 2. I move to recommend that City Council should deny approval of ZM20-00001 and P20-00011. Attachments A. Flint Hill PUD Development Plan Dated May 1, 2020 B. Flint Hill PUD Supplemental Information Packet Dated May 1, 2020 C. Flint Hill PUD Application Dated December 20, 2019 D. Emails received prior to May 18, 2020 Page 22 of 22 Attachment A TABLE OF CONTENTS 500' radius for adjacent properties PUD Development Plan (Sec 34-517) This PUD Development Plan (Pages 1 through 8) meets the requirements of Charlottesville City Code Section 34-517(a). The below table of contents lists PUD requirements and references where in the PUD Development Plan the requirements are illustrated or described. Contents: 34-517(a)(1) A survey plat describing and depicting the entire land area to be included within the PUD development site, including identification of present ownership, existing zoning district classification(s) of the parcel(s) to be included within the PUD. Page 2: Existing Conditions 34-517(a)(2) A narrative statement of how the objectives described within section 34-490 are met by the proposed PUD. Page 7: Narrative 34-517(a)(3) A conceptual development plan, supporting maps, and written or photographic data and analysis which show: a. Location and size of existing water and sanitary and storm sewer facilities and easements; Page 2: Existing Conditions b. Layout for proposed water and sanitary sewer facilities and storm drainage facilities; Page 4: Land Use Plan c. Location of other proposed utilities; Page 4: Land Use Plan d. Location of existing and proposed ingress and egress from the development; Page 4: Land Use Plan e. Location and size of existing and proposed streets; Page 4: Land Use Plan. f. Location of existing and proposed pedestrian and bicycle improvements, including connections to nearby schools; Page 4: Land Use Plan. Note: City sidewalks and bicycle lanes provide pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to Jackson Via elementary school Via Longwood Drive and Harris Road. g. An inventory, by tax map parcel number and street address, of all adjacent parcels within a five hundred-foot radius of the perimeter of the PUD, indicating the existing zoning district classification of each. Page 1: Cover Page h. A site inventory of the significant natural, environmental and cultural features of a site, including at a minimum: historic landmarks contained on any state or federal register; vegetation; existing trees of eight-inch caliper or greater; wetlands, topography, shown at intervals of five (5) feet or less, critical slopes, and other, similar characteristics or features, and a plan for preserving, protecting, utilizing and/or incorporating such features into the design and function of the proposed PUD. Page 2: Existing Conditions; and Page 3: Environmental Features; and Page 4: Land Use Plan 34-517(a)(4) A proposed land use plan. Such plan will identify: a. Proposed land uses and their general locations, including without limitation, building and setbacks; Page 4 : Land Use Plan; and Pages 5-6: Use Matrix b. Proposed densities of proposed residential development; Page 8: Proffers c. Location and acreage of required open space; Page 4: Land Use Plan d. Square footage for non-residential uses; Non-residential uses are not proposed. e. Maximum height of buildings and structures in area of PUD. Page 7: Narrative 34-517(a)(5) A general landscape plan which focuses on the general location and type of landscaping to be used within the project as well as the special buffering treatment proposed between project land uses and adjacent zoning districts; Page 4: Land Use Plan. 34-517(a)(6) Phasing plan if needed. Each phase shall individually meet the requirements of this section. Phasing is not proposed. 34-517(a)(7) A statement from the city public utilities department verifying whether water and sewer infrastructure capacity does or does not exist for the proposed land use(s). In a previous application a statement was provided from the city public utilities department that water and sewer infrastructure capacity does exist for the proposed uses. Water is available via a 6” water main in Flint Drive off of Longwood Drive and an 8” water main in Flint Drive off of Moseley Drive. Sanitary sewer is available via an 8” sewer line behind lots along Longwood Drive. 34-517(a)(8) A statement from the fire marshal verifying whether adequate fire flow service does or does not exist for the proposed land use(s). The fire flow tests have been provided and approved by the fire marshal. Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE RAIL RE T ATU P. N PRO PR O P. N AT UR E TR AI L OPEN SPACE AIL OPEN SPACE E TR UR AT O P. N PR OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Narrative Project Description Flint Hill PUD MAY 1, 2020 Flint Hill is a PUD on Flint Drive adjacent to the Longwood PUD. The PUD is intended to provide increased density and housing affordability, and meets the objectives in Sec. 34-490 of the Planned Unit Development ordinance as follows: 1. To encourage developments of equal or higher quality than otherwise required by the strict application of zoning district regulations that would otherwise govern; This proposal is of equal or higher quality than otherwise required by the strict application of zoning district regulations that currently govern because it proposes to provide higher density and more affordable housing options than would be built on the existing platted, but unbuilt, 13 parcels that make up the project. If built by-right, the existing 13 parcels would be large single-family homes on large lots that cost substantially more than what will be provided in the proposed PUD. In addition to the natural increase in affordability provided by townhomes versus single-family homes, the developer is proffering additional deed-restricted affordable housing that will remain affordable even if the market prices of other homes rise. The PUD also proposes a large parcel of open space along Moore's Creek for preservation, conservation, and/or passive recreation uses, and proposes to construct a pocket park or rain garden in a central open space within the PUD. 2. To encourage innovative arrangements of buildings and open spaces to provide efficient, attractive, flexible and environmentally sensitive design; The proposed arrangement of buildings avoids the large areas of steep slopes, avoids the riparian areas along Moore's creek, builds on an upland area already subdivided for development long ago, and preserves large areas of open space providing efficient, attractive, flexible and environmentally sensitive design. 3. To promote a variety of housing types, or within a development containing only a single housing type, to promote inclusion of houses of various sizes; The development will provide both single family attached and neighborhood-scale condominium housing types. Among those housing types will be several subtypes of various square footages, widths, styles and price points; rear-alley-loaded garage townhomes; and proffered ADUs to guarantee affordability and variety. 4. To encourage the clustering of single-family dwellings for more efficient use of land and preservation of open space; The proposed PUD clusters the new housing on approximately 4 upland acres of the site and preserves approximately half the site. 5. To provide for developments designed to function as cohesive, unified projects. The proposed PUD will be cohesive and unified in its form and function, and will have a homeowners association to assure its long-term success. 6. To ensure that a development will be harmonious with the existing uses and character of adjacent property, and/or consistent with patterns of development noted with respect to such adjacent property; The project will have building sizes very similar to what was built in the adjacent Longwood PUD. The PUD also causes 306 Camellia Drive to remain as a large 1-acre lot, consistent with development patterns along that street. Maximum building height in the PUD shall be 35'. 7. To ensure preservation of cultural features, scenic assets and natural features such as trees, streams and topography. The proposed PUD preserves the trees, streams, and sensitive topography on roughly half of the site, a significant achievement in a development that also provides appropriate density and significant affordability. 8. To provide for coordination of architectural styles internally within the development as well as in relation to adjacent properties along the perimeter of the development; and The proposed PUD will have coordinated architectural styles, governed by an Architectural Review Board that is part of the homeowners association. 9. To provide for coordinated linkages among internal buildings and uses, and external connections, at a scale appropriate to the development and adjacent neighborhoods; The proposed PUD provides coordinated road and pedestrian linkages via a new road and sidewalks that will connect Moseley Drive to Longwood Drive. The PUD will also provide for trail connections to Moore's Creek and the adjacent Longwood Park owned by the City. 10. To facilitate access to the development by public transit services or other single-vehicle-alternative services, including, without limitation, public pedestrian systems. The proposed PUD will have the public pedestrian systems mentioned above. It is located only one block from Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT) Route 4. In addition, the construction of the road and new sidewalks on Flint Drive will connect Moseley Drive to Longwood Drive, allowing pedestrians, particularly students that live on Garden Dr, Camellia Dr, Shasta Ct, Hilton Dr, and Moseley Dr, to walk to Jackson Via Elementary School and the Food Lion shopping center on neighborhood streets, spending less time walking along Harris Rd, a busier street. Attachment A BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA IN RE: PETITION FOR REZONING (City Application No. ZM-19-_______) STATEMENT OF FINAL PROFFER CONDITIONS For the Flint Hill PUD Dated as of ________ TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE: The undersigned limited liability company is the owner of land subject to the above-referenced rezoning petition (“Subject Property”). The Owner/Applicant seeks to amend the current zoning of the property subject to certain voluntary development conditions set forth below. In connection with this rezoning application, the Owner/Applicant seeks approval of a PUD as set forth within a PUD Development Plan, pages 1 through 8, dated ________________. The Owner/Applicant hereby proffers and agrees that if the Subject Property is rezoned as requested, the rezoning will be subject to, and the Owner will abide by, the approved PUD Development Plan as well as the following conditions: 1. Density shall not exceed a maximum of 60 residential units. 2. Affordable Housing: a. The Developershall cause a minimum15% of the residentialunits constructedon the site to be AffordableDwellingUnits (ADUs)accessibleto residentsbetween25% and 60% of area medianincome(as definedin City Code §34-12(c) and §34-12(g), with affordabilityprovisionsguaranteedthrough30+ year deed restrictionswhichinclude,at a minimum,a first right of refusalto repurchasethe property,appreciation-sharingprovisions,and forgivable and/or no-interest mortgages to the qualified home buyer. b. Duringhome constructionADUs shall be providedincrementallysuch that at least 1 incrementalADU shall be under constructionprior to the issuanceof every 10th Certificateof Occupancy. At the Landowner'soption,if the Landowner conveys to Habitat for Humanity, by recorded deed, any of the ADU lots pursuant to this proffer, then: i. The conveyed ADU lot(s) shall be deemed to be “under construction” as of the date of recordation of the deed of conveyance from Landowner to Habitat, containing the required ADU restriction; and ii. The Landownershall providethe City with a bindingcommitmentfrom Habitatfor Humanitypromisingthat, if any of the initialownersof the ADUssell or otherwisetransferownershipof the affordabledwellingunit to a person otherthan the Habitatfor Humanityorganizationor a qualifyingheir, withinthe first twenty(20) yearsfollowingissuanceof a certificateof occupancyfor the unit sold or transferred,then Habitatwill use any profit-sharingproceeds from the sale or transfer for construction of a replacement affordable dwelling unit within the City of Charlottesville; WHEREFORE, the undersigned Owner(s) stipulate and agree that the use and development of the Subject Property shall be in conformity with the conditions hereinabove stated, and requests that the Subject Property be rezoned as requested, in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charlottesville. Respectfully submitted this _______ day of __________. Owner: Owner's Address: Belmont Station, LLC 142 South Pantops Drive Charlottesville, VA 22911 By:______________________________ Charles Armstrong, Member Attachment B SITE ² Attachment B OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE AIL AIL E TR E TR TUR R ATU A P. N P. N PRO PRO PR PR OP OP .N .NA AT TU UR RE E TR TR AI AI L L OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE AIL RA IL OPEN SPACE E TR OPEN SPACE ET UR UR AT AT P. N P. N PRO PR O Attachment B OPEN SPACE 25.0' 25.0' OPEN SPACE .0' 25 OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE PR OP .N AT U Attachment B OPEN SPACE 25.0' 25.0' OPEN SPACE .0' 25 OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE PR OP .N AT U Attachment B OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE PR OP .N AT U Attachment B OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE PR OP .N AT U Attachment B OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE RAIL RE T ATU P. N PRO PR OP .N AT UR E TR AI L OPEN SPACE IL RA OPEN SPACE ET UR AT P. N PRO OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE Attachment B Attachment B Attachment B Attachment B OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE RAIL RE T ATU P. N PRO PR OP .N AT UR E TR AI L OPEN SPACE AIL OPEN SPACE TR URE AT P. N PRO OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE Attachment B OPEN SPACE ² OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE BACK-IN ANGLE PARKING ONLY OPEN SPACE PR OP .N AT UR E TR AI L Attachment B PEDESTRIAN ACCESS FROM AZALEA DRIVE AND SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD THE CONNECTION OF MOSELEY DR AND LONGWOOD DR WILL DECREASE THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT MANY STUDENTS WILL SPEND ON HARRIS ROAD WHILE WALKING TO JACKSON-VIA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 130 HOUSES THAT RESIDE IN THE SHADED AREA PROVIDED ON THIS SHEET. THE CLOSEST BUS STOP IS AT THE INTERSECTION OF LONGWOOD DRIVE AND HARRIS ROAD. CTS ROUTE 4 IS APPROXIMATELY 1,400 FT AWAY FROM THIS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. BUS STOP PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK Attachment B OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE L TRAI TURE P. NA PRO PR O P. NA TU RE TR AIL OPEN SPACE AIL OPEN SPACE E TR UR AT .N OP PR OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE Attachment B Harris R d. ly Dr. . Camellia Dr r. Mose D od wo ng Lo Attachment B Attachment B Attachment B OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE Attachment B OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE RAIL RE T ATU P. N PRO PR OP .N AT UR E TR AI L OPEN SPACE IL RA OPEN SPACE ET UR AT O P. N PR OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE Attachment B Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment D Alfele, Matthew From: Mary Kirby Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 2:43 PM To: Alfele, Matthew Subject: Re: Topic of Public Hearing March 10 ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Mr. Alfele: I am very concerned for our general neighborhood (Shasta Ct., Moseley Dr. and Camellia Dr.) and the proposed Flint Hill project. The zoning here is for single family dwellings with a few duplexes thrown in moe recently. Parking space available corresponds to this zoning ‐ allowing for several cars per dwelling, since most husbands, wives abd teen children have cars now. You are being asked to consider 60 condos on 10 acres for Flint Hill. Each condo is likely to generate 4 cars (because most will be occupied by singles, such as students four per condo ‐ minimum, or families). This means roughly 240 cars!! Before deciding on this project, PLEASE send someone out to review EVENING PARKING ‐ when everyone is home and you can see how little extra space there is, especially if someone has visitors at times. There truly is no space for that many extra vehicles UNLESS the developer agrees to include a Flint Hill Community parking garage in his 10‐acre plan @‐ adjacent to or possibly UNDER the condos. PLEASE HEAR REASON! Thank you, Mary H. Kirby 106 Shasta Ct. 1 Attachment D Alfele, Matthew From: Sandra Erksa Sent: Friday, January 10, 2020 8:10 AM To: Alfele, Matthew Subject: Re: New Flint Hill Development ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Matt, Thank you for letting me know about this. I been waiting for something to come along about it. I can't believe that they have upped the request from 50 to up to 60 units. I figured that they would increase the offer of affordable units to make it more attractive, but increasing the total number of units would add even more cars to the roads leading to the development. Fifty units was bad enough and this is even worse. The roads can't support so many cars. The developers really don't care at all about the surrounding community. I do want to be kept in the loop about this issue. Sandy Erksa On January 9, 2020 at 3:39 PM "Alfele, Matthew" wrote: This email is to inform you a new proposal for Flint Hill may be coming forward in the next few months. The applicant is holding a Community Meeting on January 22, 2020 (see attached letter). The City has not received an application as of the date of this email, but if an application is submitted I will keep you informed. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Matt Alfele, AICP City Planner City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services City Hall – 610 East Market Street P.O. Box 911 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Ph 434.970.3636 FAX 434.970.3359 alfelem@charlottesville.org 1 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT REQUEST FOR A WAIVER: CRITICAL SLOPES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: June 9, 2020 (P20-00008) Project Planner: Matt Alfele, AICP Date of Staff Report: May 26, 2020 Applicant: Belmont Station, LLC Applicant’s Representative(s): Charlie Armstrong Current Property Owner: Belmont Station, LLC Application Information Property Street Address: 100 – 109 Keene Ct., 304 -306 Flint Dr., and 306 Camellia Dr. Tax Map/Parcel #: Tax Map and Parcel (200259310, 200259301, 200259290, 200259280, 200259270, 200259260, 200259370, 200259380, 200259350, 200259340, 200259330, 200259320, and 200196000) Total Project Area (Limits of Disturbance): 9.81 acres Total Area of Critical Slopes on Parcels: 2.65 acres | 27% Area of Proposed Critical Slope Disturbance: 0.33 | 3.4% of total site area | 12.5% of total critical slopes area Comprehensive Plan (General Land Use Plan): Low Density Residential Current Zoning Classification: R-1S (Developer is requesting a rezoning to PUD under ZM20-00001) Background Belmont Station, LLC has submitted a rezoning application (ZM20-00001) with a development plan dated May 1, 2020. The rezoning proposal is for approximately ten acres to be rezoning to PUD to accommodate a townhome and multifamily development. The proposed improvements associated with the rezoning will impact critical slopes on-site as defined by Section 34-1120(b)(2). Per Section 34-1120(b) and 34-516(c) request for a critical slope waiver must be heard simultaneously with the rezoning request by the Planning Commission. The (PUD) referred to as “Flint Hill PUD” would allow up to sixty units split between eight rows of townhouses and two multifamily buildings at an approximate density of six dwelling units per acre (DUA), with open space in the amount of 5.1 acres, and the following unique characteristics/ amenities: townhome style units, rear loading lots off Flint Drive and a new unnamed private street, nature trails, and a central teardrop City maintained road with on street parking. Page 1 of 8 Application Details Belmont Station, LLC is requesting a waiver from Section 34-1120(b) of the City Code (Critical Slope Ordinance) to allow for construction of a development that would include up to sixty residential units split between townhomes and multifamily buildings with supporting infrastructure. Improvements specific to areas where critical slopes would be impacted should the waiver be approved are shown on the Critical Slope Exhibit (Attachment B) and include portions of lots 15 through 26, lots A and B, parking on Flint Drive, sanitary sewer and storm sewer placement, and pedestrian trails. Due to construction activities, lot 27 could also impact critical slopes. Existing critical slopes areas located on this Property include 2.65 acres or 27 percent of the site. The applicable definition of “critical slope” is as follows: Any slope whose grade is 25% or greater, and (a) a portion of the slope has a horizontal run of greater than 20 feet, and its total area is 6,000 SF or greater, and (b) a portion of the slope is within 200 feet of a waterway. See City Code Sec. 34-1120(b)(2). Based on the information presented within the application materials, Staff verifies that the area for which this waiver is sought meets all of the above-referenced components of the definition of “critical slope”. Vicinity Map Page 2 of 8 Topography Map Critical Slopes per the Zoning Ordinance Page 3 of 8 Standard of Review A copy of Sec. 34-1120(b) (Critical Slopes Regulations) is included as Attachment C for your reference. The provisions of Sec. 34-1120(b) must guide your analysis and recommendations. It is the Planning Commission’s responsibility, when a waiver application has been filed, to review the application and make a recommendation to City Council as to whether or not the waiver should be granted based off the following: i. The public benefits of allowing disturbance of a critical slope outweigh the public benefits of the undisturbed slope (public benefits include, but are not limited to, stormwater and erosion control that maintains the stability of the property and/or the quality of adjacent or environmentally sensitive areas; groundwater recharge; reduced stormwater velocity; minimization of impervious surfaces; and stabilization of otherwise unstable slopes); or ii. Due to unusual size, topography, shape, location, or other unusual physical conditions, or existing development of a property, one (1) or more of these critical slopes provisions would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use, reuse or redevelopment of such property or would result in significant degradation of the site or adjacent properties. If the recommendation is for City Council to grant the requested waiver, the Planning Commission may also make recommendations as to the following: i. Whether any specific features or areas within the proposed area of disturbance should remain undisturbed (for example: large stands of trees; rock outcroppings; slopes greater than 60%, etc.)? ii. Whether there are any conditions that could be imposed by City Council that would mitigate any possible adverse impacts of the proposed disturbance? Project Review and Analysis Each applicant for a critical slopes waiver is required to articulate a justification for the waiver, and to address how the land disturbance, as proposed, will satisfy the purpose and intent of the Critical Slopes Regulations, as found within City Code Sec. 34-1120(b)(1). In order to grant a waiver, City Council is required to make one of two specific findings: either (1) public [environmental] benefits of allowing disturbance of the critical slope outweigh the benefits afforded by the existing undisturbed slope per City Code 34-1120(b)(6)(d.i), or (2) due to unusual physical conditions or existing development of a site, the critical slopes restrictions would unreasonably limit the use or development of the property, see City Code 34-1120(b)(6)(d.ii.). The applicant has provided information in the attached critical slopes waiver narrative (Attachment A) for Finding #1. Page 4 of 8 Applicant’s Justification for Finding #1 i. The public benefits of allowing disturbance of a critical slope outweigh the public benefits of the undisturbed slope (public benefits include, but are not limited to, stormwater and erosion control that maintains the stability of the property and/or the quality of adjacent or environmentally sensitive areas; groundwater recharge; reduced stormwater velocity; minimization of impervious surfaces; and stabilization of otherwise unstable slopes); See the applicant’s own analysis (Attachment A and B) for a full justification as to Finding i. Staff Analysis: The critical slope waiver application was reviewed by the City’s Environmental Sustainability Department and Engineering Department. Below is their analysis on findings i. The development should attempt to avoid impacts to critical slopes caused by the proposed 8” PVC sanitary sewer line behind Lots 15-26 by locating the line in the proposed Keene Court right-of-way. This would also eliminate the need to impact the critical slopes and root zones of existing trees caused by having to bore sanitary sewer service lines from each home down the hill to the 8” sanitary sewer line. There are several large mature trees in this area that could be negatively impacted by the proposed utility configuration. Long term maintenance of these laterals are also of concern. The development should attempt to avoid impacts to critical slopes in the rear of Lots 19-25, 27, and lots A and B. The applicant could consider reconfiguring the footprint of the buildings on those lots. The buildings on the lots could be pushed closer to Keene Court. The impact of this could be the loss of off street parking. Impacts to critical slopes on lots 27 and B could be avoided by slightly altering the proposed limits of disturbance. Given that the site discharges to a sensitive wetland area and an impaired stream (Moores Creek), all water quality requirements associated with site development should be completed on-site and not through purchase of credits. The plan should meet VSMP water quantity requirements with on-site measures in order to protect the sensitive wetland area from increases in stormwater flow rates and velocities. The outlet protection for the stormwater management piping and any other forms of stormwater energy dissipation are shown outside of the critical slope area; however, insufficient detail is provided to determine if these structures can be constructed without affecting the wetland. A request for preliminary jurisdictional wetland determination report has been submitted; however, a significant portion of the parcel, 9.9%, has not been included for possible inclusion in the delineation (306 Camellia Drive residue). A note should have been include in the submitted documents that describes the limit of wetland investigation. For example, the Landscape Plan shows the wetland limit stopping short of the proposed property line, whereas the preliminary report shows the wetland to this proposed property line (labeled as property line). The wetland area likely crosses this imaginary line into the proposed residue area, to some extent. The note concerning the erosion and sediment control silt fence is incorrect. The wire-backed silt fence and chain Page 5 of 8 link supported silt fence (super silt fence) appear to be used interchangeable. Clarify the type of silt fence for the design to protect the critical slopes. Planning Department: The General Land Use Plan of the Comprehensive Plan calls for the subject properties to be Low Density Residential land use with a DUA under fifteen. The proposed development will have a DUA of approximately six and preserve over five acres as Open Space. To achieve this level of open space and stay below fifteen DUA called for in the Comprehensive Plan, the development needs to be clustered and will impact Critical Slopes. As part of the PUD request, the applicant is also pursuing the closure of Flint Drive and Keene Court. If granted, the applicant would re-plat the roads in almost the same location with modifications made to meet the development need. The majority of proposed buildings (and parking) are outside the critical slopes areas. The majority of impacts to the critical slopes comes from sanitary sewer placement, stormwater management, and the grading of lots. Alternative site layouts may reduce impacts to critical slope areas, but may also impact other development factors such as overall building arrangement, offsite parking, density, or housing affordability. The site layout of the currently proposed development is dependent on approval of the previously noted rezoning application and road closure by City Council. ii. Due to unusual size, topography, shape, location, or other unusual physical conditions, or existing development of a property, one (1) or more of these critical slopes provisions would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use, reuse or redevelopment of such property or would result in significant degradation of the site or adjacent properties. The applicant does not think finding ii should be applied. The land could be developed into 13 large single family homes by-right. Staff Analysis: The critical slope waiver application was reviewed by staff. Below are their analysis on findings ii. Because the area could be developed, by-right, on existing lots or record, staff determines findings ii are not applicable. Staff Recommendation The City’s Public Works Engineering staff (PWE) recommends Planning Commission recommend denial to City Council of the Critical Slope Waiver application as presented. In taking consideration for the potential for soil erosion, sedimentation and water pollution in accordance with current provisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook and the Virginia State Water Control Board best management practices, the submittal fails to demonstrate that adequate provisions will be in place to protect critical slopes from negative impacts. PWE finds these shortcomings primarily in items ‘3’ ,’4’, and ‘5’ as presented in the list of how “critical slope provisions” will be addressed in ‘Attachment A’ provided by the applicant. A brief description of some of these concerns follow: Page 6 of 8 ‘3’: Regarding Stormwater and erosion-related impacts to environmentally sensitive areas such as streams and wetlands: The ‘Stormwater Narrative’ references three proposed outfall locations in proposed conditions, however, only one is identified in the plan and only one is addressed in the waiver request. The ‘SWM narrative’ further states that: “the water quantity portion will use the energy balance equation to provide channel protection and flood protection”, however there is no mention of detention/retention facilities or how other methods would be used to achieve compliance via the Energy Balance. ‘4’: Regarding Increased stormwater velocity due to loss of vegetation: The applicant states “water will sheet flow from behind the townhouse immediately adjacent to the steep slope areas”. Sheet flow, especially when generated from impervious surfaces, requires specific conditions to remain sheet flow and not be re- concentrated creating velocity/erosion impacts. Being located “immediately adjacent to steep slopes” is explicitly not one of the conditions and will not serve to mitigate velocity or “Stormwater and erosion-related impacts to environmentally sensitive areas.” ‘5’: Regarding Decreased groundwater recharge due to changes in site hydrology. The applicant states: “The onsite biofilter will offer opportunity for groundwater recharge”. However, the biofilter has not been yet designed or sized and therefore any claims about recharge at this stage are hypothetical. Furthermore, it is not unknown to have rock present in the subgrade in this part of the City. Without appropriate concept level investigation, it may turn out infeasible to provide any recharge at the proposed location. Purpose and Intent of the Critical Slope Provisions The purpose and intent of the critical slope provisions in Section 34-1120(b)(1) are to protect topographic features whose disturbance may cause negative impacts including: Location of public improvements. The current configuration of the development limits the impact to critical slopes when it comes to building location, but does impact critical slopes when it comes to public improvements. Is the current alignment of the sanitary sewer system and grading appropriate in relation to impact on critical slopes? Loss of tree canopy and wildlife habitat that contribute to the natural beauty and visual quality of the community. If the corresponding rezoning application is approved by City Council, a majority of the trees on site would be preserved in new open space. A by-right development on the site could have less impact on Critical Slopes, but would have the possibility of a higher number of tree removal. Conditions Per Section 34-1120(b)(6)(e), City Council may impose conditions upon a critical slope waiver to ensure the development will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Page 7 of 8 critical slope provisions. Should the Planning Commission find recommendation of the waiver to be appropriate, staff recommends the Planning Commission consider including the following conditions to mitigate potential impacts: Staff has no recommendations for conditions related to this project. Suggested Motions 1. “I move to recommend approval of the critical slope waiver for Tax Map and Parcel 200259310, 200259301, 200259290, 200259280, 200259270, 200259260, 200259370, 200259380, 200259350, 200259340, 200259330, 200259320, and 200196000, as requested, with no reservations or conditions, based on a finding that [reference at least one]:  The public benefits of allowing the disturbance outweigh the benefits afforded by the existing undisturbed critical slope, per Section 34-1120(b)(6)(d)(i)  Due to unusual physical conditions, or the existing development of the property, compliance with the City’s critical slopes regulations would prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use or development of the property, per Section 34-1120(b)(6)(d)(ii) 2. “I move to recommend denial of the steep slope waiver for Tax Map and Parcel 200259310, 200259301, 200259290, 200259280, 200259270, 200259260, 200259370, 200259380, 200259350, 200259340, 200259330, 200259320, and 200196000. Attachments A. Application and Narrative B. Critical Slope Exhibit C. Critical Slopes Ordinance Page 8 of 8 Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment B Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services Staff Report to the Entrance Corridor Review Board (ERB) Entrance Corridor (EC) Certificate of Appropriateness DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: June 9, 2020 Project Name: 1617 Emmet Street North Planner: Jeff Werner, AICP Applicant: Angus & Emmet, LLC Applicant’s Representative: Ashley Davies (Riverbend Development) Applicant’s Relation to Owner: Developer Application Information Property Street Address: 1617 Emmet Street North Property Owner: Angus & Emmet, LLC Tax Map/Parcel #: 40C002000 Total Square Footage/Acreage Site: 0.5 acres Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Plan) Designation: Mixed Use Current Zoning Classification: HW Highway Corridor with Entrance Corridor (EC) Overlay Entrance Corridor Overlay Districts: Corridor 1, Route 29 North Sub-Area A Current Usage: One-story vacant bank building. Background May 14, 2019 - The ERB recommended to City Council that the proposed Special Use Permit (SP19-00001) for drive-through windows would not have an adverse impact on the Route 29 North Entrance Corridor district. June 3, 2019 - City Council approved the Special Use Permit. (Resolution attached) While this project involves minimal alterations to an existing structure, due to Site Plan revisions and also as a condition of the Special Use Permit, the ERB is required to review for the requested Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA). Applicant’s Request Submittal:  EC CoA application, 10/21/2019 (ERB review was not scheduled until completion of the Site Plan review.)  Applicant’s narrative, 4/13/2020: five pages including aerial and vicinity maps.  Soos & Associates, Inc. drawings, 3/31/2020: Sheets 002 Photometric Plan, 003 Exterior Elevations, and 004 Exterior Views.  Collins Engineering drawings: Cover Sheet (02/10/2020), Existing Conditions and Demolition Plan (02/10/2020), Layout, Site, and Utility Plan (03/23/2020), Grading and Drainage Plan (02/10/2020), Landscaping Plan (02/10/2020), and Notes and Details 1617 Emmet Street N – ERB Review – (May 27, 2020 Final) 1 (02/10/2020).  Lighting cut sheets: o Prism LED Sconce 2714.72-WL (one page). o Radean Post Top LED Area Luminaire (four pages, updated 5/26/2020).  Soos & Associates, Inc. drawings, 01/29/2020: Sheets A009 Trash Enclosure and A004 Architectural Site Details.  Petersen Pac-Clad Metal Roof cut sheets and color charts (four pages). Project: Formerly the site of a bank, the proposed alterations to the site and the existing building and site will accommodate a Starbuck’s coffee shop with a drive-through component. The site is located at the SE corner of Emmet Street and Angus Road. Pedestrian access to the building is provided by the existing public sidewalks on Emmet and Angus. Vehicular traffic will continue to use the existing entrances off Emmet Street and Angus Road. Proposed alterations:  Remove bank drive-through canopy at the south elevation.  Replace asphalt shingle roof with standing seam metal roof.  Paint existing dormers, trim and windows.  Install drive-through order canopy and window.  At three of the rear dormers, remove the windows and install metal ventilation louvers.  Construct CMU dumpster enclosure (approx. 10-ft. x 18-ft.)  Install exterior lighting—wall sconces and pole-mounted fixtures,  Plant additional trees and shrubs.  Site signage (conceptual, final to be submitted separately) Standard of Review The Planning Commission serves as the entrance corridor review board (ERB) responsible for administering the design review process in entrance corridor overlay districts. This development project requires a site plan, and therefore also requires a CoA from the ERB, pursuant to the provisions of §34-309(a)(3) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The ERB shall act on an application within 60 days of the submittal date, and shall either approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. Appeal would be to City Council. Standards for considering certificates of appropriateness: In conducting review of an application, the ERB must consider certain features and factors in determining the appropriateness of proposed construction, alteration, etc. of buildings or structures located within an entrance corridor overlay district. Following is a list of the standards set forth within §34-310 of the City Code: §34-310(1): Overall architectural design, form, and style of the subject building or structure, including, but not limited to: the height, mass and scale; The existing building (constructed in 1979) is a Colonial Revival, brick, two-story, rectangular building (approximately 70-ft. x 35-ft.) with a gabled roof and dormers, and two gable-end chimneys. The primary elevation features a central entry of three arched openings supporting at brick, gabled pediment. The first floor elevations feature double-hung windows in punched 1617 Emmet Street N – ERB Review – (May 27, 2020 Final) 2 openings with flat arches. The existing asphalt roofing will be replaced with standing seam metal. The existing drive through enclosure at the south elevation will be removed. The brick portion (approx. 8-ft. x 20-ft.) will be retained and capped with a flat roof and metal coping. The former bank window here will serve as the order pick-up widow. At the SW corner of the site will be constructed a painted-CMU dumpster enclosure (7’-6” tall, approx. 10-ft. x 18-ft. in area) with a painted metal gate. Staff Analysis: This design, form, height, mass and scale of this building is appropriate in this location. The requested building alterations—primarily the removal of the drive-through enclosure—actually enhance the building’s scale and design. §34-310(2): Exterior architectural details and features of the subject building or structure; With the alterations, all of the Colonial Revival architectural elements and features of the existing building will be retained. Staff Analysis: The proposed alterations retain, even enhance, the architectural character of this building. §34-310(3): Texture, materials and color of materials proposed for use on the subject building or structure; Building  Brick: Existing, no change  Wood: Dormers, trim and windows to painted (color to match roof)  Metal: o Ventilation louvers at three of the rear dormers (color: Musket Gray) o Drive-through order canopy, menu panel, and height canopy: (color: TBD*) o Standing seam roof: Petersen Pac-Clad Metal Roof (color: Musket Gray)  Lighting: o Wall sconces: Prism LED Sconce 2714.72-WL  Ten fixtures: Six on the east elevation, two on the south, and two on the west. o Pole-mounted (10-feet): Radean Post Top LED Area Luminaire  Nine fixtures: Three at eastern edge of the parking lot, four at the building (one at each corner), and two at the west parcel line. Dumpster enclosure  CMU painted gray (color: match SW 7030 Anew Gray)  Corrugated metal doors painted gray (color: match SW 7030 Anew Gray) Landscaping  Trees (All trees are consistent with the City’s Master Tree List.) o Red Maple (1) o Red Oak (3) o Willow Oak (3) 1617 Emmet Street N – ERB Review – (May 27, 2020 Final) 3 o Eastern Redbud (2) o Dogwood (1) o Southern Magnolia (5)  Shrubs o Dwarf Fothergilla (20) o Dwarf Inkberry Holly (17) Furniture  Outdoor café furniture is shown, no specifications** Staff Analysis: Except as follows, the existing and new building materials, finishes, color palette and lighting fixtures are appropriate. The proposed landscaping plan is appropriate and complies with the City’s Master Tree List. Color palette: * For the metal components at the drive through order area, staff recommends a uniform, dark, neutral color. Note: For the dormers, windows and trim, staff was initially concerned that a uniform color scheme would be inconsistent with the building’s Colonial Revival architecture. However, staff consulted with two architectural historians who were supportive of the proposed color scheme and provided images of building in Williamsburg that have similar applications. Outdoor furniture: ** Staff recommends a condition that the exterior furniture will remain on the concrete area at the entrance, the chairs and tables will be metal, of matching design, and one color (pref. black), and that any table umbrellas will be a uniform color, with the prohibition of any signage. §34-310(4): Design and arrangement of buildings and structures on the subject site; The location of the building is existing and appropriate to this site. The proposed landscaping improves the site relative to the building’s relationship to Emmet Street and Angus Road. Staff Analysis: The design and arrangement are appropriate. 1617 Emmet Street N – ERB Review – (May 27, 2020 Final) 4 §34-310(5): The extent to which the features and characteristics described within paragraphs (1)-(4), above, are architecturally compatible (or incompatible) with similar features and characteristics of other buildings and structures having frontage on the same EC street(s) as the subject property. Staff Analysis: The goals are to make the site function well for the users of this site and the entrance corridor, and to have an attractive development that is compatible with its surrounding context. With the changes and conditions recommended by the staff, this project is compatible with the EC Guidelines and to other sites/structures within this EC. §34-310(6): Provisions of the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines. Relevant sections of the guidelines include: Section 1 (Introduction) The Entrance Corridor design principles are:  Design For a Corridor Vision o Staff Analysis: Proposal complies.  Preserve History o Staff Analysis: While this is an existing structure, this guideline is not applicable.  Facilitate Pedestrian Access o Staff Analysis: Proposal complies.  Maintain Human Scale in Buildings and Spaces o Staff Analysis: Proposal complies.  Preserve and Enhance Natural Character o Staff Analysis: Relative to proposed trees and plantings, proposal complies.  Create a Sense of Place o Staff Analysis: Proposal complies.  Create an Inviting Public Realm o Staff Analysis: Proposal complies generally with this guideline.  Create Restrained Communications o Staff Analysis: Signage is represented as conceptual. New signage must comply with the signage regulations and will require approval of a separate Signage Permit.  Screen Incompatible Uses and Appurtenances o Staff Analysis: Proposal complies.  Respect and Enhance Charlottesville’s Character: o Staff Analysis: Proposal complies. 1617 Emmet Street N – ERB Review – (May 27, 2020 Final) 5 Section 2 (Streetscape) and Section 3 (Site) Staff Analysis: The proposed landscaping and site details are appropriate. The existing sidewalks are within the public right of way and the site is sparsely, if at all, landscaped along Emmet Street and Angus Road (see image below). Along Emmet Street there are utility poles, overhead lines and pole-mounted traffic signage. Along Angus Road the space between the sidewalk and parking lot is sloped and less than 8-ft. wide, with utility poles and overhead lines near the vehicle entrance. Along Emmet Street (at the edge of the parking lot), the addition of two dogwoods, a red maple, and ornamental plantings will introduce vegetated edge to the streetscape. Given the overhead lines, the proposed trees are appropriate relative to height and canopy. Along Angus Road, the addition of 14 dwarf hollies (mature height of 3-ft. to 4-ft.) will introduce a vegetated edge appropriate for the limited planting space. The proposed landscaping will result in a much improved, pleasant, and comfortable place for pedestrian traffic. Linking the coffee shop and the public sidewalk along Angus Road will be a designated walkway through the parking lot. From the entry patio pedestrians will follow a pathway of surface variations imprinted in the paving to concrete steps and a landing abutting the sidewalk. Section 4 (Buildings) Staff Analysis: The primary building design with proposed alterations and the proposed dumpster enclosure are appropriate. Section 5 (Individual Corridors): Route 29 North (North Corporate limits to 250 Overpass) Vision: As Route 29 traffic enters the City this area should serve to calm traffic and create a transition from auto-oriented, suburban development to more pedestrian friendly, urban scale development. Planting and maintaining street trees along the existing Route 29 sidewalks and locating buildings close to the road will assist in this effort. Although wide roads and large traffic volumes discourage pedestrian crossings, a pedestrian environment can be encouraged within 1617 Emmet Street N – ERB Review – (May 27, 2020 Final) 6 developments. Providing walking and driving linkages between developments and providing for transit will also create alternatives to having to drive on Route 29. Individual building designs should complement the City’s character and respect the qualities that distinguish the City’s built environment. This corridor is a potential location for public way-finding signage. Public Comments Received No comments received to date. Staff Recommendations With the incorporation if the following conditions, staff finds the proposed alterations and improvements are appropriate and recommends approval of the CoA.  The metal components at the drive through order area should have a uniform, dark, neutral color.  The outdoor furniture will remain on the concrete area at the entrance, the chairs and tables will be metal, of matching design, and one color (pref. black).  If there will be table umbrellas, they will be a uniform color and a prohibition of any signage. Suggested Motion Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed design for 1617 Emmet Street North is consistent with the Guidelines and compatible with the goals of this Entrance Corridor, and that the ERB approves the Certificate of Appropriateness application as submitted[.] […with the following conditions of approval: ….] Alternate Motions Deferral: I move to defer (or deny) the Entrance Corridor Certificate of Appropriateness application for 1617 Emmet Street North. Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed design for 1617 Emmet Street North is not consistent with the Guidelines and is not compatible with the goals of this Entrance Corridor, and that for the following reason(s) the ERB denies the Certificate of Appropriateness application as submitted... Attachments o Special Use Permit resolution approved by Council o EC CoA Application and Submittal 1617 Emmet Street N – ERB Review – (May 27, 2020 Final) 7 Approved by Council , 201 Clerk of Council Entrance Corridor Review Application (EC) Certificate of Appropriateness Please Return To: City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services P.O. Box 911, City Hall Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Teleohone (434) 970-3130 Please submit one (1) hard copy and one (1) digital copy of application form and all attachments. Please include application fee as follows: New construction project $375; Additions and other projects requiring ERB approval $125; Administrative approval $100. Make checks payable to the City of Charlottesville. The Entrance Corridor Review Board (ERB) meets the second Tuesday of the month. Deadline for submittals is Tuesday 3 weeks prior to next ERB meeting by 3:30 p.m. Owner Name ~~ t" ~W\-e.°'".,, '-'- C.. Project Name/Description~- ~ ~_ _bovi.. __d«4 _ ___________ Parcel Number 4-oo c... 00 2.. e>oo Project Street Address \ (c:o I "T G'~\"Y\.-c:.\- ~ N. Sig nature of Applicant A pplicant Information I hereby attest that the information I have provided is, to the best of my knowledge, correct. Address: ~ ~ :,& ~\.<. Z..C \ "\-h,\/ d Print Name \ Date Property Owner (if not applicant! Property Owner Permission (if not applicant} I have read this application and hereby give my consent to Address:_~~-------~---~ ------ its submission. Email:. _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Phone: (W) _ _ _ _ _ _ (C) _ _ _ _ __ ~ .Uf i ~ ~ Le..c; \ -e'S. \'Vb.\/\4 Print Name \ Date I Attachments (see reverse side for submittal requirements): ____~ _ezset.. _~_l_....____ _______ _ For Office Use Only Received by: - - - - - - - - - - - - Approved/Disapproved by: _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ Fee paid: _ _ _ _ _ Cash/Ck.# _ _ __ Date: _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ Date Received: - - - - - - - - - - - Conditions of approval: _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ Revised 2016 1617 Emmet Street ERB Submittal 4/13/20 Please find attached site plan, elevations, renderings and product detail sheets specifying the proposed changes to the existing building at 1617 Emmet Street. Formerly a bank building, the requested updates will accommodate a Starbucks coffee shop with a drive-through component. The existing Wells Fargo ATM will be retained in its current location. Existing Site Images: 1 Proposed Building Updates: • Removal of large drive-through canopy structure • Replacement of shingle roof with musket gray standing seam metal roof • New paint on and surrounding existing windows to match musket gray roof color • Addition of drive-through elements • Site signage (to be submitted separately) ERB Guidelines New building design should be compatible (in massing, scale, materials, colors) with those structures that contribute to the overall character and quality of the corridor. Existing developments should be encouraged to make upgrades consistent with the corridor vision. Site designs should contain some common elements to provide continuity along the corridor. New development, including franchise development, should complement the City’s character and respect those qualities that distinguish the City’s built environment. Existing development should be upgraded as opportunities arise. Steeper forms are associated with more traditional design and can be appropriate when the development adjoins nearby neighborhoods. On roofs that are visible such as gable, hipped or shed designs, use quality materials such as metal or textured asphalt shingles. The proposed Starbucks will locate within the existing vacant building at 1617 Emmet Street. The all- brick building is traditional in design and one of the more handsome buildings along this section of the corridor. The materials and design of the building are reflective of the character of Charlottesville’s built environment. The addition of a metal roof and matching paint around the windows will enhance the existing building. Preserve significant historic buildings as well as distinctive architecture from more recent periods. Encourage new contemporary design that integrates well with existing historic buildings to enhance the overall character and quality of the corridor. While the existing building is not historic, the preservation of this classically designed structure provides continuity in the corridor. Encourage compact, walkable developments. Design pedestrian connections from sidewalk and car to buildings, between buildings, and between corridor properties and adjacent residential areas. Provide, where feasible, unbroken pedestrian routes between developments. Place paths in a logical pattern where people will want to walk. Place sidewalks on both sides of streets where feasible and separate them from the curb by a minimum five (5) feet wide landscape zone if possible. Within developments, identify a complete internal pedestrian pathway system linking all buildings, parking and green spaces. Ensure that this network connects to public pedestrian pathways that link schools, recreation areas, and other major destinations. New extensions from the sidewalk on Angus Road to the building will create a walkable path for patrons coming to the coffee shop from the nearby neighborhood. 2 Consider the building scale, especially height, mass, complexity of form, and architectural details, and the impact of spaces created, as it will be experienced by the people who will pass by, live, work, or shop there. The size, placement and number of doors, windows, portals and openings define human scale, as does the degree of ground floor pedestrian access. The existing building is appropriately scaled and detailed. Design inviting streetscapes and public spaces. Redevelopment of properties should enhance the existing streetscapes and create an engaging public realm. Additional sidewalk connections, site plantings and outdoor seating will create a more engaging public realm at the site. Private signage and advertising should be harmonious and in scale with building elements and landscaping features. Conceptual signage, as shown on the building elevations, is modest in scale and uses a reserved color palette. Screen from adjacent properties and public view those uses and appurtenances whose visibility may be incompatible with the overall character and quality of the corridor, such as: parking lots, outdoor storage and loading areas, refuse areas, mechanical and communication equipment, Where feasible, relegate parking behind buildings. It is not the intent to require screening for utilitarian designs that are attractive, and/or purposeful. Mechanical equipment is well hidden on the rear portion of the site. Charlottesville seeks new construction that reflects the unique character, history, and cultural diversity of this place. Architectural transplants from other locales, or shallow imitations of historic architectural styles, for example, are neither appropriate nor desirable. Incompatible aspects of franchise design or corporate signature buildings must be modified to fit the character of this community. Starbucks is well-known for utilizing a variety of architectural designs for their coffee shops which are located all around the world. Use full cutoff luminaires in accordance with City lighting requirements to provide better lighting and prevent unwanted glare. Where appropriate, replace modern cobra-head type lamps and poles with painted metal, traditionally designed fixtures that have a base, shaft and luminaire. All proposed lighting is full cutoff. Northern corporate limits to 250 overpass The U.S. Post Office, Seminole Square Shopping Center, and the older K-Mart Shopping Plaza occupy most of the land area north of Hydraulic Road and east of Route 29. South of Hydraulic Road both sides of Route 29 contain older retail businesses and motels, a grocery store complex, and a big box retail store that recently replaced an older motel. 3 Streetscape: Landscaped edges, significant street trees and plantings, overhead utilities, cobra-head lights, numerous curb cuts, auto-oriented, 4 lanes + 1-2 turn lanes Site: Pole and monument backlit signs, sites below road and many buildings set deeply back on lots, individual site lighting, post office with parking in front. Buildings: Hotels, gas stations with canopies, retail chains, large retail, 1-story, national chains, some roof equipment visible, some outparcels developed. Differing scale, architectural forms, materials, and varying setbacks. As Route 29 traffic enters the City this area should serve to calm traffic and create a transition from auto oriented, suburban development to more pedestrian friendly, urban scale development. Planting and maintaining street trees along the existing Route 29 sidewalks, and locating buildings close to the road will assist in this effort. Although wide roads and large traffic volumes discourage pedestrian crossings, a pedestrian environment can be encouraged within developments. Providing walking and driving linkages between developments and providing for transit will also create alternatives to having to drive on Route 29. Individual building designs should complement the City’s character and respect the qualities that distinguish the City’s built environment. The proposed coffee shop use and updates to the existing building are consistent with the vision for this entrance corridor. This building in one of the nicer examples of architecture, proportions, scale and materials along the corridor. Guidelines Specific to the Zoning (HW) Highway Corridor district: The intent of the Highway Corridor district is to facilitate development of a commercial nature that is more auto oriented than the mixed-use and neighborhood commercial corridors. Development in these areas has been traditionally auto driven and the regulations established by this ordinance continue that trend. The property has consistently been used as a bank with multiple drive-through options. The renovation for usage as a coffee shop with a drive-through window and ATM is consistent with the intent of the HW zoning district. This district provides for intense commercial development with very limited residential use. It is intended for the areas where the most intense commercial development in Charlottesville occurs. A coffee shop is consistent with the commercial nature of the Route 29 corridor. 4 R C 2017 STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY STARBUCKS R 2401 UTAH AVENUE SOUTH SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98134 (206) 318-1575 THESE DRAWINGS AND THE PROJECT MANUAL ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND SHALL REMAIN THE SOLE PROPERTY OF STARBUCKS CORPORATION, WHICH IS THE OWNER OF THE COPYRIGHT IN THIS WORK. THEY SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED (IN WHOLE OR IN PART), SHARED WITH THIRD PARTIES OR USED IN ANY MANNER ON OTHER PROJECTS OR EXTENSIONS TO THIS PROJECT WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STARBUCKS CORPORATION. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INTENDED TO EXPRESS DESIGN INTENT FOR A PROTOTYPICAL STARBUCKS STORE (WHICH IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT ANYTIME) AND DO NOT REFLECT ACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS. NEITHER PARTY SHALL HAVE ANY OBLIGATION NOR LIABILITY TO THE OTHER (EXCEPT STATED ABOVE) UNTIL A WRITTEN AGREEMENT IS FULLY EXECUTED BY BOTH PARTIES. STARBUCKS TEMPLATE VERSION i2019.01.11 ARCHITECT OF RECORD ASOOS OCIATES Soos & Associates, Inc. 03/31/2020 105 Schelter Road Lincolnshire, IL 60069 p: 847 821 7667 VIEW FROM SOUTH VIEW FROM EAST 1 Scale: 2 Scale: ERB SUBMITTAL D:\Revit\85492-001_Rt29 & Angus_Central FINAL_REV2_tomreid6603.rvt Charlottesville VA 22901 City of Charlottesville 29th & Angus 1617 Emmet St N PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT NAME: STORE #: TBD PROJECT #: 85492-001 ISSUE DATE: 03/31/2020 DESIGN MANAGER: AILEN CHIULLAN PRODUCTION DESIGNER: SOOS CHECKED BY: SOOS Revision Schedule Rev Date By Description 3/31/2020 9:36:31 PM SHEET TITLE: EXTERIOR VIEWS SCALE: AS SHOWN VIEW FROM NORTH EXISTIGN VIEWS 3 Scale: 4 Scale: 12" = 1'-0" SHEET NUMBER: 004 SIGN AREAS EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE A 16IN. WORDMARK. AREA = 17.2 S.F. EAST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION MASONRY: MANUF.: COLOR: DESCRIPTION SIGN AREA SIGN AREA BR-1 EXISTING RED (EXISTING) EXISTING BRICK WALLS B 48IN. DIA. LOGO DISK. AREA = 12.6 S.F. 48IN LOGO DISK 12.6 S.F. NONE 0 S.F. CLEAN AND WASH AS NEEDED 48IN DRIVE THRU 7.0 S.F. C 48IN. DRIVE THRU. AREA = 7.0 S.F. TOTAL 0 S.F. METAL: MANUF.: FINISH: DESCRIPTION: TOTAL 19.6 S.F. MT-1 PAC-CLAD (OR EQ.) MUSKET GRAY STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFING SOUTH ELEVATION R NOTE: SIGNAGE SHOWN FOR WEST ELEVATION REFERENCE ONLY. TO BE SIGN AREA PAINT: MANUF.: COLOR: DESCRIPTION: C 2017 STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY APPROVED UNDER SEPARATE SIGN AREA 26IN WORDMARK 17.2 S.F. SUBMITTAL 48IN DIA. LOGO DISK 12.6 S.F. PT-1 SHERWIN WILLIAMS TO MATCH "MUSKET GRAY" (MT-1) BUILDING TRIM AND WINDOWS STARBUCKS TOTAL 17.2 S.F. (OR EQUAL) TOTAL 12.6 S.F. R LIGHTS: MANUF.: COLOR: DESCRIPTION: 2401 UTAH AVENUE SOUTH LT-1 SONNEMAN - 'PRISM' TEXTURED BRONZE EXTERIOR DECORATIVE SCONCE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98134 2714.72-WL (206) 318-1575 LOUVER: MANUF.: COLOR: DESCRIPTION: LV-1 RUSKIN TO MATCH "MUSKET GRAY" (MT-1) MECHANICAL LOUVERS WITHIN THESE DRAWINGS AND THE PROJECT MANUAL (OR EQUAL) EXISTING WINDOW OPENINGS ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND SHALL REMAIN THE SOLE PROPERTY OF STARBUCKS CORPORATION, WHICH IS THE OWNER OF THE COPYRIGHT IN THIS WORK. THEY SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED (IN WHOLE OR IN PART), SHARED A BR-1 BR-1 WITH THIRD PARTIES OR USED IN ANY MANNER ON OTHER PROJECTS OR EXTENSIONS TO THIS PROJECT WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STARBUCKS CORPORATION. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INTENDED TO EXPRESS DESIGN INTENT FOR A PROTOTYPICAL STARBUCKS STORE (WHICH IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT ANYTIME) AND DO NOT REFLECT ACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS. NEITHER PARTY SHALL HAVE ANY OBLIGATION NOR LIABILITY TO THE OTHER (EXCEPT STATED MT-1 ABOVE) UNTIL A WRITTEN AGREEMENT IS FULLY EXECUTED BY BOTH PARTIES. STARBUCKS TEMPLATE VERSION i2019.01.11 MT-1 B ARCHITECT OF RECORD PT-1 ASOOS OCIATES Soos & Associates, Inc. 03/31/2020 PT-1 105 Schelter Road Lincolnshire, IL 60069 p: 847 821 7667 C LT-1 TYP. BR-1 ERB SUBMITTAL BR-1 EAST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION 1 Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0" 2 Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0" D:\Revit\85492-001_Rt29 & Angus_Central FINAL_REV2_tomreid6603.rvt LV-1 LV-1 LV-1 BR-1 Charlottesville VA 22901 City of Charlottesville BR-1 29th & Angus 1617 Emmet St N PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT NAME: MT-1 MT-1 B PT-1 PT-1 STORE #: TBD PROJECT #: 85492-001 ISSUE DATE: 03/31/2020 DESIGN MANAGER: AILEN CHIULLAN PRODUCTION DESIGNER: SOOS CHECKED BY: SOOS Revision Schedule BR-1 Rev Date By Description BR-1 LT-1 TYP. LT-1 TYP. 3/31/2020 9:36:10 PM SHEET TITLE: EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE: AS SHOWN WEST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION SHEET NUMBER: 3 4 Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0" Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0" 003 Charlottes-Yille "'·MICl'MJ>T'Y., MAP .... =1.,500" 0 1617 EMMET STREET SCALEf 1" GENERAL NOTES: OWNER: ANGUS & EMMET, LLC (6>6) Big Lot s 455 2ND STREET ~ CHARLOTIESVILLE, VA 22902 DEVELOPER: RIVERBEND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEER: 455 2ND STREET CHARLOTIESVILLE, VA 22902 COLLINS ENGINEERING 200 GARRETI STREET, SUITE K CHARLOTIESVILLE, VA 22902 FINAL SITE PLAN THEMEAOOW~ PROPERTY: TMP 40C002000 1617 EMMET STREET N CHARLOTIESVILLE, VA 22902 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA LOCATION OF PROJECT: 1617 EMMET STREET, CHARLOTIESVILLE, VA 22902 ' II \\ TOTAL ACREAGE OF SITE: TOTAL ACREAGE: 0.50 ACRES I EXISTING ZONING: HW WITH DRIVE-THRU WINDOW AND ENTRANCE CORRIDOR REVIEW. A SPECIAL USE PERMIT (SP19-00001) WAS APPROVED ON JUNE 3, 2019 FOR THE RESTAURANT DRIVE-THRU WINDOW, WITH I \ \ I I I I THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS SHALL BE OBTAINED FROM THE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR \ I I I \ \ \ REVIEW BOARD PRIOR TO ANY ALTERATIONS OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE OR CANOPY. 2. THE FINAL SITE PLAN SHALL INCLUDE ADDITIONAL SIGNING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS, INCLUDING LEGEND BOTH LANE LINES AND TIEXT, TO DESIGNATE THE TRAVEL WAYS FOR DRIVE THROUGH AND NON-DRIVE \\ ROADS THROUGH TRAFFIC AND SPECIFY THAT ALL TRAFFIC IS ONE WAY. 3. THE HANDICAP ACCESS LANE SHALL BE EXTENDED SO THAT IT CONNECTS WITH THE SIDEWALK ON ANGUS ROAD. I i \ I EXIS71NG CUL VERT CULVERT DROP INLET&< STRUCTURE NO. CURB U> z 0 ....U> I EXISTING USE: COMMERCIAL BANK WITIH DRIVE-THRU WINDOW I CURB &< GUTTER PROPOSED USE: STORMWATIER MANAGEMENT RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE-THRU WINDOW AND DRIVE-THRU ATM MACHINE EXISTING SITE IS PRIMARILY IMPERVIOUS. NO ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS AREA IS PROPOSED WITH THIS I :••:::•: •:::•:: :•:::••:::•:·•::•::·:q PROPOSED ASPHALT .... APPLICATION. THE AREA OF DISTURBANCE ON TIHE PROPERTY IS LESS THAN 6,000 SF; THEREFORE, NO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IS REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT. IN ADDITION, THE TOTAL ONSITE I I PROPOSED CONCRETE PAVEMENT OVERLAY > w IMPERVIOUS AREA IS BEING REDUCED WITH THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, SEE OVERALL IMPERIOUS AREA CALCULATIONS BELOW. I \ --w-w-- CONCRETE RETAINING WALL WATERLINE ~ I SETBACKS: PRIMARY STREET FRONTAGE: 5' MINIMUM AND 30' MAXIMUM -s --s SANITARY SEWER ___ ., - - - ·t--~\;------------ LINKING STREET FRONTAGE: 5' MINIMUM AND 20' MAXIMUM OVERHEAD UllLITY SIDE AND REAR: NONE REQUIRED (ADJACENT TO EXISTING HW PROPERTY) --UGT-- UNDERGROUND U71LITY USGS DATUM: NAD 83 EAR7H DITCH 1 ~- \ .,.=««»» . ~ MAXIMUM HEIGHT: MINIMUM HEIGHT = NONE, & MAXIMUM HEIGHT = 80' (EXISTING 1~ STORY BUILDING WITH CANOPY) DRIVEWAY CUL VERT GROSS FLOOR AREA: 2,375 +/- SF * BENCH MARK SITE PHASING: PROJECT TO BE DEVELOPED IN (1) PHASE I »» -··-··-··- LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE: PROPOSED LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE = 5,960 SF (SEE SHEET 2 FOR LIMITS OF LOD) FLOODPLAIN: THERE ARE NO FLOODPLAIN LIMITS WITHIN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY PER FEMA MAP#51003C0286D, DB 9915 PG 557 I »» -------;!(}(]------- VDOT STANDARD STOP SIGN EXIS71NG CONTOUR PANEL #0286D DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2005. ,..• ---<@>--- PROPOSED CONTOUR STREAM BUFFER: THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT IMPACT A STREAM BUFFER. WATERCOURSE, OR • l!J . 240.55 PROPOSED SPOT ELEVA 710N ~ __--= J~-1-1: t·-· ~ =--· -·1 _ · ~=~~.,~~'"'~ ~ >'!( ...... FLOODPLAIN. NONE OF THESE ARE LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY. I I I • • I TBC DENOTES TOP/BACK OF CURB ~L . . .~·.·~.~!f~;;;;;;;~;;;;;;;~;;;;;;;~;;;;;;;~;;;;;;;~·~:~=!;;;;;;;~;;;;;;;~::!J SURVEY: UTILITIES: BOUNDARY OF THE SITE AND SURVEY WAS PROVIDED BY ROUDABUSH, GALE & ASSOCIATES, MAY 2018. THE SITE WILL BE SERVED BY PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER. • • • • • • • V~Rifil"woli=i 9ER • • • • • -·· --·- -·· LIGHT FIXTURE z - E~ElolENT CRITICAL SLOPES: NONE THAT MEET THE CONDITIONS OF THE CITY ORDINANCE SECTION 34-1120 FOR LOT REGULATIONS DB 996 PG 557 ~· Sheet List Table AREAS PUBLIC USE: CURRENTLY, THERE IS NO LAND ON THIS PROPERTY THAT IS PROPOSED FOR PUBLIC USE. ..• Sheet Number Sheet Title . a INGRESS AND EGRESS: ACCESS TO BUILDING PARKING SHALL BE FROM ANGUS ROAD AND FROM AN ACCESS EASEMENT . 1 COVER SHEET & LAYOUT THROUGH THE BEST BUY ENTRANCE ON EMMET STREET. SITE CIRCULATION AS SHOWN ON SHEET 3. .. 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS & DEMOLITION PLAN LIGHTING PLAN: ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING IS EXISTING AND THE LAMP FIXTURES SHALL BE REPLACED WITH THE .·. . . .. . . I .: ···- ...... . ... . .. .. . -~., ... '.v .... ; :. . -- . . ... . "' .• . .. ·~ ... -~ .... ... .. " .·. . - .·· .... ,. . 3 LAYOUT, SITE AND UTILrTY PLAN N w ' : PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. NOTE, ONE LIGHT FIXTURE THAT SHALL BE SHIFTED 2.5' WITH THE ' . ... -. .•·. • • ·.• .• . ... v 4 GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN 0 MODIFICATIONS OF THE DRIVE THROUGH AISLE. THIS SHIFT IN THE LIGHT FIXTURE WILL NOT AFFECT 20 0 20 40 60 5 LANDSCAPING PLAN O> N z THE OVERALL LIGHTING ACROSS THE PARKING LOT, NOR WILL IT CAUSE ANY ADDITIONAL LIGHTING TO ··~-~-~-~-~~~~~~1-----1·----~ US ROUTE 29 6 NOTES & DETAILS ::i w :; N LEAVE THE SITE. THE UPDATED LIGHTING SHALL BE FULL OBLIQUE SHIELDING OUTDOOR LIGHTING, WHICH SHALL NOT EMIT LIGHT ABOVE THE LINE OF SIGHT TO THE LIGHT SOURCES WHEN VIEWED ~···· SCALE: 1"=20' I EMMET STREET VARIABLE WIDTH R/W 6 TOTAL SHEETS a.. w FROM THE PROTECTED PROPERTIES. THE SHIELD SHALL BLOCK DIRECT ILLUMINATION OF PROTECTED PROPERTIES AND THE FIXTURE SHALL COMPLETELY CONCEAL AND RECESS THE LIGHT SOURCE FROM FIRE 1. 2. DEPARTMENT NOTES: ALL SIGNAGE AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE CONSISTENT 'MTH THE MUTCD. IFC 505- THE BUILDING STREET NUMBER IO BE PLAINLY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET FOR EMERGENCY RESPONDERS. NOTES: CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ON PLANS IN AREAS OF CONSTRUCTION PRIOR TO STARTING WORK. CONTACT ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF LOCATION OR ELEVATION IS O/FFERENT FROM THAT SHOWN ON THE PLANS. z >- - w ...J ft I- V> - z ALL VIEWING POSITIONS EXCEPT THOSE POSITIONS PERMITIED TO RECEIVE ILLUMINATION. SPILLOVER IF THERE APPEARS TO BE A CONFLICT, AND UPON DISCOVERY OF ANY UTILITY NOT SHOWN ON THE PLJ\NS. 3. IFC 506.1-AN APPROVED KEY BOX SHALL BE MOUNTED TO THE SIDE OF THE FRONT OR MAIN ENTRANCE. TIHE CHARLOTTESVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT CARRIES THE KNOX ...J LIGHT FROM LUMINARIES ONTO PUBLIC ROADS AND ONTO ADJACENT PROPERTY SHALL NOT EXCEED BOX MASTER KEY. A KNOX BOX KEY BOX CAN BE ORDERED BY GOING ONLINE TO WWW.KNOXBOX.COM. THE KNOX BOX ALLOWS ENTRY TO THE BUILDING WITHOUT THE CONTRACTOR MUST LOCATE ALL SURFACE AND SUB-SURFACE UTILmES PRIOR TO ANY WORK ONSITE. _J DAMAGING THE LOCK AND DOOR SYSTEM. (1 /2) FOOT CANDLES. ANY SIDEWALK AND/OR CURB DAMAGE IDENTIFIED IN THE SITE ~C/Nm' DUE TO PROJECT CONSTRUCTION ACTMTIES PS DETER~INED BY THE Cf) <( l!J - 4. STRUCTURES WITH FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS SHALL INDICATE THE LOCATION OF ANY FIRE LINE TO THE BUILDING(S) AS WELL AS THE LOCATION OF FIRE DEPARTMENT CITY INSPECTOR SHALL BE REPAIRED AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. SIDEWALK WILL BE REPLACED AT THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY SITE TRIP GENERATION AND LAND USE ITE CODE 10TIH EDITION: SEE TIA ANALYSIS - SHEET 5 CONNECTIONS. INSPECTOR. ANY EXISTING SIDEWALK THAT IS CURRENTLY DAMAGED AND IN NEED OF REPAIR OR NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT w ~ STANDARDS SHOULD BE REPLACED AS PART OF THIS PROJECT AS WELL IN ADDITION, ANY EXISTING CG-12S AL.ONG THE PERIMETER OF ~ 5. FIRE HYDRANTS, FlRE PUMP TEST HEADER, FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONS OR FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTIEM CONTROL VALVES SHALL REMAIN CLEAR AND EXISTING VEGETATION: LANDSCAPING AND TREES AROUND THE EXISTING BUILDING AND PARKING LOT UNOBSTRUCTED BY LANDSCAPING, PARKING OR OTHER OBJECTS. THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE NO LONGER ALLOWS ANY TYPE OF LANDSCAPING TO BE PLACED IN THE SITE SHOULD BE UPGRADED TO MEET CURRENT STANDARD IF NEEDED. u.. w z FRONT OF AND WITHIN 5 FEET OF FIRE HYDRANTS, FIRE PUMP TEST HEADERS, FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONS OR FlRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM CONTROL VALVES. ALL SIGNING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHAU. BE CONSISTENT WITH THE MUTCO. PARKING REQUIREMENTS: 6. AN APPROVED WATER SUPPLY FOR FIRE PROTECTION SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE AS SOON AS COMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL ARRIVES ON THE SITE. 0 I PARKING REQUIRED: 7. ALL PAVEMENT SHALL BE CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING FIRE APPARATUS WEIGHTING 85,000 LBS. A TEMPORARY STREET CLOSURE PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR CLOSURE OF SIDEWALKS, PARKING SPACES AND ROADWAYS AND IS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE Cm' TRAFFIC ENGINEER. ...J {,/) 1 SPACE PER 125 SF OF PUBLIC FLOOR AREA + 1 SPACE PER 400 SF OF NON-PUBLC 8. IFC 1404.1-SMOKING TO BE ALLOWED IN ONLY DESIGNATED SPACES WITH PROPER RECEPTACLES."NO SMOKING" SIGNS SHALL BE POSTED AT EACH BUILDING SITE AND 0:: ~ 'MTHIN EACH BUILDING DURING CONSTRUCTION. SPECIFICALLY, SMOKING WILL ONLY BE ALLOWED OUTSIDE THE CONSTRUCTION SITE ENTRANCE. SITE AND BUIWING CONSTRUCTION SHALL MEET 2006 IBC SECTION 3409 FOR ACCESSIBILITY AND VA USBC 103.3 FOR CHANGE OF <( AREA 2,375 SF = 2,000 SF (PUBLIC SPACE) & 375 SF (NON-PUBLIC SPACE) (2000 SF x 1 SPACE / 125 SF) + (375 SF x 1 SPACE / 400 SF) = 17 SPACES 9. 1D. 11. 12. IFC 1404.2-WASTE DISPOSAL OF COMBUSTIBLE DEBRIS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE BUILDING AT THE END OF EACH WORKDAY. IFC 141D.1-ACCESS TO THE BUILDING DURING DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE MAINTAINED. IFC 1404.6-CUTTING AND WELDING. OPERATIONS INVOLVING THE USE OF CUTIING AND WELDING SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTIER 26, OF THE INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE, ADDRESSING WELDING AND HOTWORK OPERATIONS. IFC 1414.1-FIRE EXTINGUISHERS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH NOT LESS THAN ONE APPROVED PORTABLE FIRE EXTINGUISHER AT EACH STAIRWAY ON ALL FLOOR LEVELS OCCUPANCY. ACCESSIBLE ROUTES FROM THE PARKING AREAS TO THE BUILDINGS AND THE MtENmES SHALL BE PROVIDED WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT, AS SHOWN ON SHEET 3. THE SITE INCLUDES A MINIMUM OF 60X ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCES FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. w I (.) w 6 u TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED = 17 SPACES WHERE COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS HAVE ACCUMULATED. THE CROSS SLOPE OF ALL WALKING SURFACES SHALL NOT BE STEEPER THAN 2Jli. ALL SIDEWALKS SHALL HAVE A CROSS SLOPE OF 271i 13. REQUIRED VEHICLE ACCESS FOR FIRE FIGHTING SHALL BE PROVIDED TO ALL CONSTRUCTION OR DEMOLITION SITIES. VEHICLE ACCESS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO WITHIN OR LESS. ~ U1 PARKING PROVIDED: 24 SPACES BICYCLE PARKING: 1 SPACE PER 1,000 SF OF PUBLIC SPACE 1DD FEET OF TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONS. VEHICLE ACCESS SHALL BE PROVIDED BY EITHER TIEMPORARY OR PERMANENT ROADS, CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING VEHICLE LOADING UNDER ALL WEATHER CONDITIONS. VEHICLE ACCESS SHALL BE MAINTAINED UNTIL PERMANENT FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS PUBLIC USE AND COMMON USE AREAS SHALL BE READILY ACCESS/BL£ TO AND USABL£ BY A PERSON WITH DISABILITIES. ALL DOORS DESIGNED TO ALLOW PPSSAGE INTO AND WITHIN ALL PREMISES WITHIN SUCH DWELLINGS SHAU. BE SUFFICIENTLY WIDE TO ALLOW PPSSAGE w I- 1 SPACE/1000 SF x 1,800 SF OF PUBLIC SPACE = 2 SPACES REQUIRED ROADS ARE AVAILABLE. BY HANDICAPPED PERSONS IN WHEELCHAIRS; AND ALL PREMISES WITHIN SUCH DWEWNGS CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING FEATURES OF -=> z ADAPTABLE DESIGN, INCLUDING AN ACCESS/BL£ ROUTE INTO AND THROUGH THE DWEWNG, LIGHT SWITCHES, ELECTRICAL OUTLETS, 14. OVERHEAD WIRING OR OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE HIGHER THAN 13 FEET 6 INCHES. THERMOSTATS, AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS IN ACCESSIBLE LOCATIONS, REINFORCEMENTS IN BATHROOM WALLS TO AL.LOW LATER REQUIRED BICYCLE PARKING: 2 SPACES 15. ALL SIGNS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE IX, SECTION 34-1020 CITY CODE. INSTALLATION OF GRAB BARS, AND USABLE KITCHENS AND BATHROOMS SUCH THAT AN INDIVIDUAL IN A WHEELCHAIR CAN MANEl.NER ABOUT 16. VSFPC 506.1.2- AN ELEVATOR KEY BOX SHALL BE PROVIDED / INSTALLED. THE SPACE. Cf) -...J PROVIDED BICYCLE PARKING: 2 SPACES 17. VSFPC 905.3.1 - A CLASS I STANDPIPE SYSTEM MUST BE INSTALLED IN ADDITION TO THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM SINCE THE FLOOR LEVEL OF THE HIGHEST STORY IS ft ALL ACCESSIBLE FACILITIES ON SITE SHALL BE CONNECTED WITH AT LEAST ONE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE FROM PEDESTRIAN ARRIVAL POINTS. IMPERVIOUS AREA: EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA MORE THAN 30 FEET ABOVE THE LOWEST LEVEL OF FIRE DEPARTMENT VEHICLE ACCESS. 1- 18. VSFPC 903.5.2 - A SECONDARY WATER SUPPLY TO THE BUILDING's FIRE PUMP IS REQUIRED SINCE THE PROPOSED BUILDING HAS AN OCCUPIED FLOOR LOCATED MORE ALL INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR SPACES PRO't1DED PS PART OF OR SERVING AN ACCESSIBLE DWELLING UNIT OR SLEEPING UNIT SHALL BE w BUILDING/CANOPY: 3,090 SF BUILDING/CANOPY: 3,090 SF 19. TIHAN 75' ABOVE THE LOWEST LEVEL OF TIHE FIRE DEPARTMENT VEHICLE ACCESS. VSFPC 912.2.1- ALL FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONS, FDC, SHALL BE LOCATED ON THE STREET SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE FIRE ACCESSIBLE AND BE LOCATED ON AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE. MOREOVER, THE FHA REQUIRES A 32" CLEAR WIDTH FOR ENTRY TO THE DUMPSTER DOOR. w PAVEMENT/PARKING: 14,370 SF PAVEMENT/PARKING/DUMPSTER: 13,225 SF CODE OFFICIAL. GREASE TRAPS SHALL BE PRO't1DED FOR Al<( BUILDING THAT MAY PRODUCE WASTES CONTAIN/NG MORE THAN 100 PARTS PER MIWON OF 0:: SIDEWALK: 360 SF SIDEWALK: 360 SF 20. VSFPC 3311.1 - WHERE A BUILDING HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED TO A HEIGHT GREATER THAN 50 FEET OR FOUR ( 4) STORIES, AT LEAST ONE TEMPORARY LIGHTED FATS, OILS, OR GREASE. I- STAIRWAY SHALL BE PROVIDED UNLESS ONE OR MORE OF THE PERMANENT STAIRWAYS ARE ERECTED AS THE CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSES. BMP DATA FOR THIS PROJECT· C/) = OPEN LANDSCAPING AREA: PAVED PARKING AND CIRCULATION: 5, 105 SF (0.12 ACRES) - 13,225 SF 23.4% OPEN SPACE / LANDSCAPING AREA (LOT COVERAGE 76.6%) 21. 22. VSFPC 3312.1 - AN APPROVED WATER SUPPLY FOR FlRE PROTIECTION SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE AS SOON AS COMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL ARRIVES ON THE SITE. VSFPC 3313.1 - BUILDINGS FOUR OR MORE STORIES IN HEIGHT SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH NOT LESS THAN ONE STANDPIPE FOR US DURING CONSTRUCTION. SUCH BMP OWNERSHIP INFORMATION: ANGUS & EMMET, LLC 455 2ND STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 ...J ~ AREA TO BE DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USE: NONE STANDPIPES SHALL BE INSTALLED WHEN THE PROGRESS OF CONSTRUCTION IS NOT MORE THAN 40 FEET IN HEIGHT ABOVE TIHE LOWEST LEVEL OF FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS. SUCH STANDPIPE SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH FlRE DEPARTMENT HOSE CONNECTIONS AT ACCESSIBLE LOCATIONS ADJACENT TO USABLE STAIRS. SUCH w CONSERVATION AREA: SIGNAGE: NONE SIGNS SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED, ERECTED, PAINTED, CONSTRUCTED, STRUCTURALLY ALTERED, HUNG, 23. STANDPIPES SHALL BE EXTENDED AS CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSES TO WITHIN ONE FLOOR OF THE HIGHEST POINT OF CONSTRUCTION HAVING SECURED DECKING OR FLOORING. GUARDRAILS REQUIRED AT THE TOP OF ALL RETAINING WALLS 'MTH A GRADE DIFFERENCE EXCEEDING 30". TYPE OF BMP INSTALLED: GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION (HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE} NONE LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF EMMET STREET &ANGUS ROAD (PREDOMINANT HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP TYPE 121C} 0 0:: 0:: <( u 24. HANDRAILS REQUIRED AT BOTH SIDES OF STAIRS. 1nc ..... ,,·1:;, ~~ REHUNG OR REPLACED EXCEPT IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS APPROVED SITE PLAN. ANY CHANGES IN 0 0 25. 5' SIDE SETBACKS HAVE A RESTRICTIVE BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENT FOR % OPENINGS AND EXTERIOR WALL FIRE RATINGS. THESE CALCULATIONS WILL BE SHOWN ON ULTIMATELY DISCHARGING INTO: RIVANNA RIVER WATERSHED (!) c SIGNS FROM THIS APPROVED SITE PLAN OR ANY ADDITIONS TO THE NUMBER OF SIGNS SHALL BE THE BUILDING AND ARCHITECTURAL PLANS. No. OF ACRES TREATED BY BMPs: 0.50 ACRES TOTAL {EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA - NONE TREATED WITH THIS SITE PLAN AMENDMEND ~ "c ~ 0 26. A MINIMUM OF 98" HEIGHT CLEARANCE IS REQUIRED AT PARKING GARAGE DOORS AND CLEARANCE AT HANDICAP PARKING SPACES. THIS CLEARANCE WILL BE SHOWN 0 wn E . ALLOWED ONLY AFTER AMENDMENT OF TIHIS SITE PLAN BY THE DIRECTOR OF NEIGHBORHOOD DESCRIPTION OF REQUIRED NONE 0 ON THE BUILDING AND ARCHITECTURAL PLANS. " w DEVELOPMENT SERVICES OR TIHE PLANNING COMMISSION. MAINTENANCE: N g ·~ 27. A PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR FIRE LINE INSTALLATION. A DETAILED DRAWING (2 SETS) SHOWING FITTINGS AND THRUST BLOCKS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITIH THE PERMIT tu u " FIRE FLOW: THERE ARE EXISTING FIRE HYDRANTS ALONG EMMET STREET AND ANGUS ROAD THAT PROVIDE FIRE APPLICATION. ONCE INSTALLED, THE FIRE LINE REQUIRES A VISUAL INSPECTION AND PRESSURE TEST INSPECTION BY THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE. OWNER's SIGNATURE AGREEING w :c ~~ ~ 28. AN OUTSIDE STAND-ALONE OR WALL MOUNTED ELECTRICALLY MONITORED POST INDICATOR VALVE IS REQUIRED ON THE FIRE LINE AND ITS LOCATION SHALL BE TO MAINTAIN FACILITY: U) ,Q .: PROTECTION FOR THE SITE. BASED ON THE FIRE FLOWS FROM THE EXISTING WATERLINES, THE FIRE INDICATED ON THE SITE PLAN. t-""'"'J"'o"'s"'N:-:!o•.- - 1 ~ ~ WATER FLOW CALCULATIONS: FLOW SHALL EXCEED 1500 GPM. SEE SHEET 6 FOR THE WATER FLOW AND WATER METER CALCULATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED USE 29. ALL PAVEMENT SHALL BE CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING FIRE APPARATUS WEIGHING 85,DOO LBS. SIGNATURE PANEL I II 092033 " °20 'O 0 u t--==,..---1 SCALE c o ~ £ SEWER FLOW CALCULATIONS: 50 GPD/SEAT x 37 SEATS = 1,850 GPD 1 "=20' §8 DIRECTOR, NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT------------- 1-------1o__ e- SHEET NO. w 5_ NOTE: THE _ATM _ _MACHINE SHALL _ _ REMAIN _ _ _ CLOSED UNTIL ALL SITE WORK _ _IS _COMPLIETED. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.... ~ . __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ____ ____ __ __ __ 1OF6 ~ 0~ --- --- --- ---- ---- ---- ----- I \ I DEMOLITION NOTES: \ ---- --- --- ---- I I 1. PRIOR TO DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION, A FIRE PREVENTION PLAN MEETING MUST OCCUR AND A FIRE PREVENTION PLAN MUST BE SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BY THE FIRE MARSHAL. \ NOTE: THIS PROJECT DOES NOT REQUIRE AN EROSION CONTROL I I 2. THE CONIBACTOR SHALL ASSUME RESPONSIBILIT'I FOR ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOT SHOWN PLAN OR A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN, AS THE TOTAL I ON THIS PLAN SHEET AND SHALL DEMOLISH ALL DISCOVERED UTILITIES IF NOT IN USE, AS REQUIRED. LIMITS OF LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY IS LESS THAN 6,000 SF. I I I 3. THE CONIBACTOR SHALL VIDEO AND INSPECT ALL SANITARY SEWER PIPES AND MANHOLES SLATED TO REMAIN TO DETERMINE ADEQUATE SIBUCTURAL INTEGRIT'I. IF EXISTING SANITARY SEWER IS \ I DAMAGED, THE CONIBACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEER. \ THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE AWARE THAT IF THIS PROJECT DOES I 4. THE CONIBACTOR SHALL EXAMINE THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRIT'I OF EXISTING STORM SEWER I ---- \ --------------- EXCEED 6,000 SF LIMIT DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SITE I STRUCTURES TO REMAIN AND REPLACE TOPS AS NECESSARY. THIS CONDITION SHALL BE REFLECTED I \ l --- --- ,._IMPROVEMENTS A STOP WORK ORDER AND FINE WILL BE I IN THE CONTRACTOR BID. ---~--- ;--- \ ISSUED BY THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, AND THE PROJECT WILL BE DELAYED WHILE AN OFFICIAL E&S AND SWM PLAN IS TMP 40C-1 N/F ANGUS INVESTORS, LLC I I I I • I • I I S. All EXISTING WATER, SANITARY, AND STORM SEWER SLATED FOR DEMOLITION SHALL BE REMOVED TO THE PROPERT'I LINE OR MAIN, AS DETERMINED BY THE ENGINEER AND INSPECTOR, UNLESS THEY ARE TO REMAIN. UTILITIES THAT ARE DISCONNECTED SHALL BE PROPERLY ABANDONED ATTHE MAIN LINE. FOR \ 6. \ CREATED FOR THE OVERALL SITE DEVELOPMENT. DB 1006 PG 306 I I I " WATER SERVICE LINES, THE CORP STOP MUST BE TURNED OFF ATlHE MAIN LINE AND THE SERVICE ---- \ \ ZONING: HW I I I I • • I I DISCONNECTED FROM THE MAIN. FOR SEWER LATERALS, THE LATERAL TAP MUST BE SEALED AT THE MAIN LINE SO THAT IT JS WATER TIGHT AND THE LATERAL REMOVED FROM THE MAIN LINE. FOR SANITARY MANHOLES TO BE ABANDONED THE TOP 2' OF THE MANHOLE STRUCTURE SHALL BE \ \ \ USE: COMMERCIAL RETAIL I I I REMOVED, ALL LINES DISCONNECTED, AND THE MANHOLE SHALL REMOVED, ALL TAPS MUST BE \ \ I • LOCATED AND DISCONNECTED PER PROCEDURE ABOVE WHERE APPLICABLE. DB.1006, PG.306 \ I I I \ I STEEP SLOPE \ I 7. EXISTING ROOF DRAINS SLATED TD BE DEMOLISHED SHALL BE DISCONNECTED AND REMOVED; \ \ I • ROOFDRAINS TO BE REROUTED SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE ARCHITECT. \ \ AREAS '\\ I I 8. EXISTING DOMINION OVERHEAD/UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC LINES AND OVERHEAD UTILITIES THAT \ I • " \ ARE ACTIVE SHALL BE DISCONNECTED AND REROUTED. I I I \ I 9. ANY EXISTING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS FOUND SHALL BE PROPERLY DRAINED AND \ \ SDMH I • 5DMH/ DISPOSED OF BY THE OWNER AND CONTRACTOR. \ TOP=4B0.25' I SOMH /SDMH TOP=478.03~ 10. THE EXISTING MAINTENANCE BUILDING IS PROPOSED TO BE DEMOLISHED. WHERE A BUILDING IS \ I \ \ INV. IN=476.00' N3T58°00"E 172.89' TOP=480.1J' I I 1: INV. IN=471.43/ " BEING DEMOLISHED AND A STANDPIPE IS EXISTING WITHIN SUCH A BUILDING, THE CllY REQUIRES \ \ INY. OUT=476.DO' . '"'19!00471.Jll/ - t \ SN 476.84TC • #51003C0286D, DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2005. I - '-.. '-.. • I I I 2. BEFORE BEGINNING SITE WORK, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INVESTIGATE AND VERIFY THE EXISTENCE AND LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND z \ '-.. EXISTING CONCRElE ENTRANCE TO BE REMOVED • I UTILITIES, MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS, AND OTHER 0 ....U> \ \ "- -..._ AND RECONSTRUClED \IHH NEW ADA ACCESSIBLE _ __,_, '-.. SIDEWALK AT THE ENTRANCE. EXISTING STONE • I CONSTRUCTION AFFECTING THE WORK. BEFORE CONSTRUCTION THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE LOCATION AND INVERT ELEVATIONS AT \ \ \ x 475.66 -..._BASE TO REMAIN. PORTION OF ASPHALT DRLVEWAY TO BE RE-WORKED FOR TIE-IN • I I " POINTS OF CONNECTION OF SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER, AND WATER-SERVICE PIPING; UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL SERVICES, AND .... \ ' " " EXISTING STRIPING LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE TOTAL AREA: 4,695 SF CONiili::Q9N OF PARKING LOT TO THE ENTRANCE 475.89 '- x ~ • • I I OTHER UTILITIES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH LOCATION DATA FOR WORK RELATED TO PROJECT THAT MUST BE PERFORMED BY PUBLIC UTILITIES SERVING THE PROJECT SITE. > w TO BE REMOVED I 6'\ 76.50 • 3. ALL WATER AND SANITARY SEWER LATERALS BEING DEMOLISHED SHALL ~ I \ \ 47S.7S x DEMO CURB AND SIDEWALK, / \ • I • I BE IDENTIFIED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND DEMOLISHED BACK TO THE MAIN WATER LINE AND SANITARY SEWER LINES IN THE STREET WHERE APPLICABLE. NEW SERVICES SHALL BE INSTALLED FOR THE PROPOSED BUILDINGS. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY SIZE, lYPE & LOCATION OF EXISTING MAIN STARTING AT THIS LOCATION \ - LINES. I 475.9BTC 0.6% - ----r•· UG "" 476.30TC \ I \ 476.43 475 " GENERAL NOTES: f SAW~UT EXISTING ;,r.-.~ /c-~=ll< SAWCUT EXISTING SN 1. THIS PLAT HAS BEEN PREPARED lllTH THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT \ L '-- ASPHALT FOR _Q__ PREPARED BY CHICAGO lllLE INSURANCE COMPANY lllTH AN COMMITMENT • ASPJ;IAL T FOR I -..._ 476.44 GAS UTILITY -- I GAS UTILITY 2. DAlE OF MAY 9, 2018, COMMllMENT NO. SHTC18-736. THIS PLAT HAS BEEN PREPARED FROM AN ACTUAL FIELD SURVEY PORTION OF CURBING /i::i~~4~1s~·~:_~-+j__::IN~tALLATION 476.49 '-.. EXISTING EXT. LIGHT INSTALLATION COMPLElED ON MAY 18, 2018 USING MONUMENTS FOUND TO EXIST AT THE TO REMAIN TO BE RELOCATED TIME OF THIS SURVEY. \ \ ..i 15.6a .I f " 3. NO E"1DENCE OF RECENT EARTH MOVING WORK, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION, TMP 40Bf- 1 \ EXISTING SIDEWALK ~ (/) I OR BUILDING ADDlllONS WAS OBSERVED IN THE PROCESS OF CONDUCTING THE FIELDWORK. l!J I~ 4. NO PROPOSED CHANGES IN STREET RIGHT OF WAY LINES, EVIDENCE OF N/F BEST BU~Y STORES, \ TO REMAIN REMOVE/DEMOLISH EXISTING z RECENT STREET OR SIDEWALK C N N z ::i ::s z '- 474.S2 • I • I I " APPEARING OF RECORD IN DECLARATION RECORDED IN DEED BOOK 336, PAGE 177 AND IN DEED BOOK 349, PAGE 397; BUT OMITllNG ANY COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONS. IF ANY, BASED UPON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, FAMILIAL STATUS. MARITAL STATUS, DISABILITY, HANIJICAP, NATIONAL ORIGIN, ANCESTRY, OR SllJRCE OF INCOME, AS SET FORlH IN APPLICABLE w :; a.. a.. w 0z - STATE OR FEDERAL LAWS, EXCEPT TO lHE EXTENT lHAT SAID COVENANT OR RESTRICTI~ / lHE LOCATION CANNOT BE DETERMINED FROM lHE RECORD DOCUMENT J. EASEMENT: GRANTED UNTO R. A. SAUNDERS DATED NOVEMBER 25, 1958, RECORDED IN ALBEMARLE DEED BOOK .549, PAGE 394. - ...J > _J ...J 0 I GRANTS EASEMENT Fill SE\\£R LINE ANO APPURTENANCES !HERETO, AT DESIGN ATEO ANO UNDESIGNA TED LOCATIONS, \111H RIGHTS OF Cf) <( :E - '- '- 20' WATER EASEMENT (AREA DOES NOT INCLUDE ,,, ,,, LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE--r INGRESS, EGRESS AND CLEARAGE. PLAT RECORDED 1HERE\111H SHOWS EASEMENT. w z w ACCESS EASEMENT DB 996 PG 557 I '- '-DB 929 PG 533 --.._ LIMITS OF BUILDING) SAWCUT PAVEMENT AND DEMO EXISTING CURB AND ~ __.,...- SIDEWALK TO BE ~ ~ REMO)![!}- ~ TOTAL AREA: 165 SF AS SHOWN ON RELD SURVEY 4. EASEMENT: GRANTED UNTO R.A. SAUNDERS DATED NOVEMBER 25, 1956, RECORDED IN DEED BOOK 356, PAGE 578 IN lHE CLERK'S OFFlCE OF lHE (ll'f OF CHARLOffiSVILlE, '.1RGINIA. GRANTS EASEMENT FOR SEWER LINE ANO APPURTENANCES lHERETO, AT l!J ~ u.. Cl Cl z DESIGNATED AND UNDESIGNATED LOCATIONS, \111H RIGHTS OF INGRESS, EGRESS AND CLEARAGE. I '\ PAVEMENT, SIDEWALK, AND CURBING / "'· I AS SHOWN ON FlELD SURVEY 0 z<( WITHIN THIS AREA / 5. PLAT MAOE BY \\IWAMS. ROUDABUSH. JR .. C.L.S.. DA TED AUGUST 27. 1974. TillED "PHYSICAL SURVEY OF PROFERT'I LOCATED ...J I \ 474.04 _..- _..- / AT lHE SOUlHWEST CORNER CJ" lHE INTERSECTI 0 ~ ..... INV. OUT=-1-68.0~ c. WATER METER, MANHOLE, BRICK WALi, PAVED AND CONCRETE SLAB ~ Cl 1- z U1 -=>w AS SHOWN ON RELD SURVEY I I ~~), ABAND N/DEMOLI H EXISTING I WATER METER BA K TO THE ORP o;m TOP=472.ZC' I I d. 60' BUILDING LINE PER DB 330 PG 177, 60' BUILDING LINE EXPIRED JULY 11, 1967. DOES NOT AFFECT SUBJECT PROPERTY. I- w u0 ::E J INV. WT=46B.66' - s --s s -Is __ls B. PLAT MADE BY \\IWAM S. ROUDABUSH, ..R .. DAlED SEPTEMBER 12, 1967, z STOP N THE MAI WATERLIN ~ INV. ~=469.58' 472. 6 472.awr- - ~72.67TC 472.23 • 12" R / Till.ED "PLAT SHOl'llNG A SURVEY OF PROPERT'I OF GULF OIL CORPORATION LOCATED Cf) ::E l9 z - - I WV " AT lHE SOUlHWEST CORNER CJ" lHE INTERSECTI = UC T '- (j GT TSB / INV. IN D= 466.::32 12" RCP It.IV. IN E= 466.4i) 12" RCP AS SHOWN ON RELD SURVEY d. TELEPH4) r,'\4". EXIST DI WAlERLINE J.5 MIN. J MIN. ) ---suPPeRt-A- MlNIMUM OF 85,000 LBS. ----- ---- --- N/F ANGUS INVESTORS, LLC I I • I I THAN 5%. 5. PER ADA 206.2.2 AT LEAST ONE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE SHALL CONNECT ACCESSIBLE BUILDINGS, FACILlllES, ELEMENTS AND SPACES ON THE SAME SITE. iS'slQNAL %'11 ROSSIN; DB 1006 PG 306 ---- ---- I •I 0 NOTE: ,\ ZONING: HW I I I I • I ALL SIDEWALK \\1THIN THE LIMITS OF THE PROPERTY SHALL BE PRIVATE SIDEWALKS AND SHALL BE PRIVATELY h.IAINTAINED. I EXbT. 4" F,VC AS LINE 1.5 Ml~ 15" RCP s· ORh.t \ TIE-IN PROPOSED \\ ',, CG-2 CURB INTO EXISTlNG USE: COMMERCIAL RETAIL DB. f00 6, PG. 306 ! I / PROPOSED ASPHALT PARKING LOT I PATCH- SEE PAVEMENT DETAIL, SHEET 6 I I I '\ El " i I f " "I • PARKING SPACES: 1. ALL PARKING SPACES SHALL BE 8.5'x18', EXCEPT AS NOTED. 2. PARKING SPACES MAY HAVE A MINIMUM DIMENSION OF 8.5'x16' WITH A 2' GRASS OVERHANG AREA. h.IOST OF THE PARKING SPACES ARE EXISTING PARKING SPACES WITH A DIMENSION OF 9'x18'. SEWER CRO eSING 465 (1.5' Ml~.) 465 CONCRETE CURB ',, ' SDMH TOP=4B0.25' - SDMH : I PROPOSED NEW . . / .ADA A JsDMH 5DMH,· TOP=478.o:r I 3. HANDICAP PARKING SPACES SHALL BE 8'<18'. THERE IS (1) HANDICAP PARKING SPACE PROPOSED, AND THE HANDICAP SPACE SHALL BE VAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES. ALL HANDICAP PARKING SPACES SHALL BE INDICATED WITH A \ ~ INV. IN=476.00' HP=480.1J' I CONCRETE.SIDEWALK INV. IN=471.43i"< 0 SIGN. 1-- - - -°""'- - - - - - - - - - - - ---'l.-----;;E;;,; Xl:o; S,;; TI;; NG Frr'iE. L~IG:"H'-'T_ ___,,~-~;:'"''"'·cu"'T,_·•"'""'' '--._ _ _ _ __:N.::3:.:7..:'5::::8'-o,._ " rr. "o"_., E_ ,, \ 11...,2,.., .a..,' ""'"-·'""uT,_. -,., 75,,.os,_·---~!-'1---~--- s_ __.-~ AT ENJR-ANCE INTO PARCEL I f ~\ "'· ouT-•11il '==========~ r ' ~========================= ""' ~~~-ftl13 ""' ===='=t== ~EP~L=A=Qf~D~======~~ ·, ~~=rJ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~jj=====::::::::*':=-'."~-------;:::.:::::::=:::::::::;::;""Ex SDMH l A. II I I l I I I I I I I I I " '0 f S D M H I EXISTING I I I I I J I J I I 1 I I EXT. LIGHT Sl;ESfiEET4FORDETAILS. 4Bo-NOTE: SIDEWALK SHALL BE FLUSH )~ , i I • PAVEMENT DESIGN: 1. ALL PAVEh.IENT REPAIR SHALL HAVE A PAVEMENT CROSS SECTION OF 8" 21A 460 460 If ""' ""'- ',, • ~~ 18 • HOPE ~'._,I 1 /0 BE REPLACED _ ~ /' WITH PAVEMENT & NO CROSS ~LOPE , / 1• J " SUB-BASE AND A 3" SM-9.A ASPHALT TOPCOAT. I ~ >> ~~~~~~~~~-- ~~~~~~===============~====~~t;;:.~~~~~4~ 78 ~~~;;;;~~='~ , ~~~~ I SITE NOTES• ~LP <: ~ ~ WW -'-' WW " ):,LP CONCRETE RETAINING WALL SN " \ i 1. ALL SIDEWALKS AND WALKWAYS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM CLEAR WIDTH OF 5' 2. ALL WALKWAY CROSSINGS SHALL MEET MINIMUM ADA ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS U> ~ ======r.,_=__=_=_~.,..=~20'==-==-::r_=_=:_~-=S'-=F-=====~==;0:::5 ~=~.. .~_ . . =_ . . ===~001~~~ ~~//~~ ,/,,~~ 75;,/";7.=£_~ ; :~~\~·.....~:.tt;~, TR:~~~Tk~l~~~¢iLK z AND SHALL HAVE A CROSS SLOPE OF 2% OR LESS. @~ " fj. t. ; g - • • rrr ' . 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN A TEMPORARY STREET CLOSURE PERMIT FOR CLOSURE OF SIDEWALKS. PARKING SPACES & ROADWAYS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL 0 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 ..:_. . • v: : . . • "'· "' , - ~ _(T,\7~1-- - (TYP.) ......_ ..._ / //'. / V SIDE>'b.LKTO~LAT ·· ...»;• .;,_:': • SIDEWAIJ< AT EN RANCE BY THE CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION IN THESE EXISTING AREAS. 4. ALL SIGNING & PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE INSTALLED CONSISTENT WITH ....U> .... _:::.- .. __ PROPOSED PARALLEL ......_ ....._ • - · , (FLUSH lf\'ITH PA EMENT) MUTCD STANDARDS. IGAS PROFILE I · • · • "' PARKING SPACES (8'x20') . ·~ I 5. ALL SIGNS IDENTIFYING ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES SHALL BE AT LEAST 60 INCHES ABOVE THE GROUND/SURFACE (FROM BOTTOM OF SIGN) AND INCLUDE THE INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL OF ACCESSIBILITY. ACCESSIBLE VAN PARKING SPACES > I \ I , - · .. · ·. " . . . /' PROPOSED PAVi;MtNT PROPOSED 10' DRIVE-THRU LA/NE WITH (8) CAR STACKING «« TIE-IN NEW CURB ~\ 24' 30: . . •: • •I • " SHALL CONTAIN THE DESIGNATION 'VAN ACCESSIBLE". 6. ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES SHALL BE LOCATED ON THE SHORTEST ACCESSIBLE ROUTE FROh.t PARKING TO AN ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE. 7. RAMPS OVER 30" IN ELEVATION CHANGE REQUIRE HANDRAILS. LU ~ \, PRb POSED ASPHALT PARKING LOT - - - -. • • • • "'· · ,/ / REPAIR AREA / / ~~=========!:==;=f========~==r==~ ~~'.;:;,"·;·-~ ~TO EXISTING CG-2 PROPOSED MOUNTABLE ' \ I . :'\:\\ \ . _ .. .. .. • ~ :• ·~ J / I~ 8. NOTE, ANY SIDEWALK DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE REPLACED WITH THE CITY STANDARD SIDEWALK (5' CONCRETE SIDEWALK). SEE DETAIL, SHEET 5. I I , PATCH- SEE PAVEMENT DETAIL, SHEEIT 6 :z PROPOSED LANE ~ I , 1 '-<\', e::n m er ~.. '°· ~ ;p w. ~ .~· - · , CONCRETE MEDIAN . ~~ o ~ CllRB & 0 · _L/ u G~: · . .. 1·'" ·~·wi·~/,i~· ~>--~·t--:z,~·~~/', . e:.,;; i?i~ _II_ II_ ACCESSIBLE ROUTE THROUGH THE SITE \ MARKINGS S_ I "" 12. 1 ll:it\~~fa~~===r~··~~r======:"'. - • I - •~-'T=¥'~~~· ··~ "-·· ·. ·.·.· · · I GENERAL UTILITY NOTES: 1. BUILDING AND WALL FOUNDATIONS SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN 1D' ;:, ----~""- ·:·- .i,,-."" ~luct A •~ ~ : ~r· "•"'u"'i~= ~~.,..,"' \ TIE-IN PRO.f:OSED :e OF ANY PUBLIC STORM, SANITARY, WATER OR GAS MAIN, THIS INCLUDES •I • • • • • . = ' ... ~~~,i\'.'~0~~"STIN~~~~'.IMt--IL. •~~~ vR.,....,sH:rrnALILnl ALL STRUCTURES THAT ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE UTILITY SYSTEM. LP - ~. / .,.181 ..181 v =. -·~ • / LP,. {s-~ MILL/OVERLAY ENTIRE 1 SN ,.,._, ~--. •HAN DIGA TEST PIT 2. A MINlh.!Uh.t OF 18" VERTICAL & 10' HORIZONTAL SEPARATION SHALL BE ~-----~::Y:I=-: \ L'::'- ":'-:=:":'=-"=-lc-~~-=- ===""~·==~'1==~!$... ~=,---h "" ~ I '0"""' '0"""' I \, ·. -j-1' to I I ("'I.) ' "' EXISTING EXT. LIGHT PROPOSED EXISTING. EXIT DOOR WITH NEW PROPOSED2"GASLATERAL LOCATION OF GAS METER WITH (2)4" ·r \ • ASPHALT PARKING LOT \ "--._i _Q_ "1 '. \ • ) . ... ' UP / ·, IN HIS LOCATION I h.IAINTAINED BETWEEN WATER LINES & SANITARY SEWER. A h.llNIMUM OF 12" VERTICAL AND 5' HORIZONTAL SHALL BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN PARALLEL ""_~,, ~OTR~"l'HPERCORPOOSSSEINDG2'?F I i SANITARY AND STORM SEWER. E~J!i~l~~EWITHTHE -..>. ~ ':ii.. .· rl:.-=--~-_:-c-;;_,--+--1'1-11-~IHI-~· i ,' . -, " I '-\ EXISTING"lttlr. 480- - CONCRETE ISLAND ~TIH ATM MACHINE ......._ - r-< v .. • ' .• "· • TO BE REPLACED '- '-EXISTING CG-2 CANOPY OVERHANG STEELBOLLARDSINFRONTOFMETER EXISTINGEXT.LIGHTTOBE REPLACED&RELOCATED2.5'TO Ir L ~ 2'R SEE DETAIL, SHEET 6 PROPOSED DRIVE-THRU g' ·- ~ i!ESTORMSEWER 3. h.llNIMUM DEPTH OF COVER FOR WATER LINES SHALL BE 3'. 4. MINIMUM DEPTH OF COVER FOR SANITARY SEWER SHALL BE 2'. ~-----•• 5. AT ALL UTILITY CROSSINGS A MINIMUM VERTICAL SEPARATION OF 12" © GW· / '::.--1 • . l!J \ '""-'- " ~~~~ C::. 1•Lw ll1flJ I CONC. CURB EXISTING CONC. ACCOMMODATE DRIVE-THRU I .,,,, DIRECTIONAL SIGN :' .• TRANSITION SHALL BE MAINTAINED. A MINlh.IUM VERTICAL SEPARATION OF 1B" IS TMP 40B[- 1 \ (TO REMAIN). ATM TO - r LANE MODIFICATIONS V"" I. ... 01 N/F BEST BU~Y STORES, \ BE UPGRADED TO NEW Bollard 0 v o flollard · v . ·j • SIDEWALK PROPOSED CG-2 / II IT . 18' ' :. /g~-- ·I~ o si~~~~~~M REQUIRED BETWEEN THE BOTTOM OF THE WATER LINE AND THE TOP OF l \~~XlJQ.'_ z NOTE: CONTRACTOR TO ...... 2 ' -' THE SANITARY SEWER LINE. LP / \ MACHINE. \ . v. 1NsTALLAKEYKNoxBox cuRBING _,. EXISTING 1 STORY BUILDING DRIVE AISLE g· PRoPosEo ... v' ,.. · o ·~ l slDEWALKTOFLAT 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT IRENE PETERSON OF CHARLOTTESVILLE GAS BUILDING / I ~ ...... A A ONCE CONSTRUCTION HAS BEGUN ( 434-970-3812.) - DB. 2019, P .1363 I ~ollard ...,,, • AT THE MAIN ENTRANCE TO THE RESTAURANT = PROPOSED SIGNAGE .7 ' AREA 2,375 SF HANDICAP RAMP WITH :: - "' "'- - SIDEWALK AT ENTRANCE (FLUSH 7. CONTRACTOR A SHALL VERIFY ALL UTILITY llE-IN CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING i3§ - Bollar o o • '1~-tJ--w---....-- .- ' • . ·~ -_~" ZONING: LTP I ON BLDG. .. r l ·-s EDGE - - ~ ·- /a 0 WITH PAVEMENT) OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION INFRASTRUCTURE. CONTRACTOR IS USE.· COMMERCI4L RETAIL .\ ACCESS EASEMENT 1 J- . • ' , •. PROPOSED BIKE RACK PROPOSED MAIN ENTRANCE INTO PROPOSED ORDER ~ /'-.:_ V'-J ' " • C~ ;;. ~ ,>- ~ RESPONSIBLE FOR NOTIFYING THE ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE EXISTING UTILITIES AND THE PROPOSED UTILITIES. ~ ~· f:;; g ~ j~ " ~ I a I DB 360 'RG 50 z c .il'ollard we" ·• 11 (2) SPACES - U SHAPED BIKE PROPOSED THE RESTAURANT POINT CANOPY J g' : ·. 8. GATE VALVES SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE CURBS, GUTTER r-- - - - - ~· ~ ..l.- - - - - - - - "--...- _- - - - - - \ - 478 _ _ / , -· .. . ~1 ; o ~ /-d' N rff]FD ,= .. OF THE PROPERTY INVOLVED. \ h ::;:;: i: iGJ \ \ .._ ,., LP I f- N z ::i • · •~ >. • ___ . L - . ,( . ._ ...... ), ' ~ • . ' ..~ ~ ;I -, 12. PER THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WATERWORKS REGULATIONS (PART II, N w :; IJlll.L__}l.lil // / PROPO:t."D ~ ~ ~-·~ r • ' .- • ' HANDICAP o ::;;: I'= ARTICLE), SECTION 12 VAC 5-590 TI-IROUGH 630). ALL BUILOINGS THAT HAVE THE a.. . \ . ) •• ., •• .• . CO~C. S~DWALK !;!. ...1~ -1_!..ti•~·~~. ?-~~~\):. ~\l'.?18\~"C: /..~ ;: - / 7 : ' l>ARKINGflGN POSSIBILITY OF CONTAMINATING THE POTABLE WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (HOSPITALS, INDUSTRIAL SITES, BREWERIES, ETC.) SHALL HAVE A BACK FLOW PREVENTION ~· ~ I;g w v. - DEVICE INSTALLED WITHIN THE FACILITY. THIS DEVICE SHALL MEET SPECIFICATIONS OF - ~ ~:-b:~'"'"..-1"'"" • - . • - • · -- ·- · ~ " ~!h 1~ '"' "..-1 '-'"'~ ~, - I " THE VIRGINIA UNIFORM STATEWIDE BUILDING CODE, SHALL BE TESTED IN REGULAR f"\ •• , •. /• I z I- ft EXISTING CONC. SLAB · I . "'---- I _/_ w z /f TO REMAIN .,. . , INTERVALS AS REQUIRED, AND TEST RESULTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE REGULATORY w · · · PROPOSED CG-2 w .; '°"'»'» ; ...J ~XIS:~~:A~~RT::~E~:NT «« ~ :.~~;~~:R~~~~~~ ·.·.· .·'.r.·~" '~c'-:i,- ·•-c:. ,.oc. ,Jl ~~~~=~~" ,cr1;;,:: " :.~'iifilr.~~"'"' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR IN THE DEPARTMENT OF UTILITIES. - :5 CJ) I ....... "o'o""'""'""'w'" 13. ALL BUILDINGS THAT MAY PRODUCE WASTES CONTAINING MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED (100) PARTS PER MILLION OF FATS, OIL, OR GREASE SHALL INSTALL A GREASE TRAP. THE GREASE TRAP SHALL MEET SPECIFICATIONS OF THE VIRGINIA UNIFORM STATEWIDE / - ...J > __J 0.. ~ _ _,. ,. / Cl) <( - ~ BUILDING CODE, MAINTAIN RECORDS OF CLEANING AND MAINTENANCE, AND BE :~~ :~~~s ~il~~~~~low, w z ...J l!J ACCESS EASEMENT, ...... ....._DB 929 PG 533 Cl PROPOSED (4) NEW '"1·_··.·_.. 2§ '----- MILL/OVERLAY ENTIRE --------- ROUTE I SEE DETAIL INSPECTED ON REGULAR INTERVALS BY THE REGULATORY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR -'-"'o~B-'='9~9~6~PG~5"°5~7-'+----+1--+-----"------''"",-=----------;:;N:;-J ~~ IN THE DEPARTMENT OF UTILITIES. ........ I I '-- '-- "- ..._ »» "' PARKING SPACES 1 '"' ASPHALT '- »» "' :" / ~ 14. PLEASE CONTACT THE REGULATORY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR AT 970-3032 WITH ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE GREASE TRAP OR BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICES. = l ~I ~ u.. ........ z I- PARKING LOT _, __.. __.. EXISTING c:WURREBi t -- - - _ j "'· / "'1 . 15. ALL CURB & GUTTER MUST BE INSTALLED AND FINAL GRADE MUST BE WITHIN 6" PRIOR TO 0 ::> : \'· ... /. .. .• \: -~ -- - - - - - - I ~" \ 1 SEE DETAIL, SHEET 6 "'"'" & GUTTIER EXISTING DROP o-· : THE INSTALLATION OF THE GAS MAIN. ...J ~ ~ :~~{~:i~~~ 9'1NLET \ I § I~/~ FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES: 0:: <( 1- w cXS w 1. ALL FIRE HYDRANTS. FIRE PUh.IP TEST HEADER. FIRE DEPARTMENT UJ w I I / , _ __.. ~ J'TYP: g' TYP. ©> __. 0 J ,..---- --- -,_--- --- r '/!1~3=T=YP'ifH~g:-' _TY___.P·- f--g;_'_:T_:_:YP.;.·+ ,;9_' ~TY-'-.Pj_fr,;P ' ~====:Jj/•j I ~,· f [S/-~ CONNECTIONS OR FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM CONTROL VALVES SHALL REMAIN CLEAR AND UNOBSTRUCTED BY LANDSCAPING, PARKING OR OTHER OBJECTS. I (.) ~ I- ,__, / SEXIGISNTING - . - ~ ~ C:... TOP~4l~~~ _. . ~ °"'""""_,;:- c'"" .. ·.. v -\· t .». Q I\ j ~e - e-- 5':: g' TYP. 0 0 GRATE// .1• S:2" ~ A 3' CLEAR STRIPED AREA HAS BEEN PROVIDED IN FRONT OF EACH FDC METER FOR FIRE ACCESS. I- Cf) ._~ I 2. THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FIRE FLOW FDR ALL BUILDINGS IS 1.500 GALLONS PER V> I-' I --~,I - 1 I . . . 1NV · INc4'9,20~(<' . .·-L.in .. . _ - ·.. , ¥···v-PCROUPROBSCEUDT2' ll f- .. EXISTING DROP TOP=472.40' INY. CUT-<68.o/s· _,> ,co, • / '""'-, """'/ MINUTE. THE OVERALL FIRE FLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT IS IN EXCESS OF ~ 1- 0::> - - - - - · ; . I I I /; I I , 474/ >.· . _.· ... . / INY · OUT-46816' . . . . A. - CXJ PROPOSED 2 CURB CUT-~ INLET - GRATE r+ ~ I q, ; . .; i," ~ ..., i:; 1,500 GALLONS PER MINUTE. 3. SMOKING TO BE ALLOWED IN ONLY DESIGNATED SPACES WITH PROPER U1 -=>w w ::E ~ RECEPTACLES. "NO SMOKING" SIGNS SHALL BE POSTED AT EACH BUILDING SITE q . / I- ~I __ Is - ~ s J.J_ EXl~NG 8'~ SAN. SWR ;~,"'~·~::~: 1~i~~:~G /' AND WITHIN EACH BUILDING DURING CONSTRUCllON. SPECIFICALLY, SMOKING s] L s z 3 5 5 5 3 5 - s -- -- ./ / ' ' NS ; gSSMH 5 .,/ "' • 1 "' : D"' WILL ONLY BE ALLOWED OUTSIDE THE CONSTRUCllON SITE FENCING. wv· \ " - ~/ ' J >Vl~TINr. EXT. Ll"UT • ~. • • • • • • • i'. ·, Li '1 J 4. FIRE LANES SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 20 FEET IN WIDTH. SIGNS AND MARKINGS Cl) ::E ,... \ I 0 TO DELINATE FIRE LANES AS DESIGNATED BY THE FIRE OFFICIAL SHALL BE w -...J PROVIDED AND INSTALLED BY THE OWNER OR HIS/HER AGENT OF THE ft ~ " - VARIABLE WIDTHshvER-•-•-• · - ; • ii;0·w ---!1D¢-- :/ / • • • • :_p,,... l.. • • .. .. , "5 'oo·w -· .• -- • • • • • • • • • • • • , • • •/"rol3E ~EPL'Ac~ • • • j .· ~VI· - •4;, / PROPERTY. FIRE APPARATUS ROADS 20' TO 26' IN WIDTH SHALL BE POSTED 1-- w '""' 75 539 3 OR MARKED ON BOTH SIDES "NO PARKING-FIRE LANE". ~ ~LP 1 500 T"""I EXISTING ENTRANCE @ EMMET STREET- -...._ "-..... EASEMENT DB 996 PG 557 Lf Q. LIGHT ~l =UGT ___ ""uG/T EXISTING EXT. LIGHT TSB / • ·5 ::~:::~~::~~:~:~: GAS DEPARTMENT NOTES: I- C/) Ayl!.·_.--. 1. THE LOCATION OF THE GAS SERVICES SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEW TOP ELEVATION=473.32 6" LATERAL INV. IN= 468.40' 4" LATERAL INV. IN= 468.75' - EXISTING SEWER SHALL BE PLUGGED AND ABANDONED IN PLACE. LATERAtl FRGMGREASE fRAf> S-HAtl T'l-F'f'N I \ / - \,'IV ...... ~ - - ( I ,..-- ~ y GGMH_ - - G - G EXISTING G GAS LG/Ni;;;-.. GMH G -- GMH uGT ,0r:o ..._ 1Hv OJT· 465.87' ,.. " ' 24" RCP "/ CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE GAS REQUIREMENTS. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH THE GAS COMPANY ON THE FINAL LOCATION OF THE GAS SERVICE METERS. ...J ~ LATERALS SHALL BE BOOTED AND INVERT TO MANHOLE AT THE LOCATION OF THE - '.\ - UP G - %#-- G _ G __,- w 0 HANDRAIL7 SHAPING SHALL BE APPLIED TO THE MA~HOLE _L \IWAL'J< - OJ_f!H_::-:-----"--'/l):b!:~.~=-=a=@-t 9' . I> \7' l> • ·: t- :v .!> 'I>'' ·t> v·. . · 1>· ·. v · · . v ?>- • 'V"v "' v l> I> ~ INV. ~ 463.81 . SDMH . 1 v ' - - '\ ===t::!-~--~-~':;'•;]:~·l, (14 BARS (TTP) (!) 0 0 c . • v ~· •. .• .,. : ·• • . ;". · : . v ~" • ;• .• :· .. v : · • .. •· v • • .. • ·,'7 "" -• • • . •· '!. -- ~Q .,,;,"",;. ·.. "» .. • 'TSP ':.--~~ 1'-o"oc ~AX SPACING J."- + ' '• . •• PRIVATE WALi< 0 "c ~ wn E . ~ 0 \ ' -\- --- , 15" RCP , ' I.I ['-..._~~ ~ .• ·!1!tl'T'r'f' qj ~7"1~.:·4> OR LANDING ·1 /2N THROUGH JbiNT 0 N lu " w g ·~ NOTE: CONTRACTOR SHALL ADJUST MANHOLE TOP TO NEW ' I REMOVE ENTRANCE AND \. PROPOSED DOMESTIC WATERLINE - CURB & GUTIER J SIDE ELEVATION tvC' ~ 1~.:~-:.;:.~ ~'.::'.:'.::= J.'.=.Q:._ w :c u ~~ ~ " PAVEMENT ELEVATION. IN ADDITION, THE MANHOLE CONE CONCRETE STEPS AND WALLS U) Q .: INSTALL NEW CONC. SIDEWALK 2" TYPE K SOFT COPPER LINE EXISTING DRO: _ __,.JO"'B"'N""D~.- - t ~ ~ DETAILS-SECTION N-N (3 STEPS) SHALL BE ROTATED TO ENSURE THAT THE MANHOLE COVER IS INLIET SCALE: N.T.S. CONNECTED TO A 1" WATER METER NOT LOCATED WITHIN THE GUTIER PAN. A NEW VACUUM TEST VAULT. 2" COPPER LINE SHALL BE US ROUTE 29 4'-o'' 092033 " °20 0 SHALL BE PERFORMED ON THE MANHOLE FOR ACCEPTANCE. APPROVED BY NOS. 1--·~·-~ 0 ·--I --=,.,,..--I "O c £ EMMET STREET -rl-TOP ELEV. 474.20 I SCALE o ~ .. An- - 10 0 10 20 30 I 12" STEPS TREAD 7.5" t.1AX SlEPS RISER , 1"=10' §8 ·-.-~~-~-~-~~~~~~1-----1·--- Ce e e e • I VARIABLE WIDTH R/W 1 88' · ELEVATION TOP OF SIDEWALK---.. BOTTOM ELEV. 472.45 I so-rTo1.1 ELEV. 472.90 ------in_ e- SHEET NO. w 5_ SCALE: 1"=10' 3 OF 6 ~ ~ L..--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------...JL-----------------~F=RO~NT~E=~~~~Tl~ON:;_ ______ ..1..._ _ _ _ _ ...Jl...----...I~ o --- ----- ----------- ---- \ I \ ------ ---- -------- -------- I \ ----------------- I I ~TH Op I ~y ~ ---'~------------ ~ I 1'.lQ \ I I \ I I I ~SCOTT R. COLLINS§ I I 0 No. 35791 ;,,. \ I I ib I \ 1------- ----------- @ ___ ____ \ \ ------------ TMP 40C-1 I • I l'>4) r,'4". ----- N/F ANGUS INVESTORS, LLC I I I • I iS'slQNAL %'11 I \ \ ------- ---------- DB 1006 PG 306 I •I " ,\ ZONING: HW I I I I I I • ', \ USE: COMMERCIAL RETAIL I I I I \ I • \ \ : ', \ DB. 1006, PG. 306 I ', ' I I I I\ ~ " ~ I ~ • I 0 0 \ I I ::r:: I ', \ '-... SDMH TOP=4B0.25' - SDMH I I I / / JsDMH SDMH/ TOP=478.o:r ;;;: I \ INV. IN=476.00' N • ,QQ"E TOP=480.1J' I _......./ ,;4: l 'i INV. IN=471.43il' ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~==,.---,,~~'~,~~~~~ ~INY~.oo~T~-·~"~oo~·~~~~~-"':.:...::=..::"--':~~17~2~.8~9_ ' ~"'~-o~ur~-·~"~"~'~~~~~1 1 ~~~~--- ~ ~ \~~ ltifll91®471~ 37 58 \ .--::::::- / \ ~::::c===================================";~====~ :;::; ~~l~~r:Tn=~~~~~~~~~fi=~~~~~====* O (0) 1 I =c=::~;;:::~=::::::::::::;;-~ ,/ 1 I ·,, soMH 11 11l , , , , , , , , , 1 1 1 1 11 11 1• , , " isoMH 480 ,,..,, 478.05 / ,.. , 47 8 05 M<--F+c,IJl'77.9s \ 1 \ \ I \ \ \ 1 ( ~t{j .~m"'. :: "''° ~: ~ ;~~~ : ~~ ~~ r =="'====r= =_ =_=. === _=_=_ 1 _ = _ = _ ~ - = =- = =~======r========1 ~ ~ = . . .====~~ . ~ ~7:~ ~ / ~ ~~%7~7'.7~ 7:. ;/.; ;::; L.. : c ~ ; : n,55TC ~:~:~~ ~~~:~ .,· r, 7 .~. ~ 477.50 TC I 476.B4TC ____ 410 -qLP ....... ....... .......= ,= ....... SN t f?"'"/ -6.0% • U> z 0 ....U> \ I \ \ \ • • < % 476.~i;..f :;~:~: ~~ 47~.6~ : 475.~ § j 7 / _,, / _,, '- ......_ ......_ «« '. .: . ,..__O.O% ~ .... \ ·® l ' ' ·. ' '. " '' ./ /7 /7 /7 •. v : •· v. ;:--- • • I f I ,,'' ,,/' ./ / / / ~~ 475.66 x 475.SOTv'i x 475.66 x '- ~ - 3.25% 476.6~ • ,. , _;,. 0.0% • ·~ ,·' v > w ~ EP~~ ~ \ 477.50 .. • • ":= .~ E~ I • • . ' / 475.50 "" 6'\ \ 476.50 EP .. . · !;< : 476.50 • 476.50 »» -.·.':.-··.' .· 1 / / 475.90 \, 0 :~~:~~ ~~ I • o:r m ::r:: / 476$5, ' / / I 475.85 TC \ ·1' bl~~Rt~<{~~:;::rn~ ::~ :;;:~g ~ TT;~5.6,0\ ~;:: I \ I \ 9_ I 476.63 477.53 I /\ \ -, 475.35 l- \\ CURB & GU EP •• 0.0% .,i El ~~~1 1 7 . •'- I ilf7__J1j\~~b~~~~~~~=!;!~~47~5.97f8TC~~o~.%~==v=~=f=::::,;~ 6 \ I I I \ ""' "" \"-. 3 1~ ~.I J 1 ~ Ii x ~ T ")-..__4"1 .61TC ~~ ~ \ 476 .45TC ~ 476.35TC 476.30TC ~3 L ! 476.44 4~Ji v .; , • ·~ .v ~ • 4~2 " .· : ii ' LP,_ ~ \ ~\ \ \ _ ; : '/' ~==="""'"""'"""'"476.01 ~ .,; ~3.4% ~' I~ ,; : ., . j ; 75,60 E~ ... UG G_E_N_E_RA_L_G_RA_D-IN_G_&_D...RA--IN_A_G_E_N_O_T_E_S_:______.,. -.. . _ V 476 6 ' 476 / 49 "' · · ,/ r 1. BUILDING AND WALL FOUNDATIONS SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN 10' OF ANY '- - _ 480 _ - · · / 75 ·9• . • · f 475 80 UP PUBLIC STORM, SANITARY, WATER OR GAS MAIN, THIS INCLUDES ALL STRUCTURES THAT \ 477.52TC . .• • · if t6.80 TC 0 75 .Si . ''. ' ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE UTILnY SYSTEM. \ 477,02EP ,.----, v· ' • •. 475.75 TC +---,i / ti • 3. A MINIMUM OF 18" VERTICAL & 10' HORIZONTAL SEPARATION SHALL BE MAINTAINED l!J .•. • \ vo'!l ollord .: . 475.30 EP x 475 BETWEEN WATER LINES & SANITARY SEWER. A MINIMUM OF 12" VERTICAL AND 5' ~· ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~:~Ls~~~~1~~~~~E~ ~~~~~~~~i~~Ai~~1~~:: ~~~1~Tuo:~Fsi~ER. 0 N/F BEST BU~Y STORES, LP DB. 2019, P . 1363 I l \ \ Bollar ~ollard ~ • .. / "'7. • FFE: 476.0 ~ /'-.._ /'\._ 474.84 .s-'-. -~, ~ 475.22 EP 475.0STC ,. ~ 9' / l"TJ• '1/ i 4. 5. DIAMETER WITH A MINIMUM SLOPE OF 0.50% WITHIN THE R/W. ALL CONSTRUCTION CROSSING POINTS SHALL MEET ADA ACCESSIBLE STANDARDS. AND IN z - 0 0 I v~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ZONING: LTP USE· COMMERCI4L RETAIL \ ......_ , . - , • <( , • 1~y--7,1 . • 475.68 TC-L..---~ V'-J I/'.] A o=:c\-C:::--- [J 474.72 EP ~· •.; . . / ~· -~- J • ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 403.3, THE CROSS SLOPES OF THE WALKWAYS SHALL NOT BE STEEPER THAN 2%. ADDITIONALLY. ANY CHANGE IN LEVEL GREATER THAN~- HIGH SHALL BE RAMPED AND SHALL COMPLY Wini SECTIONS 405 OR 406 PER SECTION 303.4. a \ '-. 11 ...:..J ' r- - - - - - I ..l,.. - - - - - - '-.. - "--..- _ - - - - - - ~ <( Bollardlb · " .il'oliard r_ne" ch ·• 11 - ~. c 475.18 EP 1.· ~ 4 .90 7 60TC • / ,• • 8 • 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL, AND MODIFY AS NECESSARY THE EXISTING RETAINING WALLS BEING UTILIZED, AND ENSURE HANDRAILS AND GUARDRAILS ARE LOCATED ON ALL \ - 478 - - / ' ...:..J ........,£ B6tlor~ Q_<( ' v ·- 474 ·44 ~ lf;;:.==c:l61-JJ4!- 474.oo • RETAINING WALLS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL CURRENT cnv & STATE REQUIREMENTS. 42" \ ~ 2 · >-• . · V, · ~ 474.24 EP 1'1', ' I"' · - •• I 473.80 • GUARDRAILS ARE REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 2012 VA CONSTRUCTION CODE 1013 AT N ..,.. h w '"' f- 47 6.3' . /. · ' · m · " 474 soTq 0 '.· ·. s':6 •.·\\ ..•:..· ; r.·.·.· ~>.l·. ..·· .476,55 , ~ ""nrr1 ' 1m '7) f,~·k..~!Jf- .; . -j;~.r-.1194.17i70 .,i ~~~rx~~~N§~Rf~i~~i~o~~L:Li~~g*°~~i~~~~~~~~E~~~1~::i~T~~E~~g~g~~~ z \ O> v,, • '-..,,_· ',""=::,=' =~:=::=======;::~~I ) ~~ I~ . •v~ ~ ~ .~ . ~·V ~'~ • 1\\\' -• . " ~ rn(Jm. ; •CO.NC ~. SID~~ W'".,A'~L.',,-. ~ \ LP . ,_ .-' · 475.70 · '"' x . · _ ; PROFESSIONAL LICENSED STRUCTURAL ENGINEER FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE -....._ _, 476.50TC , . :;; .~ 474 20 • RETAINING WALLS. DESIGNS ARE NOT FURNISHED BY COLLINS ENGINEERING AND ALL FINAL z I- ft 476.00EP 476 · 23TC 474.80 474.40 - ./ ~- • . / DESIGNS OF THE RETAINING WALLS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO COLLINS ENGINEERING PRIOR w ,__ ~ / / V • ~72.45 • ...J CJ) - TO CONSTRUCTION FOR VERIFICATION. WALL DESIGN SHALL INCORPORATE ALL SITE / 4}4.15' °; .: / , PLANIMETRICS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY VEHICULAR GUARDRAILS, PEDESTRIAN - ...J "'~ .>~ !~!·.~~~~ 1~.E ~~~~:~~:~~~L~GG:~~ET~~E:~::sG~uA:~~~~~~Ai~~~UILDING 1 > 474 07 __J -...... ......_ 20' WATER EASEMENT . J / 9. sucH TiiAT RUNOFF <( - Cf) _,/' /~ '!'~ J ~ w z ACCESS EASEMENT1 DB 996 PG 557 I I -...... ......_DB 929 PG 533 -....._ ~~ --- --- ~~ ...- - - - - - ~ .,, \ "' :. J • ~ c:::i I DRAINS AWAY FROM IT, ENSURING POSITIVE DRAINAGE AT ALL TIMES. PATIOS, SIDEWALKS AND PAVEMENT SHALL BE SLOPED AWAY FROM THE BUILDING WITH A MAXIMUM!" PER 1' CROSS SLOPE WHERE LOCATED WITHIN THE ACCESSIBLE ROUTES AND PERVIOUS l!J ~ u.. I "'- '-. L/L/ I" z L/L/ ...- ...- 473 · 63 I \ 474.00 EP / / EXISTING DROP "'• / .;;¥ o-· : ,:_ . / ~o LANDSCAPING SHALL BE SLOPED A MINIMUM OF LOCATED WITHIN TI-IE PROPERTY LIMITS. PER 1' FOR THE INITIAL 10' WHERE 0 ...J I I \ 474.00 EP 474.50TC ...- _,, INLET \ /t;O · ..; •/ ~II !; 10. CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AT ALL TIMES WITHIN THE PARKING LOT. 0:: 1-- I 474.25 EP L -474.SOTC, - - - 1 _v==::::::,_ 174.24 ·? 474 4 / ...- ...- --., ':.:: THE SITE SHALL HAVE POSITIVE DRAINAGE THROUGHOUT AND SHALL DIRECT RUNOFF TO <( w I I :;::;:;:::::::~~~c;;z==='~ · ===h: l = ::l. • w 474.75TC -", , 474.38 473.69, 473.24i • PROPOSED OR EXISTING DRAINAGE STRUCTURES. I :;: ; ,.- - __.. \\ __ ,_ - - -t'.) STlNGo ROP r :is,_ ' y~====~~J;•JI! :' • 1 •/ f:?/(:;: v:t Q 11. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL TIE-IN CONNECTIONS FOR THE PARKING LOTS TO THE I w / ~ ...- ...- 1 1-- - - - - - IN ET 472.65"-/' :'>. EXISTING ROADS. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR NOTIFYING THE ENGINEER OF ANY (.) ~ / r--- .i - - - -~07 _?-"-q TOP=m.20;_... - 473.50 EP ""'""""'""""' I\ _ - - TOP=<;~'.~ / ,,. / / .: ~ i "-' i-r: • '.<-;" '• DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE EXISTING ROADS AND/OR CURB AND GUTTER AND THE I- I 474 OOTC EXISTING PROPOSED ROADS, CURB & GUTTER. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT ENGINEER TO INSPECT V> I l I/ / ' - - --- - - - ~--.11 ,. ----- ----- "'· 1N-4's.lcr{ " LAT.) '""'~· 4 ' ~ __.. - I PAVEMENT TO EXISTI G DROP INY. oor-<68.o/o' .-", ~ .; • ,_ / """'/ CURB, ROADWAY & PAVEMENT CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING ROADS, PRIOR TO ANY CONCRETE ~ 1-- U1 ouT--J•a.rn· \ ?1 • ..., OR PAVEMENT BEING PLACED. I I I / 474 473.80 EP , REMAIN INLET omr r+ I I q, • . ~ 9. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ENGINEER SURVEY WORKSHEETS OF ALL PARKING LOTS, w w / . ' "' • •, 4 n. 2 5 EP I / , ,474 .lOTC 473.30 EP I- I -- ~ -- s ~s 1 1 1 s R V 473 .5 src 473 .00TC TOP-472.21l' "~,w~-:::~: "" SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUTS, WATER METERS AND DRAINAGE STRUCTURES PRIOR TO -=> ::E z - s -- s ] 3 - -4- s -- s -- s -- s -- s s s s s A""670lC._ s I INSTALLATION OF CURBING, DRAINAGE, OR UTILITIES TO COLLINS ENGINEERING FOR 47 ~·b 5 12" .R~~ ~...J' I I WV" " - ~ __.. ~ l\~ . . . \ \ - ./ ./. ' IF I/ NS " cSMH ./ 473.40TC 472 95rc . 472 ,67TC 472 •23 • • / ~• •• / , , .,. I : 1 .. I' \ / ·, ~ I •• REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. COLLINS ENGINEERING SHALL VERIFY ALL SURVEY SHEETS TO ENSURE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AND PROPER ELEVATIONS FOR Cf) ::E w - - - , _ ,\ - - "- ' 472.20TB 1 ::::- 111 - ,... CONSTRUCTION. -...J ft ~~ ~\ ~·-·vARIABLE.WIDTHslwtR-w-w-w ·-;,;7~58':"00"W -:!'. w w w • • w • w w w •4;, 10. THE PROPOSED PARKING LOTS AND ITS STORM SEWER ARE PRIVATE. 1- ""' w w w w w w w :__ ...:---- w .• ,. •• ·• .• ·- w w w w w w w • w w w ·/ . w • v ..... EASEMENT "" lT.14'-- - - - I " •• qLP S39"53'oo·w 145.86' , I -- r; SIJMH 11. ALL STORM DRAIN LINES LOCATED WITHIN PUBLIC cnv RIGHT OF WAY SHALL BE w T""""I '-... DB 996 PG 557 j - ".. \ - q.LP r:;-· _,, / / NS v "' ",_ '"'" '" "' ropQj6sJ2' " CONSTRUCTED WITH RCP OR HOPE AND HAVE A MINIMUM DIAMETER OF 15 WITH A w ..0 ..... I - - - 2' .:: MINIMUM SLOPE OF 0.50%. 0:: ... uGT uU\I AJ uGT -- - - - " --- - - - - - - .47 INV IN El- " ' " ' 15" RCP t!PPROK) .......... " _ JJ c T 472 __ucT ,\ LJI 0 T -vc T " - o cT / zz: INY IH c- '"·0 If' HCP INV IND= 466.::32 12" RCP '~,', ~i= :;:~'i :r- :~: 1 12. ALL STORM DRAIN LINES, BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, SHALL BE CLASS III RCP OR HDPE I- ~ Gw ______ 0.J-1- TsB • "".. . . u I C/) .-. > = WITH MINIMUM sToNE BED REQUIREMENTS. G - ...,./ 1 ___ - _ _ " lUP _, ~ y GMH_ 0 0 - - - c -0-GcMH-- GMH T __.,- • ~' ,•Ar::, ~YJJ'_- - 24 ,, RCP .. ~ 13. CONTRACTOR SHALL GRADE THE SITE TO AVOID STANDING WATER. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE A SMOOTHLY GRADED TRANSITION FROM DISTURBED AREAS TO UNDISTURBED AREAS. FINISH GRADE SHALL HAVE A CLEAN TOPSOIL. CONTRACTOR SHALL SEED AND ...J ~ 0._ ) -- -- -- -- -- '. /- G _ 0 0 c _ c STRAW, AND/OR LANDSCAPE ALL BARE AND DISTURBED AREAS. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE w ~ ~ c.-• ..-~~-v--~-:;-:~~~;c----~~.~.~-;--~~---.~ ~EHH '- ~ HH - 470 "''geur•:YJi; * ' \ -.-- 0 - ~ 'G __ -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- - -- OH - - - - - - OH ~ O>_f:H'..__:-------"--~JJ):b!c~~='"""""-'6~f-Tc .Qlj__ - - LP :;. · "~ 0 • • 0 458 j ' \= ~~ c -- 0 - __J / OH 0 - GROUND COVER MATERIALS OR SOD FOR SLOPES STEEPER THAN 20%. FOUNDATION PLANTINGS SHALL BE PLANTED IN THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING, OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF 0 ~~~;~~~~g~s;~~~~r~. ~~~~~~~~B~L~~~~ss~;~~~~~~~~~~~~~LOSEOUT. 0 0:: 0:: <( u ~~ -~---~,-~~;_-"--;;;-'>~~,;:,..:"~=---,.,,--~ .. .,. • ,, . I> • ·.- ..l.~.,h=:vd,,J:J:l.!~""'-:::~-:-::--:-:--:-~:-~~------~~------,..,- t> 0·~~~---~~-,.----,~--"~~~-,:~~~~~~~~~,~TS;--P '1 .V' -:---· soMH . v .• • i; • • ·. ' : l>v v v i:.: Vt> t>. ·~ r.....- '-, - 14. CONTRACTORTOREMOVEALLDEADBUSHES,TREES,TREE-STUMPS,ANDTiiEIR (!) a o "c ~ c ~ ~· 0 • • v v • .v · ,• v. • • • . " • " • "" • v v. · · "' • .• . . ,, • _...-.;,,.....- ABOVE-GROUND ROOTS AND REMOVE ALL PORTIONS OF TREE BRANCHES THAT OVERHANG 0 wn ~ -~ ,<'IQ •• • • • - • · • '7 - • '!. · ...- 1 ' • • v ' ROOFS AND ALL BRANCHES THAT COME WITHIN 10 FEET OF ROOFS. 0 E . \ " w g ·~ --- 15" RCP , • I.I J 15. CONTRACTOR SHALL WORK DIRECTLY WITH THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER AND THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER AND SHALL ENSURE ALL OF THEIR DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ARE MET. N tu u ~~ " CURB & GUTIER / w :c U) ~ Q .: EXISTING DROP _ ___,.JO"'B"'N"°'O~.- - 1 ~ ~ INLET US ROUTE 29 092033 ua.1J " 0 0 --=.,.,,..--I c £ EMMET STREET SCALE o ~ 10 0 10 20 30 1"=10' §8 -·~·11;;J•11;;J•11;;J•~~. . . . . . . .l~~~~-1 r. e e e • ......... I VARIABLE WIDTH R/W ------in_ e- SHEET NO. w 5_ SCALE: I "=10' . __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.... ~ 0 4 OF 6 ~ ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 R 0.0 0.1 0.1 C 2017 STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.7 2.1 5.6 3.9 6.4 2.7 1.0 0.6 0.7 1.6 4.4 5.9 7.0 3.6 1.2 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 STARBUCKS R 2401 UTAH AVENUE SOUTH 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 1.1 3.4 9.7 17.4 11.5 4.3 1.6 0.9 1.1 2.6 7.4 16.3 14.4 5.8 1.9 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98134 (206) 318-1575 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 1.3 3.2 7.1 10.7 8.2 4.1 1.9 1.1 1.4 2.7 6.0 10.3 9.4 4.9 2.1 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 THESE DRAWINGS AND THE PROJECT MANUAL ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND SHALL REMAIN THE SOLE PROPERTY OF STARBUCKS CORPORATION, WHICH IS THE OWNER OF THE COPYRIGHT IN THIS WORK. THEY SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED (IN WHOLE OR IN PART), SHARED 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 1.2 2.7 5.6 8.6 7.2 3.7 1.8 1.1 1.3 2.6 5.3 8.6 7.4 3.9 1.8 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 WITH THIRD PARTIES OR USED IN ANY MANNER ON OTHER PROJECTS OR EXTENSIONS TO THIS PROJECT WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STARBUCKS CORPORATION. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.9 2.2 5.9 11.5 8.9 3.7 1.4 0.9 1.0 2.2 5.9 11.5 8.9 3.7 1.4 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 INTENDED TO EXPRESS DESIGN INTENT FOR A PROTOTYPICAL STARBUCKS STORE (WHICH IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT ANYTIME) AND DO NOT REFLECT ACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS. NEITHER PARTY SHALL HAVE ANY OBLIGATION NOR 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 1.3 3.3 3.2 3.1 4.5 2.2 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 LIABILITY TO THE OTHER (EXCEPT STATED ABOVE) UNTIL A WRITTEN AGREEMENT IS FULLY EXECUTED BY BOTH PARTIES. STARBUCKS TEMPLATE VERSION i2019.01.11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 1.1 1.7 0.0 1.5 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 ARCHITECT OF RECORD ASOOS OCIATES Soos & Associates, Inc. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 03/31/2020 105 Schelter Road Lincolnshire, IL 60069 p: 847 821 7667 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 1.4 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 D ANGUS R 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 1.1 3.3 6.9 6.9 3.4 1.3 0.7 0.8 1.7 4.5 8.7 7.4 3.0 1.1 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 ERB SUBMITTAL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 1.5 4.0 8.4 8.6 4.2 1.8 1.1 1.3 2.2 4.7 8.3 6.9 3.3 1.5 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.7 1.4 2.7 4.5 4.7 3.1 2.0 1.6 1.8 2.4 3.2 4.0 3.6 2.6 2.0 1.5 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.7 1.4 2.5 4.0 4.4 3.3 2.4 2.3 3.0 3.7 3.4 3.0 2.9 3.1 3.6 3.0 1.8 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 D:\Revit\85492-001_Rt29 & Angus_Central FINAL_REV2_tomreid6603.rvt Charlottesville VA 22901 City of Charlottesville 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.7 1.6 3.8 7.5 8.7 5.6 3.4 3.7 6.4 8.5 6.3 3.8 3.5 5.7 8.6 7.1 3.4 1.4 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 29th & Angus 1617 Emmet St N PROJECT ADDRESS: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.6 1.6 5.0 12.9 16.4 8.1 3.6 4.4 10.6 16.9 10.1 4.2 3.7 8.2 16.5 12.5 4.6 1.4 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 PROJECT NAME: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 1.0 3.2 7.2 5.0 5.1 2.4 3.0 6.6 3.8 6.3 2.8 2.4 5.1 4.6 6.9 3.0 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 1.1 2.2 2.6 1.6 0.9 1.1 2.1 2.8 2.0 1.0 0.9 1.6 2.6 2.1 1.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 STORE #: TBD PROJECT #: 85492-001 ISSUE DATE: 03/31/2020 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 DESIGN MANAGER: PRODUCTION DESIGNER: AILEN CHIULLAN SOOS CHECKED BY: SOOS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Revision Schedule Rev Date By Description 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 US ROUTE 29 3/31/2020 9:35:56 PM SHEET TITLE: PHOTOMETRIC PLAN SITE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN N 1 Scale: 1" = 10'-0" SCALE: AS SHOWN SHEET NUMBER: 002 20816 prism LED Sconce 2714.72-WL 2714.72-WL DIMENSIONS SHADE 1 Height 8" Color Textured Bronze Width 8" Material Die-Cast Aluminum Extension 3" Height N/A Minimum Extension 3" AVAILABLE FINISHES Maximum Extension 3" Textured Bronze (.72) Switch Type N/A" Textured Gray (.74) Fixture Weight 3 lbs. Textured White (.98) ELECTRICAL SPECS GENERAL LISTINGS Bulb Type Integral LED cETL Bulb Quantity 0 cUL Bulb Included? Yes ADA Wattage 18 Wet (Downlight Only) Location Initial Lumens 1000 PROJECT Input Voltage 120VAC CCT 3000K CRI 90 QUANTITY Power Supply Type Transformer Power Supply Quantity 1 NOTES Power Supply Location Outlet Box Dimming Type ELV SHIPPING Carton 1 L x W x H 11" x 11" x 6" Carton 1 GW 3 lbs. Radean Post Top Catalog Number LED Area Luminaire Notes Type Hit the Tab key or mouse over the page to see all interactive elements. Introduction The architecturally-inspired shape of the RADEAN™ post top area luminaire embodies Specifications the grace and strength of the RADEAN family. 1.02 ft2 EPA: The twin copper-core cast aluminum arms (0.105 m2) 24” support the slender superstructure, creating Length: (61cm) a beautiful sculpture by day transforming 24” L Width: (61cm) into a beacon of comfort by night. Triangular H1 arms redirect reflection maintaining its visually 4” Luminaire quiet appearance. With sleek lines and simple Height: (10.16cm) H2 silhouettes, these LED luminaires use specialized 26” Luminaire lighting and visual comfort to transform common Height: (66.04cm) W 38lbs H1 areas like courtyards, outdoor retail locations, Weight: (17.24Kg) universities and corporate campuses into pedestrian-friendly nighttime environments. H2 H2 4” Ordering Information EXAMPLE: RADPT LED P3 30K SYM MVOLT PT4 PIR DNAXD RADPT LED Series Performance package Color temperature Distribution Voltage Mounting (required) Control options RADPT LED P1 3,000 Lumens 27K 2700K SYM Symmetric type V MVOLT 1,2,3 277 PT4 4 Slips inside a 4” OD Shipped installed P2 5,000 Lumens 30K 3000K ASY Asymmentric type IV 120 round metal pole NLTAIR2 nLight AIR 2.0 enabled 5 347 P3 7,000 Lumens 35K 3500K 208 RADPT20 Slips over a 2 3/8” tenon PIR Bi-level motion/sensor 3,5 X7010 PATH Pathway Type III 480 X7011 P4 10,000 Lumens 40K 4000K 240 RADPT25 Slips over a 2 7/8” tenon PE Button photocell 2 P5 15,000 Lumens 50K 5000K FAO Field adjustable output 5 Other options Pole (optional) Finish (required) SF Single Fuse 2 RSS10 10’ Round straight pole (4”OD) RSS18 18’ Round straight pole (4”OD) DDBXD Dark bronze DDBTXD Textured dark bronze DF Double Fuse 2 RSS12 12’ Round straight pole (4”OD) RSS20 20’ Round straight pole (4”OD) DBLXD Black DBLBXD Textured black R90 Rotated optics 6,7 RSS14 14’ Round straight pole (4”OD) RSS25 25’ Round straight pole (4”OD) DNAXD Natural aluminum DNATXD Textured natural aluminum Shipped separately RSS16 16’ Round straight pole (4”OD) DWHXD White DWHGXD Textured white RADCS Decorative base 4,8 RADFBC Full base cover 4,8 Shipped installed HS Houseside shield 3,9 COMMERCIAL OUTDOOR One Lithonia Way • Conyers, Georgia 30012 • Phone: 1-800-705-SERV (7378) • www.lithonia.com RADPT LED © 2011-2019 Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. All rights reserved. Rev. 08/05/19 Ordering Information NOTES Accessories 1 MVOLT driver operates on any line voltage from 120-277V (50/60 Hz). Ordered and shipped separately. 2 PE, SF and DF not available with MVOLT, must specify voltage. RADHS Houseside shield (no color associated with) 9 3 PIR not available with 208V or 240V. RADCS DDBXD U Decorative clamshell base for 4” RSS pole 4 Maximum pole O.D. is 4.0”. (specify finish) 7,8 5 NLTAIR2 not available with PIR or FAO. RADFBC DDBXD U Full base cover for 4” RSS pole (specify finish) 7,8 6 Cannot combine PIR and FAO. 7 For left rotation, select R90 and rotate luminaire 180º on pole. For more control options, visit DTL and ROAM online. 8 Also available as a separate accessory; see Accessories information at left. 9 HS not available with R90. Mounting Control Options NLTAIR2 PIR (No visible change) PE FAO (No visible change) COMMERCIAL OUTDOOR One Lithonia Way • Conyers, Georgia 30012 • Phone: 1-800-705-SERV (7378) • www.lithonia.com RADPT LED © 2011-2019 Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. All rights reserved. Rev. 08/05/19 Performance Data Lumen Output Lumen values are from photometric tests performed in accordance with IESNA LM-79-08. Data is considered to be representative of the configurations shown. Contact factory for performance data on any configurations not shown here. Performance Input 2700K 3000K 3500K 4000K 5000K Distribution Package Wattage Lumens B U G LPW Lumens B U G LPW Lumens B U G LPW Lumens B U G LPW Lumens B U G LPW ASY 2,924 2 1 2 115 3,022 2 2 2 119 3,095 2 2 2 122 3,168 2 2 2 125 3,168 2 2 2 125 P1 25 PATH 2,529 2 1 2 100 2,613 2 2 2 103 2,676 2 2 2 105 2,739 2 2 2 108 2,739 2 2 2 108 SYM 3,086 2 1 1 121 3,189 2 1 1 126 3,266 2 1 1 129 3,344 2 1 1 132 3,344 2 1 1 132 ASY 4,521 3 2 3 119 4,672 3 2 3 123 4,785 3 2 3 126 4,898 3 2 3 129 4,898 3 2 3 129 P2 38 PATH 3,909 2 2 2 103 4,040 2 2 2 106 4,137 2 2 2 109 4,235 3 2 3 111 4,235 3 2 3 111 SYM 4,772 2 2 1 126 4,931 3 2 1 130 5,050 3 2 1 133 5,169 3 2 1 136 5,169 3 2 1 136 ASY 6,387 3 2 3 119 6,600 3 2 3 123 6,760 3 2 3 126 6,919 3 2 3 129 6,919 3 2 3 129 P3 54 PATH 5,523 3 2 3 103 5,707 3 2 3 106 5,845 3 2 3 109 5,983 3 2 3 112 5,983 3 2 3 112 SYM 6,741 3 2 2 126 6,966 3 2 2 130 7,135 3 2 2 133 7,303 3 2 2 136 7,303 3 2 2 136 ASY 10,150 4 2 4 118 10,489 4 2 4 122 10,742 4 2 4 125 10,996 4 2 4 128 10,996 4 2 4 128 P4 86 PATH 8,777 3 2 3 102 9,070 3 2 3 106 9,289 3 2 3 108 9,509 3 2 3 111 9,509 3 2 3 111 SYM 10,713 3 2 2 125 11,071 3 2 2 129 11,338 3 2 2 132 11,606 3 2 2 135 11,606 3 2 2 135 ASY 14,250 4 2 4 116 14,724 4 2 4 120 15,081 4 3 4 123 15,437 4 3 4 126 15,437 4 3 4 126 P5 123 PATH 12,322 4 2 4 101 12,733 4 3 4 104 13,041 4 3 4 106 13,349 4 3 4 109 13,349 4 3 4 109 SYM 15,040 4 2 3 123 15,541 4 2 3 127 15,917 4 2 3 130 16,293 4 2 3 133 16,293 4 2 3 133 Lumen Ambient Temperature (LAT) Multipliers Projected LED Lumen Maintenance Use these factors to determine relative lumen output for Data references the extrapolated performance projections for the RADPT LED platform average ambient temperatures from 0-40°C (32-104°F). in a 25°C ambient, based on 10,000 hours of LED testing (tested per IESNA LM-80-08 and projected per IESNA TM-21-11). Ambient LAT Factor 0°C 32°F 1.06 To calculate LLF, use the lumen maintenance factor that corresponds to the desired number 5°C 41°F 1.05 of operating hours below. For other lumen maintenance values, contact factory. 10°C 50°F 1.04 Projected LED Lumen Maintenance 15°C 59°F 1.02 0 25,000 50,000 100,000 20°C 68°F 1.01 P1 1.00 0.96 0.91 0.82 25°C 77°F 1.00 P2 1.00 0.96 0.91 0.82 30°C 86°F 0.99 P3 1.00 0.96 0.91 0.82 35°C 95°F 0.98 P4 1.00 0.96 0.91 0.82 40°C 104°F 0.96 P5 1.00 0.95 0.89 0.78 COMMERCIAL OUTDOOR One Lithonia Way • Conyers, Georgia 30012 • Phone: 1-800-705-SERV (7378) • www.lithonia.com RADPT LED © 2011-2019 Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. All rights reserved. Rev. 08/05/19 Electrical Load Current (A) Lumen Package LED Drive Current Voltage Wattage 120 208 240 277 347 480 Input Current 0.22 0.13 0.11 0.1 0.08 0.06 P1 500 42.8 21.4 System Watts 26 26 26 27 25 26 Input Current 0.33 0.19 0.16 0.14 0.11 0.08 P2 770 43 33.1 System Watts 39 39 39 39 38 38 Input Current 0.46 0.26 0.23 0.2 0.16 0.12 P3 1100 43.2 47.5 System Watts 55 54 54 54 54 54 Input Current 0.73 0.42 0.36 0.32 0.25 0.18 P4 900 87.3 78.6 System Watts 87 86 86 86 86 86 Input Current 1 0.58 0.5 0.44 0.35 0.25 P5 1250 88.2 110.2 System Watts 120 119 119 119 120 120 Orientation Diagrams To see complete photometric reports or download .ies files for this product, visit Lithonia Lighting’s RADPT LED homepage. Isofootcandle plots are considered to be representative of available optical distributions. Standard Optic House side Shield* Rotated R90 RADPT SYM RADPT SYM HS RADPT SYM R90 Arms House side shield RADPT ASY RADPT ASY HS RADPT ASY R90** House side shield RADPT PATH RADPT PATH HS RADPT PATH R90 House side shield *HS not available with R90 **For L90, use R90 and rotate luminaire 180º on pole FEATURES & SPECIFICATIONS INTENDED USE INSTALLATION Pedestrian areas such as parks, campuses, pathways, courtyards and pedestrians malls. Standard post-top mounting configuration fits into a 4” OD open pole top (round pole only). CONSTRUCTION Alternate tenon (2-3/8” or 2-7/8”) mounting also available. Single-piece die-cast aluminum housing with nominal wall thickness of 0.125” on a 6mm thick LISTINGS acrylic waveguide is fully gasketd with a single piece tubular silicone gasket. CSA certified to U.S. and Canadian standards. Luminaire is IP65 rated. Rated for -40°C minimum FINISH ambient. Exterior parts are protected by a zinc-infused Super Durable TGIC thermoset powder coat finish DesignLights Consortium® (DLC) Premium qualified product and DLC qualified product. Not all that provides superior resistance to corrosion and weathering. A tightly controlled multi-stage versions of this product may be DLC Premium qualified or DLC qualified. Please check the DLC process ensures a minimum 3 mils thickness for a finish that can withstand extreme climate Qualified Products List at www.designlights. org/QPL to confirm which versions are qualified. changes without cracking or peeling. Standard Super Durable colors include dark bronze, black, WARRANTY natural aluminum and white. Available in textured and non-textured finishes. 5-year limited warranty. Complete warranty terms located at: OPTICS www.acuitybrands.com/CustomerResources/Terms_and_conditions.aspx. 6MM thick acrylic waveguide with 360º flexible LED board. Available in 2700K, 3000K, 3500K, Note: Actual performance may differ as a result of end-user environment and application. All 4000K and 5000K (70CRI) CCT configurations. values are design or typical values, measured under laboratory conditions at 25 °C. ELECTRICAL Specifications subject to change without notice. Light engine consists of 96 high-efficacy LEDs mounted to a flexible circuit board and aluminum heat sink, ensuring optimal thermal management and long life. Class 1 electronic driver has a power factor >90%, THD <20%, and has an expected life of 100,000 hours with <1% failure rate. Easily-serviceable surge protection device meets a minimum Category C Low for operation (per ANSI/IEEE C62.41.2). COMMERCIAL OUTDOOR One Lithonia Way • Conyers, Georgia 30012 • Phone: 1-800-705-SERV (7378) • www.lithonia.com RADPT LED © 2011-2019 Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. All rights reserved. Rev. 08/05/19 TRASH ENCLOSURE BY LANDLORD UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT, TYPICAL DETAILS FOR REFERENCE ONLY SOLAR LIGHT FIXTURE; POLE MOUNT R CORRUGATED METAL DOORS; TO TOP OF FINISH TO MATCH BUILDING ENCLOSURE C 2017 STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY CANOPY WALL STARBUCKS 6" GALVANIZED STEEL TUBE; TOP SEAL AND PAINT TO R MATCH DOORS (TYP.) 2401 UTAH AVENUE SOUTH 2" CMU CAP (TYP.) EXTERIOR FINISH TO 2" CMU CAP MATCH SW7030 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98134 (TYP.) (206) 318-1575 THESE DRAWINGS AND THE PROJECT MANUAL ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND SHALL REMAIN THE GALVANIZED GALVANIZED SOLE PROPERTY OF STARBUCKS LOCKABLE LOCKABLE CORPORATION, WHICH IS THE OWNER OF THE SLIDE BOLT SLIDE BOLT COPYRIGHT IN THIS WORK. THEY SHALL NOT BE (3350mm) REPRODUCED (IN WHOLE OR IN PART), SHARED 11' - 0" 8" CMU BLOCK WITH THIRD PARTIES OR USED IN ANY MANNER WALL (TYP.) ON OTHER PROJECTS OR EXTENSIONS TO THIS 8" CMU PROJECT WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN BLOCK CONSENT OF STARBUCKS CORPORATION. WALL (TYP.) THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE (2285mm) (2285mm) INTENDED TO EXPRESS DESIGN INTENT FOR A 7' - 6" 7' - 6" BOLLARD; PAINT BOLLARD; PAINT PROTOTYPICAL STARBUCKS STORE (WHICH IS TO MATCH CMU TO MATCH CMU SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT ANYTIME) AND DO NOT WALL WALL REFLECT ACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS. NEITHER BOLLARD; PARTY SHALL HAVE ANY OBLIGATION NOR (2) HEAVY DUTY PAINT TO LIABILITY TO THE OTHER (EXCEPT STATED CANE BOLTS (2) HEAVY DUTY MATCH ABOVE) UNTIL A WRITTEN AGREEMENT IS FULLY CANE BOLTS CMU WALL EXECUTED BY BOTH PARTIES. STARBUCKS TEMPLATE VERSION i2019.01.11 ARCHITECT OF RECORD ASOOS OCIATES REQUIREMENTS VARIES .- BASED REQUIREMENTS VARIES .- BASED PAVING OR ON REGIONAL ON REGIONAL CONCRETE Soos & Associates, Inc. 01/29/2020 SLAB 105 Schelter Road ENCLOSURE ENCLOSURE Lincolnshire, IL 60069 FOOTING; SEE FOOTING; SEE p: 847 821 7667 STRUCTURAL FOR STRUCTURAL FOR SIZE AND REINFORCING SIZE AND REINFORCING BOLLARD BOLLARD FOOTING; FOOTING; SEE SEE STRUCTURAL. BOLLARD FOOTING; STRUCTURAL. SEE STRUCTURAL. FRONT ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION "B" 1 Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0" 2 Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0" LANDLORD REVIEW SET SOLAR LIGHT FIXTURE; POLE MOUNT SOLAR LIGHT TO TOP OF D:\Revit\85492-001_Rt29 & Angus_Central FINAL_REV2_tomreid6603.rvt FIXTURE; ENCLOSURE WALL Charlottesville VA 22901 POLE MOUNT TO TOP OF EXTERIOR FINISH TO ENCLOSURE MATCH SW7030 City of Cahrlottesville WALL EXTERIOR FINISH TO MATCH SW7030 29th & Angus 1617 Emmet St N 2" CMU CAP (TYP.) 2" CMU CAP (TYP.) PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT NAME: 8" CMU BLOCK WALL (TYP.) (2285mm) 7' - 6" STORE #: TBD PROJECT #: 85492-001 (2285mm) BOLLARD; 7' - 6" ISSUE DATE: 01/29/2020 PAINT TO DESIGN MANAGER: AILEN CHIULLAN MATCH PRODUCTION DESIGNER: SOOS CMU WALL CHECKED BY: SOOS Revision Schedule Rev Date By Description REQUIREMENTS VARIES .- BASED ON REGIONAL FOUNDATION; SEE STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS VARIES .- BASED ON REGIONAL FOR SIZE AND ENCLOSURE REINFORCING 1/29/2020 10:03:42 PM FOOTING; SEE SHEET TITLE: STRUCTURAL BOLLARD FOR SIZE AND FOOTING BEYOND; SEE TRASH ENCLOSURE REINFORCING STRUCTURAL. ELEVATIONS SCALE: AS SHOWN BACK ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION "A" 3 Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0" 4 Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0" SHEET NUMBER: A009 BOLLARD 6" (150mm) R CONCRETE INFILL FULL LENGTH OF C 2017 STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY DRIVE THRU LANE STARBUCKS 14" (355mm) MAXIMUM 12" (300mm) MINIMUM R CONCRETE CURB 2401 UTAH AVENUE SOUTH PLAN SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98134 ------------- WINDOW PER PLAN (206) 318-1575 DETECTOR LOOP EDGE CENTERED ON SPEAKER SINGLE PANEL DRIVE-THRU POST 2" (50mm) BELOW THESE DRAWINGS AND THE PROJECT MANUAL WINDOW ASSEMBLY PER PLAN CENTERLINE ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND SHALL REMAIN THE BUMP-OUT FINAL GRADE IN CONDUIT OR SAWCUT. ROUTE (1) ATTACH SHELF TO BUILDING SOLE PROPERTY OF STARBUCKS CONDUIT TO DRIVE THRU EXTERIOR FLUSH TO TOP OF CORPORATION, WHICH IS THE OWNER OF THE POS AND TERMINATE NEAR ROUGH OPENING, COPYRIGHT IN THIS WORK. THEY SHALL NOT BE TIMER SIGNAL PROCESSOR CENTERED ON WINDOW ALIGN REPRODUCED (IN WHOLE OR IN PART), SHARED (TSP). VERIFY NO METAL IN WITH THIRD PARTIES OR USED IN ANY MANNER EXISTING OR NEW STAINLESS STEEL ON OTHER PROJECTS OR EXTENSIONS TO THIS SLAB WITHIN 36" (915mm) 1' - 9" EXTERIOR WALL ANGLE TO CAP PROJECT WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN OF LOOP. 4' - 11 1/2" (1510mm) SYSTEM INTERIOR WALL. CONSENT OF STARBUCKS CORPORATION. HEM BOTTOM EDGE THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE WINDOW PER PLAN 1 3/4" (45mm) INTENDED TO EXPRESS DESIGN INTENT FOR A 3' - 0" (915mm) A.F.F. (50mm) BOLLARD PROTOTYPICAL STARBUCKS STORE (WHICH IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT ANYTIME) AND DO NOT 2" 3' - 6" (1065mm) SIGN WITH BASE AND REFLECT ACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS. NEITHER +/- 2" (50mm) HOLD INTERIOR FINISH PLATE COVER (BY PARTY SHALL HAVE ANY OBLIGATION NOR GRADE STARBUCKS) LIABILITY TO THE OTHER (EXCEPT STATED ABOVE) UNTIL A WRITTEN AGREEMENT IS FULLY (915mm) (1065mm) STAINLESS 3' - 0" 3' - 11 1/2" EXTERIOR EXECUTED BY BOTH PARTIES. 3' - 6" STEEL SHELF FINISH GRADE FINISH GRADE (1205mm) STARBUCKS TEMPLATE VERSION i2019.01.11 CONCRETE FOOTING EQ EQ 12" (300mm) MINIMUM ARCHITECT OF RECORD ------------------------- ELEVATION 14" (355mm) MAXIMUM ASOOS OCIATES Soos & Associates, Inc. DRIVE THRU WINDOW NO-BUMP DRIVE THRU WINDOW DRIVE THRU SHELF DTE - CLEARANCE BAR 01/29/2020 1 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0" 3 Scale: 1 1/2" = 1'-0" 4 Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0" 105 Schelter Road Lincolnshire, IL 60069 p: 847 821 7667 8' - 1" (2460mm) 5" (130mm) BACKSIDE ELEVATION CUSTOMER ELEVATION 2' - 1 1/4" 2' - 7" 4' - 1" (1245mm) (640mm) (790mm) 2' - 10" (865mm) 6' - 1" (1855mm) LANDLORD REVIEW SET (1170mm) (1170mm) 3' - 10" SIGN WITH BASE 3' - 10" SIGN WITH BASE AND PLATE COVER AND PLATE COVER (BY STARBUCKS) (BY STARBUCKS) FINISH 2' - 0" (610mm) GRADE FINISH GRADE FINISH GRADE FINISHED GRADE (40Mmm) 1 1/2" CONCRETE FOOTING (40mm) (40mm) 1 1/2" 1 1/2" CONCRETE CONCRETE 2' - 2" (660mm) FOOTING FOOTING D:\Revit\85492-001_Rt29 & Angus_Central FINAL_REV2_tomreid6603.rvt Charlottesville VA 22901 MENU 5 PANEL FREE STANDING DTE - DIRECTIONAL SIGN DTE - DIRECTIONAL SIGN WITH LOGO - ENTRY DTE - NON-ILLUMINATED BOLLARD 5 Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0" 6 Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0" 7 Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0" 8 Scale: 3/4" = 1'-0" City of Cahrlottesville 29th & Angus 1617 Emmet St N PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT NAME: 2' - 6" (760mm) 4' - 0" (1220mm) 6' - 2" (1880mm) 10° OUTLINE OF DIGITAL ORDER 30° (2) CONDUIT FROM CONTROL SCREEN CONTROL BOX ON BOX, ROUTE TO DRIVE THRU CONCRETE FOOTING. WINDOW 15' - 6" (4725mm) (1) CONDUIT FROM CONTROL BOX, (1) CONDUIT ROUTE ROUTE TO ELECTRICAL PANEL TO SIGNAGE POWER (1) CONDUIT, ROUTE MIN. CLR. AREA 4' - 6" (1370mm) (1) CONDUIT, STUBUP BETWEEN TO ELECTRICAL CONCRETE CANOPY MESH AND BACKSIDE OF PANEL FOOTING DOS FOR CANOPY UPLIGHT, ROUTE SIGN WITH BASE AND 3' - 0" (915mm) OUTLINE OF TO SIGNAGE POWER OUTLINE OF MENU STORE #: TBD MIN. CLR. AREA MENU BOARD PLATE COVER (BY 2' - 9" (840mm) BOARD STARBUCKS) PROJECT #: 85492-001 NON-ILLUMINATED CONCRETE FOOTING ISSUE DATE: 01/29/2020 1' - 11" (585mm) BOLLARD SEE ADDITIONAL DESIGN MANAGER: AILEN CHIULLAN (660mm) DETAILS FOR FINISH PRODUCTION DESIGNER: SOOS 2' - 2" CONSTRUCTION GRADE CHECKED BY: SOOS EDGE OF CONCRETE CURB (305mm) 1' - 0" 20'-0" (6M) TO CENTERLINE OF Revision Schedule CONCRETE 12" (305mm) MIN. CLR. CONCRETE FOOTING ORDER POINT FOOTING Rev Date By Description NOTES: OUTLINE OF DIGITAL ORDER SCREEN 1. IF UTILIZING EXISTING FOOTING(S) FOR EDGE OF CONCRETE CURB DTE - PRE-MENU 30 DEG DTE - PRE-MENU FREESTANDING SIGNAGE INSTALLATION, FASTEN TO EXISTING THREADED BOLTS AND CONDUIT TO CONTROL BOX 10 Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0" 11 Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0" PROVIDE CONDUIT AS NOTED. ENSURE BOLTS ARE IN SOUND CONDITION. DETECTOR LOOP EDGE CENTERED ON SPEAKER POST 1/29/2020 10:03:37 PM 2. IF ABANDONING EXISTING FOOTING(S) IN 2" (50mm) BELOW FINAL GRADE IN CONDUIT OR SAWCUT. PLACE, CUT CONDUIT AND THREADED SHEET TITLE: VERIFY NO METAL IN SLAB WITHIN 36" (915mm) OF LOOP. BOLTS FLUSH TO TOP OF FOOTING. CANOPY ABOVE ARCHITECTURAL SITE SIGNAGE UNDER SEPARATE DETAILS SCALE: AS SHOWN PERMITS, FOR REFERENCE ONLY DTE - 5 PANEL 10º DT MENU BOARD, DIGITAL ORDER SCREEN WITH CANOPY SHEET NUMBER: 9 Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0" A004 Standard Colors $ PATINA GREEN $ TEAL $ HEMLOCK GREEN $ FOREST GREEN $ HARTFORD GREEN $ EVERGREEN $ HUNTER GREEN $ ARCADIA GREEN $ MILITARY BLUE $ BERKSHIRE BLUE $ GRAPHITE $ CHARCOAL $ INTERSTATE BLUE $ SLATE BLUE $ AWARD BLUE $ MATTE BLACK $ DARK BRONZE $ BURNISHED SLATE $ AGED BRONZE $ MEDIUM BRONZE $ MANSARD BROWN $ BURGUNDY $ TERRA COTTA $ CARDINAL RED $ COLONIAL RED $ MIDNIGHT BRONZE $ MUSKET GRAY $ SIERRA TAN $ SANDSTONE $ ALMOND $ SLATE GRAY $ CITYSCAPE $ GRANITE $ STONE WHITE $ BONE WHITE Color Guide PAC-CL AD.C OM Premium Colors Standard Colors $ PATINA GREEN $ TEAL $ HEMLOCK GREEN $ FOREST GREEN $ HARTFORD GREEN  $$ ANODIC CLEAR  $$ SILVERSMITH $ EVERGREEN $ HUNTER GREEN $ ARCADIA GREEN $ MILITARY BLUE $ BERKSHIRE BLUE  $$ SILVER  $$ CHAMPAGNE $ GRAPHITE $ CHARCOAL $ INTERSTATE BLUE $ SLATE BLUE $ AWARD BLUE $ MATTE BLACK $ DARK BRONZE $ BURNISHED SLATE $ AGED BRONZE $ MEDIUM BRONZE  $$ ZINC  $$ WEATHERED ZINC $ MANSARD BROWN $ BURGUNDY $ TERRA COTTA $ CARDINAL RED $ COLONIAL RED  $$ COPPER PENNY  $$ AGED COPPER $ MIDNIGHT BRONZE $ MUSKET GRAY $ SIERRA TAN $ SANDSTONE $ ALMOND  $$$ WEATHERED STEEL  $$$ WEATHERED COPPER $ SLATE GRAY $ CITYSCAPE $ GRANITE $ STONE WHITE $ BONE WHITE Kynar 500® or Hylar 5000® pre-finished steel and aluminum for roofing, curtainwall and storefront applications. Metallic Colors ENERGY STAR® Colors $ Pricing Cool Colors  Premium Colors PAC -CL AD.C OM HQ: 800 PAC CLAD TX: 800 441 8661 MD: 800 344 1400 See back for color availability chart. AZ: 833 750 1935 GA: 800 272 4482 MN: 877 571 2025 PAC-CLAD® Color Availability PAC-CLAD 3 YEAR STEEL ALUMINUM ENERGY REFLECTIVITY EMISSIVITY SRI STANDARD COLORS EXPOSURE 24 GA. 22 GA. .032 .040 .050 .063 STAR AGED BRONZE 0.28 0.86 N/A 27 ALMOND 0.53 0.87 0.52 62 ARCADIA GREEN 0.30 0.88 0.30 31 AWARD BLUE 0.21 0.86 0.20 18 BERKSHIRE BLUE* 0.26 0.87 0.25 25 BLACK ALUMINUM** 0.20 0.86 0.19 17 MATTE BLACK STEEL** 0.23 0.87 0.22 21 BONE WHITE 0.65 0.86 0.64 78 BURGUNDY 0.23 0.87 0.22 21 BURNISHED SLATE 0.29 0.85 N/A 28 CARDINAL RED 0.36 0.86 0.36 38 CHARCOAL 0.26 0.87 0.26 25 CITYSCAPE 0.43 0.87 0.43 48 COLONIAL RED 0.32 0.88 0.32 34 DARK BRONZE 0.26 0.88 0.26 26 EVERGREEN 0.25 0.86 0.23 24 FOREST GREEN 0.10 0.87 0.10 5 GRANITE* 0.36 0.87 0.36 39 GRAPHITE 0.27 0.86 N/A 26 HARTFORD GREEN 0.09 0.88 0.09 4 HEMLOCK GREEN 0.30 0.85 0.31 30 HUNTER GREEN 0.26 0.86 0.25 25 INTERSTATE BLUE 0.13 0.87 0.12 8 MANSARD BROWN 0.28 0.85 0.28 27 MEDIUM BRONZE 0.25 0.88 0.24 24 MIDNIGHT BRONZE 0.06 0.88 N/A 0 MILITARY BLUE 0.29 0.87 0.28 30 MUSKET GRAY 0.28 0.87 0.27 28 PATINA GREEN 0.34 0.86 0.33 35 SANDSTONE 0.46 0.87 0.46 52 SIERRA TAN 0.31 0.87 0.31 32 SLATE BLUE 0.23 0.87 0.22 21 SLATE GRAY 0.35 0.88 0.34 38 STONE WHITE 0.67 0.85 0.65 80 TEAL 0.26 0.87 0.26 25 TERRA COTTA 0.36 0.88 0.35 39 PAC-CLAD PREMIUM COLORS AGED COPPER 0.25 0.87 0.24 24 ANODIC CLEAR 0.55 0.80 N/A 62 CHAMPAGNE 0.40 0.82 0.36 42 COPPER PENNY 0.45 0.87 0.44 51 SILVER 0.48 0.81 0.46 53 SILVERSMITH 0.52 0.81 N/A 58 WEATHERED COPPER 0.45 0.88 N/A 51 WEATHERED STEEL 0.32 0.89 N/A 34 WEATHERED ZINC 0.25 0.82 0.24 22 ZINC 0.30 0.88 0.29 31 CLEAR-COAT ACRYLIC FINISH (NON-KYNAR) GALVALUME PLUS 0.68 0.14 0.55 57 PAC-CLAD Premium finishes are available from stock at a moderate extra cost. PAC-CLAD Copper Penny is a Non-Weathering finish. Solar Reflectance Index calculated according to ASTM E-1980. *Low Gloss/Low Sheen, 70% PVDF finish ** Appearance differs for Black Aluminum and Matte Black Steel ENERGY STAR PERFORMANCE CRITERIA: `` Humidity Resistance (ASTM D 2247): Galvalume or HDG, 100% RH, `` Abrasion Resistance (ASTM D 968): 67 +/- 10 liters Emissivity uses ASTM C1371 Reflectivity uses ASTM C1549. 2000 hours – No field blisters; Aluminum, 100% RH, `` Cross Hatch Adhesion (ASTM D 3359): No loss of adhesion TECHNICAL DATA FOR KYNAR 500/HYLAR 5000 COATING: 3000 hours – No field blisters `` Reverse Impact (ASTM D 2794): Galvalume or HDG, 2x `` South Florida Exposure: Color (ASTM D 2244) - No more than 5ΔE `` Salt Spray Resistance (ASTM B 117): Aluminum, 3000 hours, metal thickness inch-pounds, no loss of adhesion; Aluminum, Hunter units at 20 years; Chalk (ASTM D 4214) – Rating no less than 8 at Galvalume or HDG, 1000 hours – Creep from scribe no more than 1.5x metal thickness inch-pounds, no loss of adhesion 20 years; Film integrity – 20 years. 1/16”, no field blisters `` Flame Test (ASTM E 84): Class A Coating `` Accelerated Weathering (ASTM D 4587, ASTM G 154): 5000 Hours; `` Chemical/Acid Pollution Resistance (ASTM D 1308): Pass Chalk, per ASTM D 4214, rating of 6 or better; Color, per ASTM D 2244, `` T-Bend (ASTM D 4145): 1T – 3T with no loss of adhesion < 5ΔE (Hunter Units) color change. `` Pencil hardness (ASTM D 3363): HB – 2H `` Specular Gloss (ASTM D 523) @ 60 degrees: Typical – 20 – 35 PAC-CLAD is a registered trademark of Petersen Aluminum Corp. Kynar 500 is a registered trademark of Arkema Inc. Hylar 5000 is a registered trademark of Solvay Solexis. 12/2018 REDI-ROOF STANDING SEAM WITHOUT OFFSETS MATERIALS .032 aluminum 24 gauge steel* 22 gauge steel SPECS REDI-ROOF 12”, 16” or 18” O.C. 1-3/8” High WITH OFFSETS 1-9/16" UL-90 12", 16" or 18" O.C. Redi-Roof Standing Seam W/Offsets WITHOUT OFFSETS 1-3/8" 12", 16" or 18" O.C. Redi-Roof Standing Seam W/OUT Offsets MADE ONLY IN MARYLAND LOCATION 1-1/4" PRODUCT 12" O.C. FEATURES MATERIAL `` UL-263 fire resistance rated `` 43 stocked colors (24 gauge steel) `` UL-2218 impact resistance rated `` Available with orBatten Redi-Roof without offsets `` Factory eave notching available `` 36 stocked colors (.032 aluminum) ASTM TESTS `` Herr-Voss corrective leveled `` 15 stocked colors (22 gauge steel) `` ASTM E283/1680 tested `` Labor-saving one-piece design `` Galvalume Plus available `` ASTM E331/1646 tested `` Stiffener beads available UL CLASSIFICATION `` 30-year non-prorated finish warranty `` UL-580 Class 90 wind uplift (steel only) `` Panel lengths up to 45’ `` UL-790 Class A fire rated *24 gauge steel, in all O.C.’s, is UL-90 Classified over solid substrate. See roof deck construction in Underwriter Laboratories roofing materials and systems directory. A complete specification is available online at pac-clad.com. 800 PAC CLAD | PAC-CLAD.COM ©2017 Petersen Aluminum Corporation 1 Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DOCKET February 11, 2020 – 5:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS NDS Conference Room I. COMMISSION PRE-MEETING (Agenda discussion(s)) Beginning: 4:30 pm Location: NDS Conference Room Members Present: Commissioner Lahendro, Commissioner Solla-Yates, Commissioner Heaton, Chairman Mitchell, Commissioner Stolzenberg, Commissioner Dowell, Commissioner Green Staff Present: Patrick Cory, Missy Creasy, Lisa Robertson, Kyle Kling, Alex Ikefuna, Brennan Duncan Chair Mitchell called the meeting to order at 5:00pm and began review of the agenda. It was noted there were three corrections needed to the December 10, 2019 minutes: change “lie tech” to “LI TCH”, in the Fontaine discussion note that students did not participate (though they were invited) and revise the motion on page 14 to provide clarity. It was noted that the minutes would move forward with those revisions. The PC operational guidelines would be removed from the consent agenda for review at the end of the meeting. Barracks/Emmet Intersection Project Commissioner Dowell asked for clarification on the retaining wall height and that information was provided. Chair Mitchell asked for information on the tree canopy. Brian Coleman from Timmons provided an explanation on the limit of impact to trees in relation to the retaining wall and detailed the anticipated tree loss on site. Kyle Kling noted that up to 23 trees are predicted for removal. Lisa Robertson reminded the Planning Commission of the standard of review for the item this evening including the criteria for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Dowell asked for information on the recommendation for the steering committee. It was noted but clarification was provided on what the Planning Commission would be voting on this evening. Harris Street Application Commissioner Dowell asked for details on the affordable housing commitment for this project. Mr. Haluska noted that we do not have that information yet and explained the scheduling provided per the code requirements. It was noted that this would be a good question to ask the applicant. There were concerns raised for affordable housing and a review of the SUP process was provided. Commissioner Lahendro asked if the materials provided were based on the STW, site plan and setback requirements. Mr. Haluska noted that the application shows the correct setbacks and he outlined the requirements provided for the Industrial Corridor. Commissioner Stolzenberg asked about the City sidewalk project for Harris Street. It was noted that this project is coordinating with that effort. II. COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING – Meeting was called to order at 5:35 PM A. COMMISSIONER’S REPORT 2 Commissioner Heaton – No Report Commissioner Green – There was a TJPDC meeting last Thursday. I was unable to attend due to an illness. I do hope to be back with a lot of new members at the beginning of March. Commissioner Dowell – On Tuesday at 4:00 PM, the CDBG Task Force will be reviewing grant applications and be preparing a proposal for City Council. Commissioner Stolzenberg – We had an MPO Tech meeting, where we approved re-allocation of funds for CAT for automated passenger counters. That will help get more accurate information on boardings onto the bus, particularly on the trolley, where there have been some issues with data accuracy in the past. People have been missed, which reduces the total funding. We also discussed our targets for injuries and fatalities in the area. Our target is now 15 non-motorists serious injuries and fatalities. We are calling it Vision 15. We set targets for what the goal is. We obviously would love it to be zero. That’s something that is not practical. We set metrics so that we can measure ourselves against it. If we get less than 15, we will consider it a success. It has been an upward trend in recent years. Commissioner Solla-Yates – On January 30th, the Housing Advisory Committee policy sub- committee met to discuss the kick off of the housing strategy with the consultant team with some new information. They had some new statistical information. Looking at African American homes in the area, there was a 26% shift adjusted for inflation for African American households, including a 17% income loss and a 9% rent cost growth. It was the worst of any group that they looked at. It was really startling. Commissioner Lahendro – I attended a Tree Commission meeting on February 4th. Our new chair, Brian Menard, chaired the meeting. The new vice-chair Peggy Van Yahres, was there as well. Both of those are new officers. Brian reviewed the commission structure and goals for the coming year. We are going to have 3 sub-committees: education and advocacy, arbor (tree planting projects), and codes and practices (coordination with city planning). Arbor Day is on April 24th. We discussed the upcoming canopy study by the consultant and the evaluation criteria. This is done every five years. It will be done this upcoming August and early fall. The tree planting committee has started to reach out to those in the low canopy neighborhoods for targeting next fall’s tree planting project. The Board of Architectural Review met on January 22nd. We had three certificate of appropriateness applications. Two were approved and one was deferred. We had a preliminary discussion over the conceptual design for 612 West Main Street. Our comments were to break down the monumentality of what we saw and diversify the façade to mimic the existing building pattern and to open up the streetscape floor to activate the pedestrian and street more. Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee Commissioner Lahendro - I and Commissioner Solla-Yates are representing the Planning Commission on the steering committee for the new comprehensive plan. We attended the first steering committee meeting with the consultants hired to finish the comprehensive plan. It was a 3 night of being introduced to the three consultants that are doing the project and understanding their roles and expectations. The different members of the steering committee spoke about their expectations. We were asked why the comprehensive plan stopped. I couldn’t tell them. No one from City Council was there for this part of the meeting. There is no one from City Council on the steering committee. I have not seen anything from City Council concerning why it was stopped. Commissioner Solla-Yates – The steering committee will be meeting every two to three months. We will have notice. We can bring questions and issues. Commissioner Lahendro – I did ask if it would be OK to invite past planning commissioners, who were a part of the planning commission, to be there as well. That has been approved. All of the material that we generated, has been shared with the consultants. Staff did a wonderful job compiling that information for them. Commissioner Green – Would you like some information on why it stopped? There was a lot of concern that the housing strategy had not been done in December 2018. There was a new long range planner that had been funded by Council at that point. They were supposed to come on board. The land use plan, the comprehensive plan, and the housing strategy would go in parallel timing. We got a new city manager, and he stopped that long range plan. We went in for an RFP for a consultant. Commissioner Stolzenberg – A quick update from the last PLACE meeting. The long range planner is back. That job listing is open. I believe that they are still accepting applications. B. UNIVERSITY REPORT Commissioner Palmer – One project coming up is the new softball stadium at the corner of Copeley and Massie. It should be open for opening day in early March. That will be exciting for the softball program. C. CHAIR’S REPORT Chairman Mitchell – There is a meeting tomorrow that I have been invited to attend by the NDS Director. I believe that this is going to be a joint meeting between the University of Virginia, Albemarle County, and the City of Charlottesville. It is going to be focused on urban and environmental planning issues. D. DEPARTMENT OF NDS Ms. Creasy – We have a work session on February 26th. This is an extended work session from 5:00 PM to 8:00 PM. We are going to start with the Cherry Avenue Small Area Plan with the next steps. We are going to meet with the consultants that are working on the three plans that are underway and finish the work session with a preliminary discussion on the latest version of the 4 Stribling Avenue project. They have a new proposal to share with the group. It’s going to be a very packed agenda. E. MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE FORMAL AGENDA None F. CONSENT AGENDA (Items removed from the consent agenda will be considered at the end of the regular agenda) 1. Minutes – November 26, 2019 – Work Session 2. Minutes – December 10, 2019 – Pre-meeting and Regular meeting Motion to approve by Commissioner Stolzenberg with three modifications to be made to the minutes. (Seconded by Commissioner Solla-Yates). Motion is passed 7-0. The Chairman recessed the meeting until 6:00 PM for the start of the public hearings and the arrival of three city councilors. III. JOINT MEETING OF COMMISSION AND COUNCIL Beginning: 6:00 PM Continuing: Until all public hearings are complete Format: (i) Staff Report, (ii) Applicant, (iii) Hearing, (iv) Commissioner Discussion and Motion 1. CP20-0001 -Barracks/Emmet Intersection Improvements – Review of Project for Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Pursuant to Virginia Code section 15.2-2232 and City Code sec. 34- 28, the Planning Commission will review the conceptual plan for the proposed Barracks Road & Emmet Street Intersection Improvement Smart Scale Project. The project proposes improvements to Barracks Road within the City of Charlottesville, between Emmet Street and Buckingham Road, in order to accommodate a new shared bicycle and pedestrian path. The project also includes operational and safety upgrades at the Barracks Road and Emmet intersection. The purpose of the review is to determine if the general character, approximate location and extent of the proposed improvements are substantially in accord with the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan or part thereof. Persons interested in the conceptual design may contact Project Manager Kyle Kling via e-mail (klingk@charlottesville.org ) or by telephone (434-970-3994). i. Staff Report Kyle Kling, Project Manager – We are here for the Barracks and Emmet Street smartscale project compliance with the comprehensive plan. In 2018, the city was awarded an $8.6 million VDOT smartscale grant for improvements along the corridor. The scope includes improvements to all phases and functionality of operations at the intersection of Barracks and Emmet. There is a second component, which takes into account, bicycle and pedestrian upgrades from the intersection eastbound up to Hilltop Road. Last summer, the city began working with The Timmons Group on preliminary engineering and design work for the project. Since last summer, we have been entrenched 5 in detailed public involvement. We have held multiple open houses and community meetings to solicit feedback. We have developed a conceptual design for the project, which we will be presenting tonight for compliance with the comprehensive plan. ii. Applicant Brian Copeland, The Timmons Group – I would like to go over the details of the project scope and schedule, some of the public engagement we have been through at this point, share some of the details of the conceptual design of the preferred concept we have developed to this points, as well as highlight the components of alignment with the comprehensive plan. I would like to start with the purpose of the project. The purpose of the project is to improve the operational performance of the Barracks and Emmet intersection, while also enhancing bike, pedestrian, and transit facilities for the neighborhood. The project limits are along Barracks Road between Emmet Street and Buckingham Road. There are some intersection improvements, specifically aimed at the Emmet Street intersection. In 2018, $8.6 million was awarded to the city to fully fund a project that would include some significant improvements to the corridor including an additional northbound turn lane on Emmet Street, the addition of an additional left turn lane to allow concurrent left turn lanes onto Barracks Road, traffic signal improvements, including pedestrian controls through the intersection, increasing the width of the refuge islands in the intersection to provide acceptable refuge for pedestrians crossing the intersection, providing upgraded bike and pedestrian facilities along Barracks Road up to Hilltop and/or Buckingham Road, and a new CAT bus shelter on Barracks Road. Over the last 6 months, we have been working on collecting survey data, performing traffic analysis, and meeting with committee members, engaging with the public, meeting now with the Planning Commission, and entering the preliminary design of the project. Moving forward from this, we intend to move into the detailed engineering design that will finish up with a design public hearing so that when more of the design details are worked out, we are able to present those details to the public, and get VDOT design approval. Heading into the summer of 2021, we plan to finalize most of the design detail and start the acquisition of right of way and relocation of private utilities that may be necessary. This is all leading up to VDOT’s authorization of construction in 2023. With regards to the public engagement process, residents that live within the project limits were contacted and offered the opportunity to meet with city staff and myself on July 23rd. We came up and met with as many that were available for that date. I know that staff has met with several others afterwards. At those meetings, we went over the scope of that project, the scale of the project, and then we listened. A couple of the primary concerns that we came away with hearing, were impacts to their properties, specifically the tree canopy and the front yards, and safety. Safety with pulling out of their driveways and increased speeds on Barracks Road were the two primary concerns. Those were the two overarching things that we heard. Two days later, we had our first steering committee meeting. At that meeting, we highlighted the known concerns along the corridor, concerns at the intersection, and bike and pedestrian safety concerns. We reviewed the smart scale scope and results of the traffic study that we did. A lot of the meeting was focused on trying to structure questions that we would like to include in a project survey that would go live after our first public workshop. After that discussion, we were able to structure some good questions. We opened it up for discussion with the group. A lot of the takeaway, was 6 making sure that we are protecting the neighborhood character, improving congestion at the intersection, reducing speeds along Barracks Road, and doing what we can to make biking and walking safer along Barracks Road. We also started the project website. After that meeting, we had our first public workshop. At that workshop, we presented three intersection improvement options. The first option was an approach that stayed within the confines of the existing roadway, worked within the limits of the curb lines and the edges of the pavement, and to get as much out of that pavement as we could. Option 3 was the other extreme, where we added pavement and pavement widening, particularly on the north side of Barracks Road to extend the amount of pavement available for queuing. We then demonstrated that by introducing a very tall retaining wall on the property on the north side. We presented four options for bicycle and pedestrian improvements running along Barracks Road. The first option was a dedicated climbing lane in road, with a curb, a buffer strip, and 5 foot sidewalk. The second option included a protected climbing lane. By providing the protection, it was offset by removing the buffer strip and moving the sidewalk all of the way in. It was focusing on trying to limit the height of the retaining wall that’s proposed and limiting the impact of the trees. Option 3 incorporates a full width buffer strip, a 10 foot shared use path, and moving the curb line into the road. Option 4 is the same as option 3 with the elimination of the buffer strip. Following the presentation of those options, the survey went live to the public. These are the results. The infographic shows that there were 90 respondents. Ninety percent of those respondents live in the project area or commute along Barracks Road. The feedback that we got about the intersection options shows that 60% of the respondents preferred option 1, which is to eliminate any retaining walls. Our preferred approach recognizes that and incorporates that. There was an opportunity to rank eight different components of the project and list their importance. Increasing pedestrian safety was the number one ranked priority. We think that we have done that. Of the four bike/pedestrian options, 66% preferred the shared use path option over the inroad bike facility options. We have recognized that, and that is what our preferred concept is incorporating. Of the shared use path options, nearly 50% preferred the landscape buffer versus not having the landscape buffer. The respondents preferred to restrict access at Meadowbrook Road, restricting that to ride in and ride out access for safety and traffic flow reasons. We have listened and incorporated that. As part of the steering committee meeting, we structured the question, since there seemed to be a question of whether people would use Barracks Road for biking. If the corridor was improved, would you bike on it? 53% of the respondents said that they would bike on it if it was made safe. The west bound/right turn lane at the intersection was to be a thru right from the operational standpoint. What we heard many times through the feedback we got is that they prefer that to be a right turn lane only. We have incorporated that into the design. Following the receipt of that, we met the second time with the steering committee. We reviewed these results with them, then followed up with a presentation of our preferred alternative with them. We highlighted some of the areas we have incorporated. Generally, but not totally, there was agreement with some of the findings here and the incorporation of the feedback into that, with lone exception being option 3 vs option 4. It was debated vigorously. After the meeting, we took a vote as to how many people wanted it. The majority of the members voted not to have the buffer strip. In terms of the concept design that we presented, this was presented at the next open house. We believe that this concept improves the operational performance of the 7 intersection, provides a much safer bicycle/pedestrian environment, relocated the curb line to reduce speeds, and adds the shared use path and 3 foot buffer strip. We also heard concerns with wall heights and tree impacts. We have looked at the differences between what the wall heights would become in option 3 versus option 4. What are some ways we can create the results of option 4 that didn’t have a buffer strip but still maintain some semblance of a buffer strip to provide some of those important functions? We also looked at tree impacts. The red trees would be the trees directly impacted by the shared use path. Orange trees are trees within a 5 foot area. The green trees are the trees within 5 to 10 feet of the retaining wall. There are some concerns on what that wall will look like. This is a picture today of Barracks Road, looking west bound. This is what the preferred option could look like implemented. There are concerns for what that wall might look like. There are options with using slip forms in front of the structural components of the retaining wall to provide different architectural treatments. We can use stone, brick, or printed form liners in front of the structural components. These are just options. They haven’t been decided upon. We looked at opportunities incorporating things we felt reasonably could with preservation of the neighborhood character. We looked at ways to minimize impacts to utility infrastructure. With incorporation of multi-modal access to businesses looking at consistency with economic sustainability. We are re-purposing asphalt by moving the curb line in. That’s part of our environmental approach. We incorporating several components of complete streets goals of the comprehensive plan. We are looking at context sensitive design treatments for the retaining wall. The bicycle master plan designates this corridor as a bicycle arterial route. Based on that and the grades, we feel that it’s appropriate to have separated bike facilities in the plan. The streets that work plan designates this as a mixed use B and a neighborhood A typology. This is a comparison between the two. Noting the consistency between the two that it recommends a 3 foot to 6 foot curbside buffer zone. I do just want to emphasize some of the benefits that can be provided by providing a 3 foot buffer. It’s consistent with city’s bike pedestrian master plan. It provides additional physical and visual separation from cars. It provides space for utilities and lighting, It also leaves the shared use path unimpeded from all of those roadside obstacles. It provides a traffic calming effect along with other benefits that we feel are appropriate and consistent with the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Solla-Yates – I am concerned about reduced demand and cut through traffic. Can you discuss that? Mr. Kling – That’s a concern that we have heard a couple of times. A couple members of the public have voiced it as well. We are exploring options of putting signage along different routes in the neighborhood. It is something that is on our radar. Commissioner Stolzenberg – We have heard a number of concerns about ADA access on this path. Will it be fully ADA compliant? Mr. Kling – Yes. It’s our intent to make it fully ADA compliant. It is a shared use path. Those do have some different regulations than sidewalks or trails. It will be 100% ADA fully compliant. As you follow the grade of the roadway on a sidewalk and a shared use path and you don’t deviate from that, then it’s considered to be ADA compliant. We 8 haven’t dug into details. We received a comment looking for level landing areas along the path as well. That’s something that we will explore. We will have some natural landing areas as you cross driveways. Mr. Copeland – I would also like to point out that another benefit of having a 3 foot buffer space is at driveways. To get up 6 inches to the elevation of the shared use path, that 3 foot buffer strip provides for that ramping up that first 3 feet to get up the 6 inches so that you have a fully accessible cross slope of the shared use path all of the way through. If you push the shared use path all the way to the curb, that ramping extends into the traversable and accessible portion of the shared use path. Commissioner Lahendro – I am guessing that the 3 foot buffer strip is not for trees. There are not going to be any trees. How many trees have we lost by moving the retaining wall 3 feet more into the embankment? Mr. Copeland – We have not done that evaluation. We can do it and provide those numbers. Commissioner Heaton – I had a similar question on the section where you have a large number of trees in pink and yellow. Is it anticipated that those trees will die eventually because they are so close? Mr. Copeland – It depends on the size of the tree. The root zone is based on the size of the tree. There are a lot of variables that will go into that. It’s something that we will look at more closely through the design. Commissioner Lahendro – Can we pull back a map of the street and be shown where the 7 foot tall retaining wall would be? Or what section of that street? Commissioner Green – That retaining wall varies in size along that corridor. Mr. Kling – There are some little boxes underneath the trees that are different colors. This is available on the project website. The tallest section of the wall is going to be up there on the east end of the project at Hilltop Road. That section is about 250 feet from that driveway to Hilltop Road. In that section, you are looking at a maximum height of 7 feet and average height of 5 feet along that stretch and a minimum of 3 feet. For the rest of the corridor, you’re looking at an average of 3 feet in the wall height from that first driveway down to the end of the map there. iii. Public Hearing Tim Heaphy – I am here on behalf of the Venable Neighborhood Association. I am not opposed to the improvements to the corridor. It is a question of whether the plan does improve the corridor in a way that is consistent with the comprehensive plan. We don’t believe that it does not in 3 specific ways. The first is the tree canopy. The comprehensive plan says that the city should expand and protect the canopy. The preferred plan would decrease the tree canopy. There is a proposal to replant trees. The proposal would 9 move the bus stop up. This kills trees for a 3 foot buffer strip. We don’t think that this proposal is respectful of characteristics of the neighborhood. We are against option 3 and the Neighborhood Association and Tree Commission could support option 4. Greg Manke – We have tenure on Barracks Road. We have been there longer than any other residents. There must be a discussion of the project parameters, including widths and heights. Our greatest concern is what impact the chosen option will impact the canopy of the trees. Where does the ten feet start from? Nobody adheres to the 25 speed limit going up Barracks Road. There is 24 feet at the narrowest and goes all of the way up 28 feet. There will be a profound negative impact on that tree canopy. Tom Gallagher – Important to maintain the walls as low as possible. The reasons are to maintain the character of the neighborhood and the welcoming entrance corridor into the city. If the preferred option is put in place, the walls will be higher than suggested by that. The visual image presented is the best case. Wall height is determined by how deep you dig horizontally and the slope of the bank. The wall never gets lower than this, except at the very top. Most of this wall is going to be 6 feet tall and not 3 feet tall. This is more appropriate at an industrial intersection. I suggest this proposal be rejected in the present form. Brian Menard – I am chair of the Tree Commission. I would like for us to think of the tree canopy as green infrastructure. We have a unique urban corridor. We should carefully think about the options and select the one that will have the least amount of impact on the canopy. The Tree Commission voted overwhelmingly against this option. We still have a series of questions that impact the trees. Those questions include clear mapping. There has also been tree replenishment. We would like to know what tree replenishment looks like in this corridor. The last slide had no mention of trees. Marty Bass – I have been vocal about the issues along Barracks Road. There are two issues that are incompatible with the comprehensive plan. Bikes going up the shared use path is dangerous. There are no traffic calming measures. There are no measures to help pedestrians crossing from one side of the road to the other side of the road. The second issue is aesthetics. A 7 foot wall is not aesthetically pleasing. The only thing compatible with the comprehensive plan is bikes. Barracks Road is dangerous for bikes going up and down the road. Joe Ket – There are serious flaws in the preferred option. The before and after pictures show no change in the tree canopy. The pictures passed out at the public workshop show no canopy on the south side. The mixed use path shows a path going from nowhere to nowhere. You will not see bikes going uphill on Barracks Road. The mixed use path will not change this. Avid cyclists will continue to bike in the Meadowbrook Road area. That area has a low stress connection. John Ket – I am a landscape architect. This area is defined by the canopy and the ivy clad slopes. It is a quiet and calming corridor. There has not been enough details provided. There is a question of when a tree canopy is lost and how it is replaced. There has not been 10 enough details on the wall. This is probably 1250 feet long wall along the entire length. You can’t think about the safety without thinking about cars. I think that this should be sent back. Jay Hightman – I do have personal experience in riding my bike up and down Barracks Road. This project would allow for better transit from the downtown area to the Barracks Road area. As this area grows, the intensity of the traffic is going to increase. There can be adjustments in the plan, such as the width of the shared use path. I hope that the Planning Commission allows this project to move forward. Mary Mason – We live in a historic neighborhood. The City of Charlottesville has prioritized the urban environment and urban forest. The project effects both of these. This tree line serves as a corridor entrance into the city. It is a historic university neighborhood. The landscape sacrifice is simply too high. The preferred option is not in accord with the comprehensive plan. Mac Mason – I believe that the tree canopy is one of the defining features for Barracks Road. We are thrilled that the city is going to make pedestrian and bike safety a priority for this area. The cost of trees at the top of Barracks Road is not worth the cost for the safety proposals. The Rugby and Meadowbrook area is lovely. Great care should be taken to maintain the character and charm of the area. Nina Ratrie – I am an avid cyclist. As this project exists now, it ends at Buckingham Road. The cars not going 25. They are going 35 to 45 coming up Barracks Road. People are going to try to enter the ramp onto the sidewalk. I think that you have a situation where you are endangering lives. I challenge everyone to examine the traffic flow. When you widen a road, people get more confident and will go faster. I am concerned about the speeding. Jake Mooney – I bike a lot and I am comfortable biking in the road. This is a spot that I would not bike in. It’s a corridor that’s in hospitable to anyone that does not live there. Without a bike path, nobody can traverse without a car. Drivers do go too fast on the road. A way to protect bikers is through buffers. Josh Carp – I used to bike. I don’t bike much in town. I wouldn’t bike on Barracks or Preston. If you bike there, people are going to get hit and die. I would much rather preserve lives than the neighborhood character. The comp plan calls for the implementation of the bike/pedestrian plan. I would feel safe with biking and walking there. Let’s preserve the trees and build a bike path and protection for bikers. Holly Mason – This is a difficult issue. I have three teenagers, who live on this street. There are big problems on the road. The challenge is to keep everybody safe. This location is very difficult. The option on the table needs more detail. Traffic has to be addressed. You have to slow down the traffic. I would encourage traffic calming. 11 Nancy Summers – I was pleased to hear everyone contribute about Barracks Road. I think Barracks Road is a beautiful and dangerous road. Everything that everyone said is true. We have to have a minimalist approach. When people enter Charlottesville, they know that they are entering a special place. The historical character does matter. We don’t need to funnel all of the traffic down Barracks Road. iv. Commissioner Discussion and Motion Commissioner Green – We have all of this information. The question before the planning commission is whether “improvements to be made here” is consistent with the comprehensive plan? I don’t think any of these designs have been flushed out. That’s our question. We have money for that going in a direction to slow traffic. I don’t think that the hills are difficult to traverse if they are safe. We have traffic-speed problems all over this city. I am hoping Council or whomever is listening to the pleas of the public here for the traffic. It’s a problem in a lot of different places. We can’t look at land use planning because we have an issue on a lack of enforcement in another area. I want to focus on the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Palmer – I agree with what Commissioner Green said. I think it’s really commendable that the city got this smart scale grant. It’s the fourth one that we have seen. These have a 5 or 6 year time limit to get to the end of construction. We will be back here in 5 years seeing this great transformation in our city on these different areas. It’s an area close to the university. In general, I agree with a lot of what I heard. This is a worthy project. It would be great if it could extend further up the hill. We have a budget constraint with that on this particular project. It doesn’t mean that there can’t be more projects in the future. I think it goes towards putting another piece in that bike/pedestrian network we are trying to establish in the city. I understand the worry of losing some of the nicer trees along the corridor. It sounds like we are at an early stage and there may be further design considerations that can get those heights of the retaining walls down and still maintain adequate safety. One of the things with the 10 foot shared use path is how you mark it, so that it is safe for bike and pedestrian traffic. Other municipalities do it all of the time. I think we can work through those things. Commissioner Stolzenberg – I heard a lot of important comments. I think that it is important to point out the bike/pedestrian master plan, which is a component to the comprehensive plan, ranks this as the eighth most important bike improvement route in the city out of twenty. The comprehensive plan does really see us doing work in this area. I walked all of the way up to Barracks Road Shopping Center after the PLACE meeting we had on this. The thing that struck me is how narrow and dangerous it is to walk down there. I was especially surprised how incredibly loud it is for cars going much faster than the speed limit a mere 18 inches from you. It feels hostile and threatening. The plan, as proposed, would make a pretty significant difference in that. One person mentioned how if you make the view of the road wider, people will go faster. I want to call out something that they went over with us in PLACE. That’s true. If you have the option without the buffer, that ends up with perceived wide road. If you have a buffer, then you can put light poles in there and other signage. Those vertical elements reduce the perceived width of the road. It’s important to point out that it’s not just shrinking the lanes, they’re taking the 12 whole north shoulder off. The center line of the road itself is moving up. When you talk about measuring the distance across the road, the thing that is the road now, will be moved up to squeeze in that buffer without taking as much of that slope. I think that it is a good plan. I think that it is in accordance with the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Heaton – As I look at the proposal and the comprehensive plan, I believe that it would be grossly irresponsible to not move forward on the grounds of safety for all of our citizens. Acknowledging the beautiful urban forest and what that neighborhood and that road 40 years ago, when I first drove on it. There are a lot more people living in the city now. We are up here representing all of the people. The only thing that I don’t like about the plan is that I don’t see a lot of creativity in traffic calming methods. In other communities that are trying to preserve trees, there are some really creative ways to preserve old trees that are very expensive but it’s doable. As you move forward on this, it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Even if it’s a public/private/city tree commission, throw in a couple of expensive traffic calming, tree preserving on this stretch, you might come up with something remarkable. Commissioner Dowell – I do think that it is definitely in line with our comprehensive plan, the Streets That Work plan and making our city multi-modal. My only personal thought with this is that we look a little more at the option that we use. I think that we need to separate pedestrians and bicycles. They need a buffer from cars. I look forward to moving forward with the plan. Commissioner Solla-Yates – I spent a quite bit of time on this corridor. Generally, I am a bicyclist, but not on this corridor. I walked the entire length of the corridor. My daughter couldn’t hear me because it was too noisy. If I did this regularly, her hearing would be damaged for her entire life. This corridor has serious problems, and we should improve it. I see enormous conformance with the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Lahendro – In our packet, as commissioners, we have been given a number of goals from the comprehensive plan that we are supposed to consider, as we look at this application. In my mind, it fails to adequately comply with two of those important goals. One is the environment. Goal 2.2: Expand and protect the overall tree canopy. The entrance corridor goal 8.4: Use street trees and landscaping to provide shade. Transportation goal 1.1: Provide a shared path that is safe for pedestrians and bicyclists. I think the way the shared path terminates at the top, across from Hilltop, is irresponsible. I know this is within the perimeter of our study area. Something has to be done, other than just to stop it. Something else must be possible. I think there hasn’t been adequate study of the options and what they mean to the tree canopy. What would it mean to not have the buffer? I doubt that it would ever be planted with anything that could stay there. It’s too dark there. The perception is that it’s going to be part of the path. You would still have layups and vertical elements on the side, with or without the buffer. I really question the need of the buffer. I would like to know how many trees we lose as a result of putting that buffer in. I don’t think the study has been done to be able to come to a conclusion. I am very disappointed with what I see here. I don’t think it complies with the comprehensive plan. 13 Councilor Snook – I gather from the materials that the right of way is 45 feet wide. Is that correct? Mr. Kling – The right of way along this corridor varies from parcel to parcel. It’s not consistent. To say that it’s 45 feet wide consistently would not be accurate. Councilor Snook – Looking at the diagram for option 3, the width of the improvements would be about 36 feet wide. Is there a comparable number for options 1, 2, and 4? Mr. Kling – Everything from previous meetings is available on the project website. Our preferred option does limit the extent of right of way take to the maximum extent possible. It was referenced multiple times tonight that the city was moving forward with option 3. That is not the case. They are moving forward with a hybrid option 3 and 4. Option 3 had a five foot buffer space. The preferred option has a 3 foot buffer space. I just wanted to clarify that. There are plans in place. Currently, the city is working with a consultant to come up with a striping plan for Barracks Road from Hilltop to Rugby. I know that it’s been brought up a couple of times tonight that the trail was terminating to nowhere at Hilltop. We have plans in place to add improved bicycle facilities in that area. Councilor Snook – If you look at the north side of Barracks Road from Blue Ridge down to Hessian, we’re dealing mainly with backyards, where the houses are a good distance away, is there any thought of edging the road, at least in this area, a little bit to the north to minimize the impact of the people on the south? Mr. Kling – It’s something that we explored early on. The majority of the utilities along the corridor are on the north side of the street. To shift the physical roadway to the north would heighten the budget extremely. In this instance, you’re looking to have to relocate every utility along the corridor. Commissioner Stolzenberg had mentioned earlier our shifting of the lanes on the corridor to the paved shoulder that’s currently there. We were able to gain some existing space there. In terms of physical shifts, we don’t anticipate that. Councilor Snook – Is there magic to 11 feet and 10 feet? Is there a design standard we’re dealing with there at some point? Mr. Kling – I think it goes back to buses and larger vehicles and particularly emergency access that we like to incorporate in all of our projects. We have members of police and fire on our steering committees. It’s very important to them that we try to keep those lanes at a width that accommodate those larger vehicles when needed. Commissioner Green – Councilor Snook. I was looking at that same thing about the right of way and why we were keeping it on the north side. The city has already acquired a 15 foot strip reserved on the south side as well. I think that it is utilities. You can’t read it on our materials. You have to go to that website. You can zoom in and see the actual words. 14 Councilor Snook – How much right of way do we expect to take? Mr. Copeland – It obviously varies. I would estimate 15 to 20 feet on average. Some areas may be less than 15 feet and some areas more. Depending on how much we are able to move the road to the north and utilize as much of that pavement as we can. That area may be closer to 10 to 12 feet that we need. In areas that is pretty tight already. In general terms, that is what I am thinking. Commissioner Stolzenberg – Is that distance from the edge of the existing roadway or the edge of the city’s existing easement? Mr. Copeland – That’s from the edge of the existing roadway. It can stay entirely within the existing city easement that’s in place. Commissioner Green – We already own the easement. Mr. Copeland – It’s not in addition to that easement. Commissioner Green – We are not taking, by eminent domain, any more land. We already own the land. People are just utilizing it for their own yard. Mr. Copeland – There is a prescriptive easement. From the center line of the road, it is 30 feet total, with 15 feet of prescriptive easement or 15 feet city easement. It’s a total of 30 feet based on the preferred option. There are some areas like bus stops that we go outside of. Commissioner Heaton – I have a question about the time limitations on the VDOT grant and where we are in that proposal. What are some of the actions of the Planning Commission might do to jeopardize it? Ms. Creasy – Mr. Kling is going to know a little bit better about the timing of next steps. Mr. Kling – We were awarded the grant in 2018. That starts when you sign the agreement with VDOT. That starts the window. Luckily, we realize that this project is a priority. We requested for some funding to be accelerated, which allowed us to start this project about a year or two earlier than anticipated. As of now, we are in good shape. Any holdup in that process can jeopardize the project. I will note that once you are out of the 5 to 6 year time window, VDOT does have the ability to rescind funds. The city would be on the hook for and have to repay any design and engineering work to date for that. Commissioner Green – It’s not just the money. If we rescind on funds, and pay them back, that looks bad on all of our smart scale projects in the future too. We have been fortunate with the funding that we have received for some projects. 15 Mr. Kling – VDOT is planning to move towards a model where localities are judged on how well they deliver projects. If we don’t deliver projects on time and on budget, that jeopardizes any funds we may get in the future. Chairman Mitchell – The question that we have to answer is: Does the general character of the proposed improvement of this preliminary design comply with the existing comprehensive plan? There is much work that needs to be done. The feedback that we have gotten from the folks that bike around this city and the folks that walk around this city and the folks that live in the area is feedback that we need to take into account when we move from where we are in the winter and to when we move to the detailed design and detailed engineering. There is much work yet to be done. I do believe that the vision of this application does meet with the comprehensive plan. Motion: Commissioner Green - I move that the proposed Barrack/Emmet Improvements Project concept, located on Barracks Road between Emmet Street and Buckingham Road in the City of Charlottesville, to determine if the general character and extent of the proposed improvements are substantially in accord with the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan or part thereof (Motion seconded by Commissioner Solla- Yates). Motion is passed 6-1. 2. SP19-00010 -Harris Street Apartments - Landowner Cville Business Park, LLC is requesting a Special Use Permit (SUP) pursuant to City Code Sec. 34-457(b)(5) to authorize a specific mixed- use development (apartments (“multifamily dwellings”) with some commercial uses) at 1221, 1223 and 1225 Harris Street (“Subject Property”). The Subject Property has approximately 345 feet of frontage on Harris Street, and is further identified on City Real Property Tax Map 34 as Parcels 90B, 90C and 90.1 (City Real Estate Parcel IDs 340090B00, 340090C00, and 340090100), having a total area of approximately 2.446 acres. The Subject Property is zoned Industrial Corridor (IC). In the IC district, multifamily residential development is allowed only as part of a mixed-use building or development. The project proposed by the applicant is a 6-story, 166,800 square foot mixed-use building with 13,050 square feet of ground floor commercial space, and up to 105 residential dwelling units (approximately 98,975 square feet, total) above the ground floor (up to 43 DUA). In the IC zoning district, mixed use buildings are allowed by-right, up to a height of 4 stories, with residential density up to 21 dwelling units per acre (DUA). The application also seeks approval of two (2) additional building stories, and an additional 22 DUA. The Comprehensive Land Use Map for this area calls for Business and Technology, but no density range is specified by the Comprehensive Plan. Information pertaining to this application may be viewed online at http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and-services/departments-hz/neighborhood- development-services or obtained from the Department of Neighborhood Development Services, 2nd Floor of City Hall, 610 East Main Street. Persons interested in this Comprehensive Plan Amendment request may contact NDS Planner Brian Haluska by e-mail (haluska@charlottesville.org) or by telephone (434-970-3186). i. Staff Report 16 Brain Haluska, Principle Planner – Before the planning commission is a special use permit for these properties. This is industrial corridor zoning, which is somewhat unusual. We don’t see a whole lot of applications in properties zoned industrial corridor. Industrial zoning does measure height by stories. If you go to section 34-1100, four stories cannot exceed 50 feet in height and six stories cannot exceed 70 feet in height. The applicant’s proposal is a six story building, as shown in your packet. There is a maximum height of sixty feet with their six stories. The special use permit is for the additional two stories in height, as well as an increase in residential density up to 43 dwelling units per acre on the site. The maximum allowed in the industrial corridor that you can request is 63 units per acre. The proposed building is roughly 166,000 square feet. It contains parking in the structure, underneath the structure, and several different places. The site fronts on both Allied Street and Harris Street. This building “stairsteps” up the hill. There is about a 40 or 50 foot difference in grade between Allied Street and Harris Street. The building is aimed at responding to that. A couple of points that are not in your staff report. One point is the site is subject to the critical slope ordinance. There are critical slopes on this site. Part of it is proximity to a waterway that cuts through the site. If you have been out to the cul de sac at the end of Allied Street, you have seen a waterway in a culvert. That waterway is designated on the map. Any slopes within 200 feet of that waterway do qualify under the critical slope ordinance. The applicant would need to seek a critical slope waiver prior to the construction of the building that they’ve shown. I do want to state that the special use permit sets a maximum height. Maximum density doesn’t automatically guarantee the building would be built. Staff recommended conditions don’t tie the applicant to this specific building. Part of that is out of concern of re-engineering or any kind of re-design. That critical slope situation may end up reducing the size or unit count of the building. 105 units is the maximum under 43 dwelling units per acre. I do want to note that the site is comprised of two buildings on Harris Street. It also includes 221 Harris Street, which is the Habitat Store. The site is almost 2.5 acres. As a result of that, one of the questions that came up in the pre- meeting was about 34-12, the affordable housing ordinance that we have currently. What would we potentially get out of that at the building permit stage? Based on the applicant’s package, I was able to run the numbers. We could anticipate three units of affordable housing on site or off site or a donation to the Affordable Housing Fund, in lieu of payment of $377,000. That would be roughly what we are talking about. Part of the reason for those numbers, is that the site itself is over 2.5 acres. It takes a large amount of this building before you hit 1.0 floor/area ratio because of the amount of area that is included. Those would be the numbers under 34-12. 34-12 is a zoning requirement triggered by granting the special use permit on the property. It is something that we discuss through the site plan process and ultimately is resolved at the building permit stage. I do want to review the conditions that are suggested in here. Condition 1A is a condition that we have used in the past, just to make sure the parking design is incorporated into the final project. 1B is intended to lock in the height as it is shown. They show a maximum plane of 510 feet above sea level in their drawings. We have suggested that it be memorialized. That is ten feet lower that what the code would allow. We are assuming that is a voluntary reduction in part to address the massing of this building. It is a very large building on Harris Street. There is a traffic study proposed in condition 2. This relates to the proximity of this project to the intersection of McIntire 17 Road and Harris Street. That is an intersection that has been identified by city staff as being problematic. The queuing of the people trying to make the movement towards the bypass or even back towards McIntire does tend to back up the hill of Harris Street. They have indicated that. The long term plan has always been to look at that intersection. The construction of this building would accelerate that. During the peak hour, you’re talking about 50 additional trips going in that direction even if you split the traffic 50-50 on Harris Street. That’s going to back up almost to the top of the hill. We’re going to start seeing further impact. The McIntire and Harris intersection has some topographic challenges to it. There are some ideas that have been suggested in the past about traffic circles. Harris is extremely steep coming down the hill. You can’t really make the grade up. One topic that we have discussed is that the applicant owns all of the land in the McIntire Business Park. One of the pieces there is that entry way right before that intersection. That gives you an idea of the larger discussion that’s happening with the traffic. The condition is that they would do a preliminary traffic study. They would scope that with the traffic engineer and submit that as part of their site plan. We would have a discussion on whether the roads can support this building. Commissioner Stolzenberg – Looking at the site plan, it doesn’t look like any of the building footprint is on that 1221 Allied parcel. Does that still count for the lot area? Mr. Haluska – There is a section in our ordinance in the commercial section, which is where the industrial corridor resides, that specifically talks about mixed use sites and the ability to assemble them out of multiple parcels. What the applicant is doing by submitting this special use permit is forgoing any residential density should they hit 105 units in this building. They are forgoing any residential density on 1221 in the future. They are contiguous sites. That does meet the definition of a mixed use development site in that section of the code. Commissioner Stolzenberg – Would the Habitat Store count for that FAR? Mr. Haluska – I believe that commercial space is excluded or counted at a different rate. It’s something that we would have to work out. That was a thought that dawned on me as I was going in. This is just based on the new building that I see here. I don’t believe that it counts in our calculations. Commissioner Solla-Yates – On affordable housing, Mayor Walker emailed the Planning Commission concerned about displacement from this site in connection with the West Second proposal. There was affordable housing proposed as part of Harris Street. Can you help me understand that? Mr. Haluska – I was involved in the discussion on West Second. I was the planner for that project. At no time were we discussing any of these properties with the applicant. I believe they were talking about an alternative site on Harris Street that was much closer to Preston Avenue. In frequent conversations with the applicant, there has been a broader discussion about Harris and what it is evolving into as land use, the kind of infrastructure, and the kind of services we have for residents. It is primarily an industrial 18 and commercial corridor that we are now starting to see some residential development on it and how we link those residents to the rest of the city without using their cars. There is some appetite for increased pedestrian improvements in that area. The owners along the road have mentioned potential bus service down Harris. That might be a route that CAT needs to look into. Commissioner Solla-Yates – You mentioned the industrial zoning, which is LI TCH zoning. That’s the only zoning we have been able to produce affordable housing effectively on and in quantity. Are we losing affordable housing by putting up this housing? Mr. Haluska – I don’t believe that there is any housing on the site. There is no loss of units. There is a residential style building on the site. I don’t believe that it is currently being used as a residence. The applicant can certainly clarify that. There is no loss of units in this area. There is opportunity for more density in the future. The zoning does allow the applicant to potentially seek up to 63 DUA. They did contemplate that at one point. They may seek an amendment to this SUP in the future if the Habitat Store was a site that they were looking at. ii. Applicant Chris Virgilio, Development Manager – I do want to give you an overview of the project from our perspective. We are requesting an SUP for 54 dwelling units and 2 additional stories of height. The project totals are 105 housing units, 130 parking spaces, and 7000 square feet of commercial space. These totals are approximate right now. Some of the programming inside the building is moving and evolving as we think more about the project. This has been put together to visualize the project’s central location and what is available within 5, 10, and 15 minute walk. The residences in this building would obviously have the nearly 100 businesses of McIntire Plaza, right outside of their doors. Most of those businesses are small businesses and locally owned. We do have access to a lot of community space outside of their apartments in this building. The Greenway is a couple of blocks away, which takes you up to a paved part of the Rivanna Trail and McIntire Park. It can also take you downtown. The downtown mall and the Dairy Central development is less than a mile away. There is not a CAT bus stop within the immediate vicinity of the building. With everything going on in McIntire Plaza and this building, it would be good reason to get a CAT stop. For residents who have to use a car, there is quick access on and off the bypass. Staff gave a pretty good overview of the site. There are two existing structures: a small partial building and 1223 Harris Street. The footprint of the new building is shown in blue. I will quickly walk you through the levels of the building. Levels 5 and 6 would be the additional levels allowed by the SUP. Residential use and amenities would be on level 6. Levels 2 to 4 would be residential use. Level 1 would primarily be parking and commercial frontage along Harris Street. Under the Harris Street grade, we have four levels under the building. We designed these levels to step down following the grade and the topography from Harris Street down to Allied Street. We did this for a couple of reasons. It’s less disruptive to the topography. It also gives us the ability to have entrances and exits for cars and bicycles to each level of parking. It allows us to eliminate some of the interior ramping. 19 This maximizes the efficiency of the space. It’s good design from that perspective. These G levels will primarily be parking with some commercial use. We will have commercial frontage on Allied Street. These plans are evolving. The orange drop off area for residents to meet visitors and it is activity we don’t want on Harris Street. We understand that this project is not subject to architectural review or corridor review. We have been improving McIntire Plaza over the last ten years. We do care what the building looks like. We see as a continuation of McIntire Plaza. It will be a part of this community. The city is looking to add a sidewalk. We are working with the city to potentially underground the utilities and include some street lighting. We think that Charlottesville would benefit from this project. It’s mixed use and residential density and an appropriate place. The location supports sustainability principles. It’s going to enhance the appearance of an under-utilized site. It’s going to support a lot of local business owners. Commissioner Dowell – How many affordable housing units for this building? Mr. Virgilio – For this building, we are committed to meet what the ordinance requires. Woodard Properties, as a company, owns and manages over 100 units of affordable housing across the city. We accept housing choice vouchers at any of our apartments Commissioner Dowell – Are you currently going to provide units or pay into the fund? Mr. Virgilio – It’s hard to say right now. I would like to learn more about the project costs and reserve that decision until later on in the project design as it develops. We are open to either option. I know a lot of people prefer the units in the building. I think that we are open to looking at that. Commissioner Stolzenberg – The duplex on site is not occupied? Mr. Virgilio – It is occupied. It is a market rate duplex. Commissioner Stolzenberg – There is a stairwell near Cville Coffee to the Birdwood neighborhood. Will there be a similar way to go from the bottom up to the top for this development front on Harris Street in these designs? Mr. Virgilio – We would work to navigate pedestrians through all parts of the building footprint. Commissioner Stolzenberg - Will there be open access to non-residents to go up like there is in the back of the complex? Mr. Virgilio – Most likely not. They would have to go up the new sidewalk. Commissioner Stolzenberg – I noticed the big courtyard cutout on the back facing the Habitat Store. What is the reasoning behind not putting housing in that footprint? 20 Mr. Virgilio – The shape of the building on either side allows it to have more windows. It was a better layout. If the building is too big and too square, some of that interior space is unusable. Commissioner Stolzenberg – You guys seems to have a lot of parking. Is that in excess of city requirements? What is the reasoning there? Mr. Virgilio – The requirement is one parking space per unit. That would be 100 spots right there. With the commercial space, that would be another 14 spots. There are maybe a few spaces left over to get to that 130. I don’t think that it’s grossly excessive for parking. Commissioner Lahendro – I know that this is very early and looking at the massing plans on the site. It looks like you are filling up the site with building. I am concerned about that space between the public streets, sidewalks, activity, and the buildings. Are there modes of public activity being thought about? What kind of amenities humanize this complex? Mr. Virgilio – For the residents, we are planning amenities on the rooftop and the courtyard. Commissioner Lahendro – Is the courtyard accessible from the street? Mr. Virgilio – It wouldn’t be publicly accessible. We are proposing a little setback on Allied Street. There won’t be a lot of room for big canopy trees on the site. We feel that McIntire Plaza in general is more of an urban environment. Utilizing this site to its potential, we felt, was a good move in lieu of creating more green space on site. Residents are really close. The community outdoor green space could be used, while not displacing places to live in parcels like this was our thinking. Commissioner Lahendro – On Harris Street, it looks like you are building right up to the property line. Mr. Virgilio – On Harris Street, you have to build to a certain distance of the street. You are not allowed to exceed. There is a minimum off Harris Street. Commissioner Lahendro – What is being asked for is to increase the height of the building on Harris Street from four to six, which increases that scale and that relationship to the street already. Four stories is already taller than the other things on Harris Street. Going up to six stories exacerbates that. I am concerned about that relationship. Chairman Mitchell – Commissioner Lahendro, Isn’t the construction going to be in this little valley there? 21 Commissioner Lahendro – It’s going to be six stories above the plane of Harris Street. They’re building in the hole. It’s actually taller. It’s going to be six stories above Harris Street. Commissioner Solla-Yates – Staff has recommended some requirements that we might consider if we choose to grant his request. Do those pose a serious constriction? Mr. Virgilio – In this location, that’s our plan. I don’t think that would change. We don’t see any issue with the traffic study. I think that the residents coming to and from the building at this location is counter-flow to rush hour traffic at the Harris and McIntire intersection. Commissioner Stolzenberg – That extra ten feet would be allowed under the six story rule. Would you be able to fit more units in potentially if you had that extra ten feet or does that not make a difference to you? Mr. Virgilio – I don’t know if you’re allowed to exceed six stories and add that ten feet. That would be a question that we would have to look into. I don’t know if anybody here knows that answer. We would be open to looking at more units if we could design within that maximum height. Commissioner Heaton – At what time would you be able to say definitely? Do you have a calculation of how many more units and how that would affect the affordable housing percentages? At what time would you have a better idea? Mr. Virgilio – I think later on in the design, probably in the building permit stage. Mr. Haluska – There are no required setbacks on the site. There is a maximum front setback of twenty feet on primary streets. Harris Street is a primary street on this corridor. They can step it back or set back the building up to twenty feet on the primary streets. Six stories is the height limit. They can’t add a seventh with the additional height. I am merely reflecting what they show in their packet, which is Harris Street sitting at an average grade of 450 feet above sea level. They show their roofline at 510. They can go to 520, but there is no additional square footage added by doing that. You’re adding more floor to ceiling height at that point. Commissioner Stolzenberg – How do we calculate number of stories? Mr. Haluska – Anything below the grade does not count. One of the ways they have designed it is that it steps down so that it doesn’t exceed the six story height requirement at any point. Commissioner Heaton – That’s all parking below the grade? Mr. Haluska – There are a few commercial spaces. If you look at your packet, they have an entrance off of Allied Street to get to that bottom floor. You would turn the corner. 22 There is the access road that goes by the Habitat Store that goes up the hill to get to the parking lot for the Habitat Store that they can use to get into one or two of the floors there. At some point, they have to use Harris Street for the rest of it. Once your ramp inside, you start losing a lot of the efficiency. You lose a lot of spaces. Commissioner Heaton – G-4 is at grade, and it is not necessarily parking. Mr. Haluska – There is about 4,000 square feet at that level. It looks like they are contemplating a little bit of corner commercial there and parking behind it. As you go up, there is a commercial space on G-2. Commissioner Heaton – Isn’t Allied Street a street that would have some trouble with congestion? Mr. Haluska – The issue with Allied Street isn’t the volume of cars on it. It’s that it’s so close to the intersection of Harris and McIntire. Making a left turn is really tough .. Somebody has to let you in. Commissioner Heaton – I think that’s a potential safety concern. Mr. Haluska – What the traffic engineer mentioned in the past meeting was the long term solution here is to have a dedicated right turn lane coming down from Harris onto McIntire to pull anybody trying to go right out of that queue may make Allied work a little better. It’s a clunky intersection. It’s all on one side of it and that makes it worse. Commissioner Stolzenberg – Is the underground parking requirement in there because it is in the plans? Mr. Haluska – That is because it is in the plans. I do think avoiding surface parking at all possible, in terms of the efficiency of the site is good. I don’t know if they have other plans. It was mainly to try to pull the aspects of the building we thought were really beneficial. I would hate for the planning commission to see this and then get a building with just surface parking. Commissioner Stolzenberg – Would it make sense to maybe flip that condition that it has to be underground parking, no surface parking? Is it technically underground if it’s at grade for Allied Street? Mr. Haluska – You can say that its structured parking at that point contained within walls. If you want to change it to structured parking, that’s fine. iii. Public Hearing Josh Carp – I am in support of this proposal. I don’t think that it’s perfect. I would like to see less parking and more affordable housing. If the apartments are market rate, that sounds great to me. I am sure that there are improvements to be made with the plan. It does 23 sound perfect to replace one duplex with over 100 units. I would love to see something built on that site. Martin Chapman – I have two commercial buildings on Harris Street. I came to the meeting to learn what is going on. You do need to realize that Harris Street is a really busy street. It’s the economic engine of the city. I applaud all of the development happening at McIntire Plaza. There is a loss of industrial land. There are very few spaces in the city where you can do this kind of work. I do acknowledge the need for affordable housing. There are issues in terms of traffic that could be serious. This is not a leafy suburban neighborhood. This is concrete. The city does need to do more development on Harris Street. There are no reputable sidewalks on Harris Street. There are huge areas on Harris Street that can be redeveloped. It should be an area for technology development. I am here to advocate for a better street. Nancy Carpenter – I do like McIntire Plaza. There are some great businesses there. There does need to be a robust effort by the city to make that road better with pedestrian and bike lanes. It’s not safe now with the sight distance when you’re coming up from McIntire to really see what is coming towards you. I do support more affordable housing. I was a little disappointed that I didn’t hear anything about what the income level might be for any affordable units that might be placed in that building. It would be nice for Woodard Properties to reach out to the neighborhood association. The traffic study also does need to look at the impact in surrounding neighborhoods. iv. Commissioner Discussion and Motion Commissioner Heaton – I would like for the developer to have engaged with the neighborhood and the industrial neighbors. I think that there is great opportunity for creativity in this new kind of urban living. It’s going to require people talking to each other. Commissioner Green – This one is a double edged sword for me. It is an area where there is an industrial area. I think that we need to be sensitive of that. This would be that perfect location for the biotech industry. It is a wonderful shopping center. We talk about mixing in housing. I wonder if there is a way to think about how we do that. I think this is a great opportunity to look at one of those wide streets that doesn’t have to be a wide street. That increases traffic speeds. This is like a speedway to get from 250 to Preston. I think we should take a look at that. We should be putting this onto our list. There is a lot of heavy industrial traffic on this road. The connectivity would be super helpful from the top of that hill for people wanting to access the shopping. Commissioner Heaton – In looking at other municipalities that have gone through big growth, this is an urban type area in the city. You could do elevated pedestrian walkways. You would have to work creatively with the neighbors. It would be a whole different feel than anything else in the city. I think that Charlottesville is capable of it. Commissioner Green – I think that it looks great. I think there is some opportunity for the pedestrian accessibility. 24 Commissioner Lahendro – I would like to build upon that as well. Harris Street is a miserable street to walk on. We are seeing this development and this activity at this end. I am interested in making sure that we have a humane pedestrian friendly way of walking along the street and the relationship to this development. I want to make sure that it is an attractive green place. I want it be such that you want to walk by it. Commissioner Stolzenberg – Harris Street is terrifying with all of those concrete trucks there. Going up Schenk’s Greenway is pretty good. It starts way up McIntire. We need to have those cohesive connections. I think that it makes sense people commuting up and down there to go along that McIntire path. Motion: Commissioner Solla-Yates - I move to recommend approval of a special use permit allowing the specific development proposed within the application materials for SP19-00010 subject to the following reasonable conditions and safeguards: The conditions presented in the staff report (Motion seconded by Commissioner Stolzenberg). Motion passed 7-0 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. Underground parking shall be provided within a parking garage structure constructed underneath the Building. b. The maximum permitted height of the top of the building shall not exceed an elevation of 510 feet above sea level, with the exception of rooftop structures as regulated in section 34-1101 of the City Code. 2. The applicant shall provide a preliminary traffic study of the immediate area surrounding the building, as well as traffic impact on Allied Street, Harris Street and the intersection of Harris Street and McIntire Road. The scope of the traffic study shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer prior to submission, and must be submitted to the City for review and comment prior to the approval of the final site plan for the project. The Chairman recessed the meeting for five minutes. Communication among Commissioners and the Role of Social Media Lisa Robertson, Deputy City Attorney worked with Missy Creasy, Assistant Director of Neighborhood Development Services, in developing guidelines in how the Commissioners speak and communicate with each other, communicate with the public, and the role of social media. Commissioner Stolzenberg and Chairman Mitchell worked with Ms. Creasy and Ms. Robertson in drafting some updated 25 language on the operating guidelines. These new guidelines and language were presented to the Planning Commission for review. Motion: Commissioner Heaton – We accept these guidelines with the stipulation that staff look at them to make gender neutral pronouns (Commissioner Dowell seconded). Motion passed 7-0. IV. COMMISSION’S ACTION ITEMS Continuing: until all action items are concluded. The meeting was adjourned at 8:47 PM. 1 Planning Commission Work Session February 26, 2020 5:00 PM to 8:00 PM NDS Conference Room Members Present: Commissioner Solla-Yates, Commissioner Stolzenberg, Commissioner Lahendro, Commissioner Green, Commissioner Dowell, Commissioner Palmer, Chairman Mitchell, Commissioner Heaton Staff Present: Patrick Cory, Missy Creasy, Brenda Kelley, Alex Ikefuna, Matt Alfele The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Solla-Yates at 5:00 PM after a quorum was established. 1. Cherry Avenue Small Area Plan Nick Morrison, TJPDC Planner – I wanted to give you an update where we are with the Cherry Avenue Small Area Plan and do a high level presentation. This project was initiated by the Fifeville Neighborhood Association in 2015 through community engagement and looking to build support around the vision for the Cherry Avenue corridor. We are seeing pressures of displacement of longtime residents and the need for more affordable housing. Increasing stresses on the neighborhood and the commercial corridor of Cherry Avenue are from commuter traffic, particularly employees going to the UVA Medical Center, development anchoring east and west ends of the gateway, the large number of vacant lots with potential for development in the future, and the ability for us to utilize the groundwork that was laid by the FNA. We wanted to come up with a document that provides clear recommendations and a path forward for them to achieve their vision. This is a document representative of what the community has said to us throughout the two year planning process. We initially were looking at the commercial corridor of Cherry Avenue from Ridge to Roosevelt Brown. As we were talking with the community, we came to the realization that we needed to zoom out a little bit and look at Fifeville as a whole and how these small sub-neighborhoods within Fifeville fit in together with one another. With that, we moved forward with our process and we set forth with the intent of the plan to set a clear vision for the Cherry Avenue corridor and the surrounding Fifeville neighborhood: to create a clear vision for this study area, provide recommendations for making that vision happen, and guide the actions of City officials and community stakeholders. To achieve that vision, we did quite a number of different community engagement points throughout the process. We formed the Cherry Avenue Think Tank, which was made up of residents and members of the Fifeville Neighborhood Association. We met monthly. They were really the drivers of this process. We held four open house events. The first one was in March, 2018. It was an oral history event and we invited the neighborhood to come together and share their history so that we could document that. In August, 2018, we held a community open house to create some opportunities for feedback and to see what kind of priority areas rose to the top. In September of 2019, we held a small recommendation review open house at Tonsler Park. We had our initial draft list of recommendations. Community members could cycle through the different topic areas, meet directly with staff, and engage with them. In December of 2019, we held our final public open house at one of the business owner’s spaces on Cherry Avenue. The owner was part of the technical committee. We had turnout to share the final plan recommendations and get feedback on those and start building a prioritization matrix. We had to refocus some of our engagement attempts. We had originally scoped two public meetings. We quickly realized that was not going to be sufficient. Through the direction of the Think Tank, we came up with a focus group or a front porch discussion approach. We met over the course of the summer 2018 with six residents, who hosted these front porch discussions. They would invite their neighbors and have more in depth dialogue with staff over their desires to build a vision for the Cherry Avenue corridor and the Fifeville neighborhood as a whole. That was a really successful opportunity to have an honest dialogue as opposed to the larger scale meeting format that we are typically used to. At the same time, we also held focus 2 groups. We met with transportation and planning officials, teachers and principals at the schools within the study area. We did a business owner outreach. We had staff go and interact and talk with all of the business owners on Cherry Avenue. We were not able to get them all in the same room. We were able to glean from them their priorities. We met with youth in the community through one of the nonprofits in the area. They have a summer youth group. We were able to meet directly with a young men’s cohort of 6th thru 9th graders. There was about 30 of them that attended that focus group. We were able to get the youth perspective on certain things. Staff did attend roughly five of the Fifeville Neighborhood Association meetings throughout this project to make sure they were in tune with what we were doing. Through all of that engagement work, we created this neighborhood vision. This is representative of what the community was saying to us. That vision was that Cherry Avenue will be a vibrant mixed-use area that supports a diverse, thriving Fifeville Community. Development on Cherry Avenue will respect and preserve the history and culture of the Fifeville neighborhood. New development and investment on Cherry Avenue and throughout the neighborhood will build a sense of community between long-time and newer residents and be accessible and welcoming to residents at the most vulnerable end of the socio-economic scale. That really captures the spirit of Fifeville. To achieve that vision, we worked with the Think Tank in the community to build a set of ten goals. 1) Rebuild and strengthen the sense of belonging, inclusion, and community in Fifeville. 2) Lift up and preserve Fifeville’s legacy of African American leadership, and highlight Fifeville’s unique sense of place as a culturally diverse neighborhood. 3) Ensure that local land use laws encourage a vibrant, mixed-use corridor along Cherry Avenue, while respecting the existing lower density historic housing forms. 4) Ensure low-income residents, people of color, and generational residents are able to remain in Fifeville and benefit from neighborhood investments. 5) Invest in empowerment and upward mobility for neighborhood residents at the most vulnerable end of the socio- economic scale. 6) Foster an inclusive and welcoming community through place-keeping, place-making, and beautification. 7) Encourage new development that advances equity, is financially socially accessible to residents and represents Fifeville. 8) Provide a safe and more connected community that creates access and opportunities for residents. 9) Provide a transportation network that prioritizes safety and mobility for residents. 10) Increase health and well-being for all neighborhood residents. We think that covers all of the main points. It starts building an accountability list of how we see things moving forward. To achieve those goals, we had to obtain recommendations through the community engagement. We realized that they fit into six broad categories. 1) Place-Keeping and Community Building 2) Economic Development 3) Housing 4) Land Use 5) Transportation 6) Parks and Recreation. From those topic areas, we were able to create action items or recommendations under those and prioritize each recommendation based on staff and community feedback. What the community was saying in terms of what they wanted to prioritize will come through in the recommendations list. That was vetted through two technical committee meetings. The technical committee for Cherry Avenue was made up of city staff, representation from the Think Tank & Fifeville Neighborhood Association, UVA, and a business owner. We initially presented that draft recommendations list at the September, 2019 open house event. We had a final public meeting in December, 2019 to go through that and allow for a second round of feedback. I do just want to hit the high points of the recommendations. With Place- Keeping & Community Building, this was an opportunity to use tools that could utilize and strengthen community bonds increase inclusion and equity beyond preserving public space and buildings, but strategies that could weave together all of the stories and experiences of Fifeville. These are certain examples of things that came through community engagement: looking at historical markers and signage that could represent some of the history of Fifeville, possibly looking at a mural program. They had cited some of the examples throughout the city. Those were referenced in the executive summary. These are the recommendations. If it was red, it was a high priority. If it was yellow, it was a medium priority. Anything in green was considered a lower priority. We were able to identify easy wins and low hanging fruit. You can see that in the executive summary document. With economic development, we wanted to leverage the expertise of the existing business owners and provide an opportunity to elevate and improve the systems in place for entrepreneurial startup and retention in Fifeville by leveraging some of the Opportunities zone designation, because Fifeville is included within, that could help drive investment, but making sure that investment would be consistent with the community’s vision. It also came out through our engagement work, especially talking with the business community, formalizing a 3 business association on Cherry Avenue could drive equitable investment. With housing, the city’s efforts to re- examine affordable housing policy offers great opportunity to look at the neighborhood’s specific strategies focused on the creation of preservation of affordable housing within Fifeville. It was expressed to us how important it is that the Fifeville community be involved in that process and build on the work that was laid out in the small area plan. With land use, Fifeville residents want smart growth. They are not an anti-growth community. Density is certainly a topic that came up throughout the conversations with the community. They want to make sure that any new development is scaled appropriately, fosters inclusion, equity, and represents the neighborhood. The vacant parcels along Cherry Avenue have the potential to serve as catalyst projects that could spur investment and foster a collaborative community engagement involvement around building a physical form of Cherry Avenue in Fifeville. With transportation, as redevelopment and investment occurs along the corridor, there are opportunities to create a more pedestrian friendly environment. Increasing access and connectivity is a top priority for the neighborhood. The ongoing trail planning efforts to connect Tonsler Park to Greenstone on Fifth, which the TJPDC, Piedmont Environmental Council, the City of Charlottesville, and Fifeville Neighborhood Association partnered with to pursue some grant funding opportunities. That was not successful. The work that they are doing is continuing and can serve as a model for future projects, especially those identified in the small area plan. With Parks and Recreation, after talking with staff, there are a lot of easy wins exist for adding park amenities, such as bleachers. We know that there are some currently in storage for off seasons. Those can be easily moved to Tonsler Park. Look at increasing park maintenance and upkeep. These easy wins can help to spur the community to build on its successes and focus discussions on those more long term visionary improvements. The next steps for us are to get the comprehensive response from city staff and the Planning Commission tonight. Once we get that response, it will be up to us to go through those comments and address those. You will set the process going forward. There a number of members from the community here tonight that were influential and instrumental in this process. Commissioner Heaton – I do have a question about the West Main Street five acres. Is that because it’s a special designation other than an R-1/R-2? I am not familiar with that. Commissioner Stolzenberg – It’s the same zoning as 612 West Main Street, next to the church we reviewed three months ago. Ms. Creasy – We have that noted in some of the staff comments that are coming. Commissioner Stolzenberg – A thing that I noticed in existing conditions is that you have a pie chart of housing types that exist right now. You don’t differentiate in this pie chart between single family-detached and single family-attached. In the text, you often write that single family-detached is the dominant housing form by a lot. It looks like it is about a 50-50 split. I think that it will be helpful for you guys in describing those existing conditions break those down. They are separately listed in the city’s data. Commissioner Green – A duplex is attached and a townhome is attached. It’s not a separate designation between a single family-attached. That would either be a duplex or townhome? Commissioner Stolzenberg – A duplex as listed is a duplex on one parcel. If it’s a duplex divided down the middle, then it’s considered single family-attached in the city dataset you are using. Commissioner Green – Is that designation true? Ms. Creasy – Yes. There are separate definitions. 4 Commissioner Stolzenberg – There is one point on page 82 where you talk about townhomes on Orangedale. Those are actually single family-attached duplexes where the city defines a townhome as a row of three or more attached dwellings. Commissioner Heaton – It makes a lot of difference on density to understand what is possible. Commissioner Lahendro – It’s a wonderfully thorough, well organized, thoughtful document. I know that it’s been a long time coming. I am seeing many different categories and recommendations, place keeping, housing, many different recommendations within each of the different categories. Where does one start? If it was the neighborhood’s initiative, where should the neighborhood start? If it was the city’s initiative, where should the city start? I am almost looking for a beginning that is easier to understand. Mr. Morrison – That’s a great point to bring up. We may need to rethink some of that. I don’t know if I have a clear answer for you. I know the way that we organized the topics within the plan that was the priority from the neighborhood. If you’re city staff or resident, how would you “digest” this? Commissioner Lahendro – It would be nice to get movement on it and get some traction that invigorates the community, the city, and want to do more. We almost want to have some of the low hanging fruit be served and help with that traction. Commissioner Green – Are you talking about the built environment? Commissioner Lahendro – I am talking about all of these recommendations. Commissioner Stolzenberg – I would love to see your report from the various people and staff that each of them belong to, especially for the “easy wins.” How do we get from adopting this plan to them happening? Commissioner Green – I think that you start on the Cherry Avenue corridor. We have been talking about that Cherry Avenue corridor for the past ten years. Mr. Morrison – The work that the Neighborhood Association is doing is to work with the landowner between Tonsler Park and Greenstone on Fifth, to connect those two. They have been really successful engaging the community, especially youth within the community to really build support around that project. Unfortunately, when we partnered with them to try to pursue some grant funding opportunities, we weren’t successful in that competitive process. We’re hopeful that those kind of partnerships and the various community organizations in the city can serve as a model. That’s a great place to start building some momentum. Calling that out would be important in our recommendations list. Commissioner Stolzenberg – It would be helpful if the recommendations were assigned to those who were responsible for it. Mr. Morrison – The full document has a responsible entity attached to it. We have gotten direction from city staff. There are some changes that will need to occur. That was our first cut trying to assign responsible parties to those recommendations. That does not exist in the Executive Summary document. It’s in the full document. Commissioner Green – This isn’t in any of those opportunity zones we heard about. Mr. Morrison – Fifeville is. Commissioner Green – How can we take advantage of that? 5 Mr. Morrison – I don’t know if I can answer that. We do have a specific recommendation to look at the feasibility of how we would leverage that designation. I don’t know if I have an exact answer as to what that would look like. Commissioner Green – Those funds are available to the individual property developers. That’s funds that can be leveraged by individuals. Alex Ikefuna, Director of Neighborhood Development Services – People, who are interested, should talk to Economic Development. Commissioner Stolzenberg – Can we get a summary of what an opportunity zone does? Chip Boyles, Executive Director of Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission – Close to two years ago, the new administration in the White House instituted what is called “opportunity zones.” They identified a number of distressed census tracts around the country. Every state was allowed a certain number of those. It was finalized by the governor of each state and the governor would submit. It will allow private investment within the boundaries of areas. Most of the Cherry Avenue and Fifeville area is in one of Charlottesville’s two “opportunity zones.” Private investors, who invest in that area, are able to deduct at a graduated scale the capital gains that they would have received from those investments. A person, who had $10 million made on capital gains in a year, would owe a substantial tax burden on that. If they took that money, and invested in the old grocery store on Cherry Avenue, they would be exempt at a decreasing scale from their income taxes. A lot of these people earn at a 30% tax bracket. They would be getting 30 cents on the dollar that they wouldn’t owe taxes on. That’s it in a nutshell. It’s not a grant. There is no pot of money. It’s just the investment is made and when that person does their taxes for the year, they identify it and they don’t pay that portion. Commissioner Green – I think that this is something we need to advertise. Mr. Boyles – I will never see the benefit of an “opportunity zone” from investments. This is very wealthy people, who are making tens of millions of dollars in capital assets. It takes economic developers to identify those types of people. Most of those are going to invest. They are going to expand their companies somewhere. You try to attract them to your “opportunity zone,” where their profit margin really explodes. Commissioner Green – That’s why we want to get this in place. Mr. Boyles – This regulation as it stands right now sunsets in a couple of years. Congress, very likely, will extend it. It’s not a permanent regulation you can do for housing. Some places are doing public-private partnerships where nonprofit partners work with a for profit developer, who will put their private money into it and see the return. Commissioner Heaton – I have a question about the community driven development. What that is talking about is not community driven, its developer driven. There isn’t any way the community is engaging in attracting developers. Commissioner Green – The community is putting together this plan and having something in place. There is a guideline as to where we want for things to happen within the community. Commissioner Heaton – When you talk about community driven development, you can include part of community driven development is attracting for profit development. You have to get the community to realize that. Commissioner Green – A lot of it is focused on providing housing and jobs. Does this qualify for Go Virginia? 6 Mr. Boyles – Go Virginia doesn’t have any boundaries. This is a state wide initiative. Go Virginia provides assistance to higher level, higher paying jobs. A grocery store and manufacturing may not even qualify. Commissioner Solla-Yates – There were a couple of concerns that I had. Looking in the housing section, there are a lot of references to housing documents. I am concerned that we are missing out on specific housing issues in Fifeville. More detail would be appreciated. Public comment is diverse. I see a lot of concern about diversity, a lot of concern about affordability, but also a lot of concern about how to provide less housing. How do we get smaller heights, more single family detached homes? How do we do bigger setbacks at all costs? Mr. Morrison – One of the biggest challenges that we had in this planning process was the dichotomy between wanting affordable housing and how do you balance that with the need to make sure any increased density is consistent with the neighborhood form. I don’t think residents are averse to development or density as long as it is contextualized to stepping down to single-family homes. One of the things that we heard a lot was concerning the topography of Fifeville since it sits in a valley. The development that has occurred on West Main has overshadowed a lot of the historic single-family homes that were predominantly owned and lived in by African Americans. The fear is that if that was repeated on the Cherry Avenue corridor, you would create this wall between some of those historic housing forms and developments. It’s something that through the city’s work through the affordable housing policy, through the zoning review, and a comprehensive plan update that some specific strategies will address how to best approach those kind of intersects. I don’t know if the plan, as it is now, gets into that level of detail. That’s something that will certainly be a topic of large discussion in the community as a whole. There is the desire for affordable housing and what kind of form that will take. Any sort of 5 or 6 story development on Cherry might be a little too intense, especially for the pedestrian environment. A four story kind of density seemed to be the middle ground. That’s not everyone’s opinion. We’re not glued to one specific idea. Commissioner Lahendro – In the land use part, you did a wonderful comparison identifying the development scenarios and then going parcel by parcel for those pieces that have the greatest development potential at this time. Looking at what current zoning would allow. Current zoning doesn’t match what the neighborhood wants, which is building right up to the property line, at five stories. Would the neighborhood want three stories at the most and off the property line, but also increasing density? What would that do? I want to see that scenario too. Mr. Morrison – I think that’s a great point. In this plan, we just have the existing condition analysis. Commissioner Lahendro – It would lead into recommendations for changes in zoning. I would be welcome to receive. Commissioner Stolzenberg – I was a little confused about how that whole existing zoning conditions analysis and the recommendations associated with it related to the actual existing zoning regulations. It seemed that the analysis was very negative. It needs to be down zoned to comply with the neighborhood goals. Mr. Morrison – That may require some more in depth review analysis Commissioner Solla-Yates recessed the work session for two minutes to get some food. Commissioner Solla-Yates re-opened the work session and opened the Public Comments part of the Cherry Avenue Small Area Plan. Public Comments Willow Gayle – The open houses were a great learning experience for a lot of us. We came in saying that we wanted single family housing and affordable housing. Neighbors are open to 3 or 4 stories. A number of times I 7 went door to door. There was a lot of reluctance to go to the open houses. They figured that the city never listened to them before. I would suggest that you come up with some low hanging fruit. These little things will mean a lot to those in the neighborhood. A lot of us are terrified that it could turn into West Main Street. We don’t want to become a Belmont. We want it to stay a nice neighborhood. The city has an opportunity to honor the history of the neighborhood. Natasha Sienitsky – I have been involved with the Think Tank. I think that the housing recommendations really need to be more in line with the recommendations coming from HAC and city staff. We might end up with a fragmented neighborhood. I think that we also need to focus on the neighborhood and not just the Cherry Avenue corridor. I think that the transportation part is auto centric. There is a lot of emphasis in walking and biking in the neighborhood. Uniformity of four story buildings along Cherry Avenue is something that we don’t want to see. We want that grocery story in the neighborhood. If you want the grocery store, you are going to need more housing. I am looking forward to seeing the process move forward with some zoning changes. Kathy Galvin – I appreciate all of the hard work that has gone into this. I got involved in this neighborhood in 2015 with the William Taylor Plaza Project and an angry neighborhood in the Fifeville and Cherry Avenue corridor. This community wants affordable housing, a grocery store, and walkable streets. The PUD was something that nobody understood and people were trying to kill it on a technicality. The core problem in 2015 was zoning. They felt there was nothing protecting them. The two components needed for a vision plan are zoning and capital investment. I urge that the Planning Commission to understand it and look for conflicts. It’s important to bring back faith in local government. Respect the intention of the scale. Carmelita Wood – President of the Fifeville Neighborhood Association and also a member of the Think Tank. Changes are going to come over the years. Some of those changes are for the better. Some of the changes that others thought were for the better turned out to be increase in the negativity of neighborhoods and surrounding neighborhoods. We would not like that for Fifeville and Cherry Avenue. When we started this process, we wanted Cherry Avenue not to succumb to the high buildings that contribute to the unnecessary destruction of valuable property. By adopting this small area plan, we will be providing the residents of Fifeville and the surrounding communities with the ability to ensure the safety and Fifeville will become a model community of the city. Extensive work has been done on the small area plan. We are asking that you adopt this small area plan. Nancy O’Brian – Fifeville is a very special place. It’s a new urban neighborhood. We have been a little frightened by West Main Street. It does seem that West Main Street looms over the neighborhood. I do hope that you will adopt the small area plan. I think that it’s a valuable place to the city. Oliver Platz – A small real estate developer and owns property on Roosevelt Brown. The neighborhood has expressed interest in having neighbors. The current zoning doesn’t provide for that. People are knocking down houses and rebuilding. Under the Cherry Avenue mixed use zoning, it is almost impossible to build a mixed unit with the amount required parking. Commissioner Solla-Yates handed control of the meeting back over to Chairman Mitchell. 2. Comprehensive Plan Mr. Ikefuna – We are excited about the Comprehensive Plan update. It will involve three different projects: the comprehensive plan update, the affordable housing strategy, and the zoning rewrite. This will be their first engagement with the Planning Commission. 8 Dena Rhodeside, Rhodeside and Harwell – We know that the Planning Commission has been intimately involved in both the comprehensive plan and the whole community engagement process in defining the needs for the affordable housing strategy. We wanted to start this process by coming to speak with all of you about what your experiences have been with this process in the past, so that we can learn from those and to introduce you to our team, to have us go through the overall schedule to look at the comprehensive plan update scope, to look at the affordable housing process, and to work with you in speaking about the community collaboration process. We welcome your input and would like to introduce the team to you. Jenny Koch, Rhodeside and Harwell – There is another member of the team Code Studio, our zoning experts, who are not here. They will be engaged at a more holistic scale once we have started moving towards concrete visions that they will be looking to implement in the comprehensive plan. They have begun an initial review of the zoning. The affordable housing strategic plan process is expected to go through the end of this year. These are tentative timeframes. At the same time, we have kicked off the comprehensive plan update and review process mostly looking at what has been done already. Moving into the next phase will be talking with the community and seeing what might need to be updated further in that plan. We are expecting the comprehensive plan process to go along with the affordable housing strategic plan development and moving into early next year is our tentative timeframe for wrapping up those updates. The zoning team is working on some initial analysis now, but they will be more involved later this year into next year. The purple circles at the bottom are showing tentative timeframes for community engagement. The first bulb shows that we had our steering committee kickoff at the end of last month. We will be meeting with them again in mid-March. These community discussions are vague on here because we are working on figuring out what those will look like. That’s a big part of what we want to talk about tonight. Commissioner Stolzenberg – With those initial zoning reviews, is that to get an overview so that they can prepare or are they going to have some immediate actionable recommendations? Ms. Koch – They are reviewing what has already been identified as needing to be updated. I do not think they are planning to produce initial recommendations because things could change based on what is going to be in the comprehensive plan. They don’t want to have two separate sets of conflicting recommendations. With the comprehensive plan, you have been involved directly with this. We have been reviewing both the draft updates to the plan chapters that we have been provided by the city, as well as the engagement that has been done and what came out of that, mostly reviewing the booklet that was made. It has been helpful for us to get a sense of what was discussed with the community, especially in terms of land use. We have reviewed those items but we know there is more beyond that that was completed, as well as your process to get to that point. We want to take what was done, the edits that were made, we want to know why they were done, and keep incorporating them and other things that we are hearing from the community as we move forward. I know that we sent a lot of questions. We don’t need to get through all of these. We wanted to hear about key lessons learned, insights related to the comprehensive planning process that you have been through to date. Commissioner Dowell – We went through several different areas of the comprehensive plan and we actually looked at physical images of the types of housing that we wanted to see in each area. I wanted to make sure that was adopted or considered for the new plan. Commissioner Green – That missing middle graph? Commissioner Dowell – It just wasn’t the graph. It was actual images of what the different types of housing looked like. Ms. Koch – That was a set of images that was crafted with community input and talking among the Planning Commission. What was the process? 9 Commissioner Dowell – We created that process here. We think that it was also created after we had our public meetings. Chairman Mitchell – I want to make a superficial but high level statement. Four of the commissioners joined the Planning Commission after the work had been done. The men and women, who led us to that point, did an incredible job to get us there. Coming in the last three months it was apparent to me that we were letting the perfect become the enemy of the good. I would ask you guys, as you are doing this, not to try to create a perfect document. Give us a good document. My point is that this is a living document. It is going to evolve. What you saw earlier today is an example of the old comprehensive plan that is going to evolve. This all happened after the alt right invasion in Charlottesville. We felt an incredible need to make certain that we were reaching out to all of the stakeholders in the community. We felt an incredible need to put together an exceptional comprehensive plan, partly in reaction to that. That will linger. I will ask you guys to give us something good that we can iterate. Commissioner Green – I don’t think any of us, while we had some good public engagement in the beginning, were a part of the public engagement. That’s what a comprehensive plan is. It’s about the public. It’s not about the body sitting here. At all of these public engagement meetings, hearing from the public is very important. I think, just recently, we have learned that the public doesn’t trust us. They do want to be involved. We just have to pull them out of the door, not physically. We have to encourage them to come out. South First Street is a model of how the public and a community got together to help create an environment, in which they would like to live. That’s what we all want. The fact that we are sitting here. You got to hear from Cherry Avenue. They were extremely disgruntled with some of us with that development that happened that did not take into account the neighborhood. We have some tight neighborhoods. People are afraid of losing that. That doesn’t mean you can’t have something other than single-family housing. We have some very tight knit neighborhoods. I think that the public engagement piece is huge. Chairman Mitchell – I hope that the previous commissioners do not sell yourselves short. Your public outreach was herculean. You guys worked very, very hard to get the public out. At the end of the day, we got the same people over and over again. The pieces that were missing were the millennials and the people of color. Hopefully, you guys will do a better job than we did. Frankly, we worked hard. Commissioner Heaton – One of the things about comprehensive plans is that at the end of the day, it’s an up or down and you adopt it. I wonder if in your process, what you are going to lead us through if there are waypoints. We can stick pins in it, not only for us, but for the public to get a reaction before the end. That would be an encouragement that I have. You put out our plan before getting the up or down at the end. Maybe it involves some waypoint decisions that will help the end product be the best that it can be. It’s not that we have zero until the end. You have it divided into housing and community. Those could be waypoint decisions. Ms. Koch – I will add this note about the public engagement process. A lot of how we are handling it is building in those checkpoints as we are moving forward. It’s not us doing public engagement for four months on a particular issue. We have not developed an 18 or 24 month engagement plan that shows every single milestone. We are treating this as a process. We are allowing ourselves to hear, listen, and get feedback to report back what we are hearing and ensure what we are hearing is accurate. To have people tell us, challenge us, and say “I don’t think you heard that correctly.” To the extent that we can do that through the public outreach process, we want to be building in those checkpoints, so that it doesn’t become what you are referencing. John Santoski – I do appreciate your comments. I do feel that those early Friday mornings for months, we tried to engage the community as much as we could. One of the things that was very obvious, was that we had a tough time attracting people, who rented. They just didn’t come out that often. Neighborhoods tended to get people, who owned homes, single-family homes. Those people were the most protective of their neighborhoods. They like single-family homes. They like the character. All of our neighborhoods said that Belmont is 10 important, Fifeville is important, Greenbrier is important, and around the university is important. As we went through the place making part and trying to identify those places, it became very apparent that the city is very important in so many different ways to everyone, who participated. We talked to as many people as we could outside of knocking on doors and doing a door to door canvassing of everybody in the city. We spent a lot of time, as we were looking for that missing middle, of working here on a Friday morning taking another draft back out to the next engagement meeting and then coming back and redoing it again. We went through so many iterations of doing that. Kirk did a great job with tying in transportation. We found that it was easier to walk to places than to take a bus. I often felt that at the end of it, we were trying to get a perfect document. That just wasn’t going to happen. Some of us were saying that we just had to have a good document. We just have to have a place where you say, “This is where we stop.” We can move on from there. I think that it’s going to be an interesting process to watch where this goes through. I don’t think you want to start this whole thing over again. There is a lot of good information that has been put into this plan. It’s just a matter of how you build on that and fill in those gaps. We could have done a better job. We would have done it differently in light of the events that happened, that skewed what was going on. Everything took on a whole different perspective. There is a lot of good work that has gone on. A lot of the people in the community, who came out, they went through that whole process with it and it just stopped. There was no final document. I think that we have to be careful with that. Kathy Galvin – One thing that I will say is that councilors are extremely busy. They have lots of other things going on. I would come to a lot of the planning commission engagement sessions. I have seen it too many times where the Council is the last group to know what’s been going on and they are the ones, who vote things up or down. It was illogical. The ultimate decision makers were the ones really down river. It has to be very conscious and directed. I am just telling what my experiences have been. I would always try to get my colleagues to come to every small area plan meeting. It’s just overwhelmingly busy. That’s why a targeted invite for things for them to do to get them to weigh in might be something to try to work in your schedule. At the end of the day, you have a situation that would feel like things are being undermined. It has to be really conscious, intentional engagement with the Council, just like everyone else. Ms. Koch – One thing that I am consistently saying as we go through this process is that this process is for everyone in Charlottesville. That includes everyone around this table. I will continue to hammer that home as much as needs be to make sure even all of the decision making parties, who are a part of this process don’t feel like you are standing on the sidelines watching this process happen. You are part of this process. As we begin to roll out what this engagement process looks like, be it a large meeting or be it a coffee shop conversation. Everyone is part of that process. Everyone has the right, option, and ability to show up. Consider this the formal invitation to the process. That is how we are working. No one in this room or any decision making body in the city should feel that they are bystanders to this process. Commissioner Lahendro – I am part of the steering committee with Commissioner Solla-Yates. One of the questions that came up in the steering committee was why did the comprehensive plan stop? I couldn’t answer it very well. Ms. Galvin was on the Council and she might be able to help with the understanding of why the comprehensive plan was stopped. Ms. Galvin – When August 12, 2017 hit and there was this mounting intensity to have affordable housing be our number one priority with many members of the community. It became tied up with other agendas. We had been trying to change our zoning with our 2013 comprehensive plan. That all came to screeching halt because the zoning needed to be tied to our affordable housing strategy. I would argue that the affordable housing piece became the main catalyst for all this reset. It was the real intentional desire to be an equitable and inclusive city. What we were seeing was a buildout of the city without any housing affordable to the people that lived here for generations and any new person, who was of a low income category. There was a real concern about that. That’s where it did come from. I will have to say that the comprehensive plan update wasn’t addressing that. The push to get a discernable affordable housing strategy was a big reason why things stopped. At first, that was 11 going to be done only by the housing advisory committee. There were some of us on the Council that said “this doesn’t make sense.” There were multiple things going on all over the city. In some sense, the comprehensive plan was being held hostage until the affordable housing strategy was finished. Commissioner Green – There was a lot of public comment about that. “Do not move forward with the comprehensive plan until the housing strategy is done.’ Ms. Galvin – A Planning Commission meeting was shut down. Ms. Keller – This process began well before August, 2017. In November and December 2016, we started to get targeted emails from people, who were involved in housing advocacy issues. I reached out to several people, who I knew were on the HAC or who were housing advocates. I asked what they wanted. It was paraphrased as “We know what we want, but we don’t want to tell you. We won’t tell you now. We will tell you when we’re ready.” We had other meetings where we reached out and we particularly targeted the housing community, the low wealth community. Three of their organizers or executive directors came to the meeting. We were hoping for a much better turnout. They said that they came to screen you to see if it was worth our community interacting with you. We were held hostage from the beginning on this. In retrospect, we had completed the state requirement to review the comprehensive plan. In general, people are pretty satisfied with the neighborhoods that they live in. The few people that did engage with us from the low wealth community, everybody liked their neighborhood. They might have wanted better conditions. We could have said that we needed a new housing chapter, small area plans, and a zoning rewrite. It was not an open process. The whole thing working with Council was also to have some key dates. People realized that they could go to Council and bypass this process. It became a political ‘hot potato.’ It was not an open and transparent process. I would hope that people would be open with you and it would be a direct process. Commissioner Green – We don’t know if that 2013 comprehensive plan works or not. The zoning is not in alignment with it. We don’t know what we would have gotten. We don’t know how it would have worked. Mr. Santoski – We knew that the zoning had to change for some of the density that we wanted. We also tried to listen to all of the people that we talked to. There were neighborhoods that didn’t want to see those high rises, like they are talking about on Cherry Avenue. There were other places that unless we did away with zoning completely, it was going to be really difficult. I think we spent a lot of time agonizing over how to do it, preserving what people were telling was important about what Charlottesville was, and at the same time trying to expand opportunities for additional housing. Commissioner Green – At the Burley Middle School meetings, we had the largest amount of public. We talked about three questions. We knew that growth was not going to stop. We knew that we were going to hear that we didn’t want any more growth. We decided consciously to not throw that out there. What do you like about where you live? Would you like to live somewhere else? What would you like to see? I think those were some of the best community engagement days that we had. Growth is going to happen and we said that. Mr. Santoski – It’s going to happen and there are going to be more people, who want to live in Charlottesville. That’s a given. How do we put those more people in Charlottesville? Where and how? Commissioner Green – Where would you like to see job centers? That was some of the best that we got. Kurt Keesecker – In preparing for tonight, there were many different times I felt that we were completely over our heads. We had some community engagement that happened prior to August 12th. There were some meetings that allowed some relatively good ideas. We were able to pull out of those some pretty fundamental principles that seemed to resonate across most neighborhoods. They didn’t want jarring transitions between really tall buildings and really small buildings. There was the idea that some amount of amenity or support within walking distance that they would be open to a transition of density from. There was some idea that people could go to those places and find the things like a grocery store and the support services. There was some way of getting around the city. Those were some of the basic ideas. Where it started to fall apart was where we had these 12 relative simple concepts that most people could rally around. We struggled with the details and how to translate those into a more complicated version of what needed to happen to be implemented. When we got into the map making, we wanted to get away from the parcel by parcel dictating what should go where. We got pulled into a level of detail that got us away from the basic ideas. If we had a check-in point, we might have had better minds, who were technically oriented and detailed to get through those things and put it together. We stalled out with those donut meetings, drawing lines with magic markers. August 12th happened and the whole table shifted. Commissioner Green – We got four new commissioners and we were trying to catch everyone up. Mr. Keesecker – It was a few perfect storms. Mr. Santoski – One of things that was interesting, was that meeting at the Jefferson School, we had city staff from all of the different departments. It was to look at the comprehensive plan and all of the different chapters. We were trying to look at it every which way. We did get some very good feedback. That new City Council was not sitting at the table with us. If they weren’t engaged throughout the whole process, there wasn’t any place where we took part of it to Council and sat down with it. We were going to give them the finished document and they could do with it what they needed to at that point. We got through some of the chapters much quicker. Chairman Mitchell – I think that you guys got through quite a bit. The issue is that the last three pieces that we need to get through are the most difficult pieces: the land use chapter, the housing chapter, and the community outreach chapter. The community outreach chapter could have been done easily. We had just outlined what we had done. You guys did a lot. You just didn’t reach a certain segment that you needed to reach, but you made the effort. The housing and land use chapters are all that is left. Commissioner Stolzenberg – With community engagement, we had outsourced it to the PLACE Design Task Force, who produced nothing. We were thinking of the housing chapter as a placeholder that would be there. There were already plans to hire you guys to do just the housing strategy. When the comprehensive plan is adopted in the next 9 months that will replace the housing chapter. The land use chapter was complicated for obvious reasons. While I wasn’t on the Commission during the community engagement sessions, more than half of the work that was done was after the August 11th thru 13th weekend. The kickoff meeting was three years ago in January, 2017. The first round of community engagement was in May and June, 2017. The other 2 rounds of community engagement were afterwards. I would ask that you show your work. Don’t just aggregate results. Don’t give us compilations of things. Give us what each individual said. Don’t aggregate what people, ‘who came out today think.’ This was something that was really frustrating to me. Nobody I know knows that any of this happens. No one knows that this is happening. People are only vaguely aware that the city government has such fine control over all of these developments around us. Commissioner Green – Most of our elected officials have no idea about planning and zoning. Most of our boards and commissions have no idea about planning and zoning. We did try, at that time, to simplify it for people. I think back to the outreach that we had at Westhaven at Westhaven days. We wanted some people from public housing to come and talk to us. We would beg people to come and talk to us. It didn’t matter. We are not getting that cross section. We tried to make it a simplified model. It was thought out. A lot of people don’t understand planning and zoning. In public outreach, you don’t write down names and what everyone said. You have to pull together all of the correspondence. Commissioner Lahendro – When we would go out to public events, we were trying to develop trust and get people to trust what we were doing and open up to us. We were talking to anyone and everyone as much as we could. I see that as being as important. Mr. Santoski – There was no doubt that people in the development community came to all of those meetings. They were always in attendance at all of those meetings to make sure that their point of view was being heard. I know at times that it was frustrating. Their involvement with what’s happening with development in the 13 community and other people, who own a home in the area were overwhelmed by what they were hearing. That was something that we talked about a lot. How do you engage an entire community? That’s not an easy thing to do without telling some group “no you can’t participate” in this engagement when it’s supposed to be public engagement. Commissioner Stolzenberg – I think that it’s really important that community engagement isn’t a vote of the people that show up for things. When you can identify who is saying what, as you gather this data. Ms. Koch – I really appreciate everything that is being said. I do want to ask a couple more questions about the comprehensive plan. We are talking a lot about engagement and collaboration. We have some initial ideas that we want to share with you on that. I do want to make sure that we have time to get to that and some targeted questions about housing. There was a question that was asked about checkpoints. There are checkpoints. Having that housing strategic plan and development as separate but very related to the comprehensive plan update is an important checkpoint. That’s why it’s listed separately because it is a more focused effort. I wanted to get your input on a couple more things related to the comprehensive plan. Having read through the draft updates to the chapters, there are vision statements at the top of each of the chapters. I want to get some more insight how those were crafted. From what we saw in the booklets, there was a lot of pre-discussion on land use and where development might happen. What sort of conversations influenced those vision statements? Commissioner Green – In 2013, we changed the comprehensive plan altogether. We tried to go with a more visual map driven comprehensive plan. Ms. Keller – The goal was a one page comprehensive plan. We didn’t get there. Commissioner Green – We tried to look at look at other localities. We tried to go more map based. We “word smithed” the heck out of things. We re-formatted everything. We went from a comprehensive plan this thick to the one that we have now. I am not sure that is not a good comprehensive plan. We just don’t have the zoning in place for it. I don’t know if we changed much, except looking at it again and asking if it fits with what we are hearing. Mr. Santoski – I think that we did try and go back and make sure those other chapters did tie back into land use and housing. We tried to make sure transportation, parks, and recreation tied back in. We were initially relying on staff to help draft some things and bring it to us and spent hours having people looking at it and trying to make those vision statements. Mr. Keesecker – What we were getting from the previous comprehensive plan, when we were having applications come in for special use permits and rezoning were based on the comprehensive plan in 2008 was before 2013 had 500 goals. Anyone, who wanted to make a strong argument for the reasons that they wanted to do something outside of what was by right could find an excuse. Anybody, who wanted to oppose it, could do the opposite and find the counterpoint. Part of the reason we wanted it to be shorter is to hopefully eliminate some of those places where the chapters themselves inherently created conflict. You had to choose your goal. It wasn’t easy to do. Commissioner Lahendro – We worked on every level on how to incentivize affordable housing. We looked at that very carefully. What were the incentives for each level? We spent a lot of time on that. Mr. Santoski – We also got good information back from the development community. Every part of the community that was responding to us, was taken seriously. Sometimes, we had to selectively hear. We heard the same thing over and over. We did listen to all of those groups and made sure to take it seriously. We were trying to narrow that scope down so that people could look at that map and see the comprehensive plan. That’s what we have and that’s what we need to work towards. We didn’t quite get there. 14 Commissioner Green – There are parts of the city where developers own small businesses that are affordable. Without hearing that from the development community, we wouldn’t necessarily understand it. We have raised rents. It’s not good for those startup businesses. It was good to hear that feedback. Mr. Santoski – I had a conversation with the school system. We were talking with them because they were involved in all of this as well. Education was a critical piece. They were talking about that around the country. There are different ways to have schools in urban areas, where you can have housing or businesses below a school. You can do a lot of different things. Every part of the community was trying to think of how do we do it differently? But also, how do we do it well? Things are important to those different groups. Commissioner Green – We talk about place and community. When we talked about things and having some community meetings at the schools and using that school site for something more than just an 8 to 5 business during the day. It was a community center for these neighborhoods. We do have a lot of people who walk. No matter what we did, biking and pedestrian was top of the charts. Ms. Keller – Our aspiration was for this to be a place based comprehensive plan. That was deriving from the comments that came back in our engagement process. People really appreciated and used the city parks, the trails, and the school grounds. In our desire to accommodate and increase the number of housing units, we were trying to look for locations that were approximate to those community resources and amenities. We weren’t entirely successful in doing that. We never went out and looked at the city as a group. We didn’t drive it on Google Earth together because we were constrained by 2 hour meetings. My hope is that with your lead firm being a landscape architecture design firm, you will add that place component back in. We are geographically constrained in the city. If you only have ten square miles, you should make best use of it. What do you do about topography? We have had some draconian developments come in that are based on 19th century platting that don’t work with today’s topography. We had proposals come in that were based on land availability, not necessarily suitability. We were not trying to go to walking sheds, but to try to have a place in each neighborhood where there would be some community services or gathering places. That’s where we left off with the transition from the old commission to the new commission. We were trying to come up with something that might be innovative. We were deliberately not having parcel lines on our maps. We were trying to have much less yellow on the map. We didn’t quite get there because we couldn’t find those right places. We were convinced, as a group, they were there. We weren’t pinpointing them exactly to be near the trails, the schools, employment centers, and all of those things that would make sense. Mr. Keesecker – In contrast to a linear corridor as the organizing theme of the city that generally was the theory. The corridors weren’t going to go away. They would always be there. The definition of what made us all recognize Charlottesville as a place we wanted to be and pinpoints that gave it character would fall into these series of places that one could explore. The organizational diagramming is just this spattering of corridors. That’s not necessarily place related. Commissioner Stolzenberg – That comes from the 2003 comprehensive plan that was focused around this corridor idea? Mr. Keesecker – The corridors were easier to study as an economic development engine than they necessarily were as a place idea. Mr. Santoski – The people in Greenbrier said that they would have liked a grocery store and coffee shops. They wanted to walk to something. All of that is zoned single family. We were looking at something that was going to happen with Greenbrier School in the future. That could be a place we somehow designate for future commercial development, little plots of land that we could put coffee shops on. We threw this out at some of the engagement meetings. Some people would love it and some people would hate it. I am sure that we all had phone calls and conversations with neighbors. It was very place based. 15 Commissioner Green – We also tried to work that in with what the county was doing and what economic opportunities they were already doing around the city boundaries. Mr. Santoski – We spent a lot of time looking at those places. You could have multi-modal ways of getting people around. You could walk to different places. That’s why we were down on the edges. It was because of access to the highways. Jobs were going to be in the county. Not everything was going to be in the city. How do we put people in those places so they can access those things? Commissioner Lahendro – What we developed were nodes. We organized those nodes on the periphery of the city. We weren’t going to increase the density around the historical downtown area. We did it at the periphery at the major corridors coming into the city. We had areas of high density development and transition zones around it. The idea was that those nodes were going to be places where people would leave their cars, get on public transportation, and go from there to the downtown transit center. Commissioner Dowell – I find that this happens often. Did your question get answered? I feel like we haven’t answered the question. She asked where we got the vision statements from. Ms. Koch – What I heard was the during the 2013 update, there was a change in the structure of the plan. Revisions that happened recently were pulled out of discussions you were having. You tried to make sure that those were reflective of the visions. Commissioner Dowell – I feel like when we go off on these other elements, we can’t get the work done that we need to get done that’s on the task at hand. Conversations are important. If you don’t keep us on task, we are going to be in the same “spinning wheel” situation that we have been in. Ms. Koch – I am going to ask a couple more questions about the comprehensive plan. You were given these questions ahead of time. I do want to make sure that we talk about housing and engagement. One thing that we have in here is about equity. We have been having some small discussions with 1 or 2 people in the community helping us to build some ideas for engagement. One of the things that we have been hearing about is a greater focus on equity. That was written into the RFP as a big focus of this effort. We want to see if you might think about how that can be best and most effectively incorporated into the plan document. Whether that’s an equity focused chapter. Chairman Mitchell – What does a greater focus on equity mean? Ms. Koch – It could be looking at mapping, different types of access to services, and jobs based on neighborhood. It sounds like your last process did look at equity in terms of amenities in the different neighborhoods. Node ideas looked at what might be needed in the different neighborhoods. It might be looking at something like that. The other thought is that might be defining what equity means for the city through conversations and then looking at each of the chapters that are existing and how that might be addressed in these chapters. Chairman Mitchell – Once we figure out what that means, I don’t think a chapter on equity is necessary. Equity should be the theme throughout the document. Commissioner Green – I think that’s our biggest stumbling block. Everybody has a different idea of what equity means. Mr. Santoski – We are going through our strategic planning. Our consultants came and the first thing that they are talking about is equity. I work with people with disabilities. Equity has a slightly different sense than we are talking about. When you ask people to define it, it goes all of the way around. Good luck on narrowing that down. Ms. Keller – It would be helpful for us as a community if we had measureable objectives to see if we are making progress towards equity. We all have changing definitions of equity as we move along. Right now, race 16 is first and foremost. At another point in time, it might be something else. We talk about representing people with disabilities. If we had ways to evaluate that and build that in to future comprehensive plans, that would be really useful for us. LaToya Thomas, Brick & Story – A part of getting to those objectives is really defining what those principles are. That will translate to whatever those objectives end up being. As those objectives change over time, that’s probably going to be a big first step in this process. What are the principles that will ultimately stick with those objectives over time? At the end of the day, the entire city should be signed onto the same set of equitable principles that ultimately define those objectives and those outcomes. Mr. Keesecker – As a starting point, Professor Barbara Brown-Wilson has been working for more than a year on a social-equity protocol, which is striving to become measurable in this arena. I have looked at the document a few times. I will have to admit that I don’t understand it all. It’s very interesting and well done. Their work is ongoing and they are looking for opportunities to see if they are identifying the right things to measure. Commissioner Dowell – I definitely like the idea of the measurable objectives. That’s how you gain trust in the community. These are the objectives and this is what we have done. This is where we are, this is where we need to continue to go, or we have met the objective. We can now move onto something else. Ms. Keller – One of the things that we talked about in our previous process was to have an annual check-in to see what progress we are making towards implementing a comprehensive plan and do all of these goals and objectives still make sense this year. Maybe something has changed. It would be very good have to that built in. Commissioner Green – We were looking at other localities to see how they were doing comprehensive plans. A lot of those localities had an implementation chapter. We do not have an implementation chapter. When we talk about those measurable goals, we can get it in that implementation chapter. Commissioner Stolzenberg – There should be an automatic status of those goals, like a reporting dashboard. There are specific goals. That comes up when we are talking about a street scape project. Where are we on that goal? Nobody actually knows. Commissioner Green – We did get some response from staff when we were looking at the other chapters about some goals. There were certain goals that had been met. We brought in the chapter champions in. We met some goals. Commissioner Stolzenberg – In the city strategic plan, they have these goals. They also have this scorecard. Under each goal, there are intermediate measures. You can track how you are doing with each of these goals. As a concept, it’s there and it’s updating. Ms. Koch – We had a question about the structure of the comprehensive plan. I am going to have Sara Kirk do an overview of the process on housing. Sarah Kirk, HR & A Advisors – I am going to spend time talking about our process for the housing plan. We have provided an initial set of dimensions of housing need. That is a very preliminary way of starting to organize some of the things that we have already heard. Our plan with the housing plan is similar to the work on the comprehensive plan. There has been a lot of work done already. The Housing Advisory Committee is very engaged in the housing space. There has been a housing needs assessment. We have already had a number of conversations about housing with groups like this and with the steering committee. Our first phase of work is about gathering all of that existing work, as well as talking to a lot of people to understand where the community priorities are. Our hope is to start to identify some specific tools and strategies that can be implemented in the near term and in the longer term to address the housing needs in Charlottesville. The provided diagram is fairly linear. The process that we are actually undertaking is very iterative. We have already had some conversations. We are starting to put together our own summary of what the housing needs might be based on the housing needs assessment that was done previously as well as some other work we are 17 doing. The real themes that have started to emerge are around production (more housing) and affordable housing in particular. Preservation is the existing housing stock that we have and making sure that it remains viable. The existing affordable housing remains affordable. Homeowners are able to stay in their homes. We have heard that is a challenge. Production, preservation, and access have been the main themes. It’s not just about how much housing. It’s about who is in that housing, what is their tenure, what kind of services and amenities do they have in their neighborhood, do they have access to transportation, and do they have access to jobs. Those have been the dimensions that we have been circling around. What we were hoping to talk about today is whether those are the right dimensions. That’s really meant as a preliminary starting point. What are the real barriers that relate to each of those themes? What are the potential partnerships? What does the partnership with the county look like that can develop a broad based approach to housing? What does the partnership with the university look like that can develop a broad based approach to housing? Mr. Santoski – Affordability is one of those things that is not well defined. Are we talking about very low income? Are we talking about low income? Are we talking about civil servants? When we talk about affordability, what are we talking about? Working with people with disabilities, if they have to pay for rent on SSI, there is very little housing available to them. Public housing is about it. If you’re talking about a teacher, who works here and wants to live here, you’re talking about a different type of housing. I struggled with that the whole time. What is affordable housing? When we would look at the trends that is what we were trying to figure out. How do we make the city affordable for everybody? People were concerned about existing housing being bought up and mansions being built. Commissioner Dowell – There is also the stability. You have people, who have worked all of their lives, have gotten mortgages from the banks that they have been approved for based on their income. Twenty years later, you have these new developments, and they are being taxed out of their properties. It feels like the city is doing nothing. Affordability is definitely the hot topic but so is stability. If we don’t stabilize the people, who are currently homeowners or landlords who do provide affordable rents, because they can. What do you do with those people who are in the very low income and can’t afford to pay at 80% AMI? Mr. Santoski – We saw people, who may have lived in their homes their whole lives. They are being approached by a developer to sell their property. They are thinking that here is my payday. “I have worked my whole life and I will get five times what my property is worth if I sell to a developer. I could sell it somebody, who wants to keep it as a single family home. I am not going to make as much money.” I think that many of us would be hard pressed to make that choice, especially if there is family that no longer lives in the area. Commissioner Stolzenberg – One of the concerns that we have heard along those lines is that you have these predatory buyers coming in, who will give a low ball estimate. The idea of selling out seems like a good thing. That’s building generational wealth and cashing out. Half of it is left on the table because you didn’t get the value of the property Ms. Keller – If you are not moving out of town and if you want to remain in this community, what have you really gained? The threshold for re-entering the market is so high. Chairman Mitchell – What do people think about public transportation nodes as it relates to our housing strategy? Should that be a dimension? Commissioner Dowell – Yes, especially if we are talking about our lower income citizens. If you start thinking about people, who are at a lower income or even disabled, they can’t afford a car. If they can get a car, if it breaks down, who is fixing it? If we don’t have public transportation in place, then what? Ms. Koch – That falls into the area of access. Commissioner Green – What we heard a lot of was housing near jobs, housing near schools, and children being able to walk to school. That way we are not talking about transportation. 18 Mr. Santoski – Charlottesville can tend to be a transient community with the university and people moving in and out. Many of the communities, especially those close to the university, were concerned about landlords, who didn’t maintain their properties. They would rent to students. Did they contribute to the fabric of the neighborhood? A concern about having more rental properties in the neighborhood wasn’t necessarily a bad thing. The landlords didn’t maintain their properties. There were some times resistance against having additional zoning, which would allow you to put more housing. That was something I remember hearing at times, especially for the Venable neighborhood and 10th and Page. Commissioner Stolzenberg – If you listen to people with that sentiment, you need to keep in mind, that a lot of people in the city do have these anti-student biases. It’s important to take a look at what the university is doing. To some extent, we can’t totally predict what housing demand is going to be in the city. We do know how big UVA is. We know it grew by 2,000 undergrads over the last ten years. We didn’t put up much housing stock, except on West Main. The university has said that they are going to have 5,700 new students and employees in the next ten years. Those people have to go somewhere. A lot of people don’t want them to keep spreading out. Ms. Kirk – Can the university be a good partner in figuring out how to accommodate the growth? Commissioner Stolzenberg – They can be more transparent about their plans. That 5,700 number came from some random meeting Chairman Mitchell attended. Commissioner Green – I think the university is a barrier. There is not a lot of transparency. Commissioner Stolzenberg – A lot of people talk about the university building more on grounds housing as the solution. In terms of what that looks like in practice, the big example is Branden Avenue, where we handed over city property to them. This land was city property and it would have been on the tax rolls. Theoretically, it would have been the same high density housing and we get a bunch of tax revenue from it that we can use for affordable housing. We let the university do it. They are building upper classmen housing, and it’s not on the tax rolls. They don’t have to listen to our zoning. Commissioner Green – We just gave them the road. Commissioner Dowell – I do feel that the four dimensions hit the nail on the head with what we heard from the public. Quantity is definitely an issue. If people don’t have somewhere to go, where are they going to go? With affordability, whether it’s at 30% AMI or even at 80% AMI, you still need somewhere to live that is based on your income. With stability, we don’t want to displace people, who have been here forever. With access, if we are talking about being a walkable city, then access has to be tied into everything that we do. Mr. Keesecker – In terms of a barrier to access and production, one of the things that came up and continues to come up, is the need for onsite parking as it relates to the way that the parcels are in the city now, and how buildable they are, and the requirement to get any kind of density with the parking onsite, makes it impossible to do. If there was a critical mass that could loosen those parking requirements so that density can be achieved without having to overburden the properties with parking need, it would help with that production. It gets to access and it gets to being able to move around the city in an efficient way without a car. Commissioner Dowell – The other thing with the parking is that you have to be respectful to the neighborhoods that are surrounding that parcel that you are reducing that parking for. If we are going to reduce parking for a parcel, then cause an issue for the surrounding neighborhood, are we really solving the problem? We are just putting a band aid on one, and having another sore somewhere else. We have to find that thin line and balance between the two. We could loosen up those parking regulations, but we also have to be very mindful where we loosen it somewhere, it going to put a cramp somewhere else. Commissioner Green – Another barrier we have to some development is our infrastructure. Some of our roads are not up to standard. We don’t have sidewalks. We don’t have the things in place that we need for access to 19 some of these parcels that could be developed at a high density. When we talk about the comprehensive plan, we really do need to look comprehensively at our infrastructure as well. Commissioner Stolzenberg – One conversation we had when we were making that map, if you are going to increase density, you can do it broad based. There are parts of the city that are particularly high with infrastructure. In the downtown mall, there are thousands of places where you can walk. There are places that don’t have sidewalks. Do you focus it or spread it out? How do you take advantage of those places that do have those resources? Ms. Koch – We did provide a document, which provides an overview of the first several months through May of what we are thinking of as a strategy for community engagement. On the back of that are some thoughts of how we talk about this process if we are talking to the community. LaToya Thomas, Brick & Story – I have heard a lot of the feedback from the beginning of the meeting about what has been previously done. Please know that our team has heard you. We have reviewed a lot of the prior plans. I was very impressed with the engagement strategies from the Cherry Avenue Study. The past work that has been done has been recognized. I am going to walk you through what the next 3 to 4 months will look like. Then ask one or two key questions. This schedule takes us through May of this year. We really want to use these next several weeks to build a really good foundation for how we are bringing people into this process. One of the key things about this process is that we want to make this as inclusive as we possibly can. That means tapping into every single aspect of Charlottesville’s community. Not everyone is active in the public process. Sometimes that is by choice and sometimes that is by the nature of the public process. Many people do not feel that the process is for them. When we can be open and honest about that is the moment we can have a very different conversation on the ground with residents, who should be a part of this process, who have historically not been. A big part of our first step is this trust building we have been talking about. A lot of that has started with us having conversations with people in the community, really to find out, not just feedback, but what’s happened in the past, and to get connected to other people. We are working under the premise of working through existing networks and building this network. It’s not just the four of us that are out here talking to people. At the end of the day, we are trying to create that big Charlottesville family phone tree conversation network about this process, so that everyone knows what is happening. We are taking this period of time to really have those conversations to get to know people, to find out who we need to talk to, to understand the different populations that are in this community. That includes brown and black people, people who are low wealth, people who are non-English speakers, and a variety of people. We want to make sure that we are tapping into every facet of this community. We are spending some time crafting an invitation to this process. It’s what we believe will set the foundation for how the next 18 months goes in the community. It’s inviting people into this process, so that they understand 1) what we are asking to participate in 2) what we expect from them 3) what they can expect from us. There was earlier conversation about seeing actions happening. We want to make sure people know that this isn’t something that is going to be written and then shelved. Moving into March and April, we are going to be starting our community conversation series. We’re going to open that process up with an open house launch that we are starting to figure out what the design of that will look like. That will be the gateway to a series of neighborhood based conversations that will happen over the next several weeks. Some of those will be in public settings. That’s the first step in this process to invite people into this process and help them understand what this process is going to be about and what they can expect from it. Starting those smaller conversations to get information and for them to ask questions be educated in this process. Commissioner Dowell – What are your ideas and strategic plan to do things differently than we have already done? As a planning commission, we have done these things. We went to the housing development. We attempted to do a lot of community engagement. That’s how we discovered the demographics that were missing from the engagement. I would like to know what is your twist to get these missing demographics, especially the young people and the brown and black people? 20 Ms. Thomas – There is a mix of tools that we want to try after we start these first rounds of conversations. Part of these earlier conversations is also to understand how particular groups might feel most comfortable engaging. We can’t make assumptions that one type of meeting is going to work for all people. Young people are probably not going to come out for a public session. There might be another way to engage them. Some of the social media platforms that are out there can be an amazing opportunity as we are beginning to talk about this process. As we talk about the branding of this process, getting younger people involved in a tool that they spend about 50% of their lives on and looping them in that way. It’s something different that might just loop them in a different manner. With some of the door to door conversations, we have heard the challenges of engaging with public housing residents. I do understand a lot of those challenges. A lot of that is very, very repeat ground based work. It is going back out repeatedly. It’s going back out and maybe having a conversation in someone’s living room. The dialogues that we are going to have with people might take different forms. They might look different. At the end of the day, we want to make sure that we are giving everyone the space to participate in the process in a way that they are comfortable participating. Mr. Santoski – Do you have any kind of number that you are looking for in terms of saying we think the number of people we are looking to participate in this process is X? Ms. Thomas – I can’t say that we have defined a number right now. I am always overly ambitious. I always want to have as many people as possible, particularly as many unique users. If you are interested in knowing what the number looks like, we can certainly come back to it. Mr. Santoski – We had done many of those same kind of things. I think we had some online things. I don’t think we ever tried to say we need so much from this demographic. I don’t know if you are going to define it down to that level and bring it back to the planning commission. If you are looking at that community engagement, how else can you tell that it has been successful? Chairman Mitchell – If you can just fill in the gaps, and the gaps are the renters, African Americans, and those who are 20 to 32. Ms. Thomas – The other aspect of this is the beauty of having 18 months. That gives us the opportunity to have “repeat performances” with people. It’s not a one time “go out and have a conversation.” There are going to be some populations where we are going to have to go back multiple times to have conversations. It could be about one specific element. It might take us five times just to get someone to open the door. That’s the nature of this. It’s less about quantity. We want to touch as many people as we possibly can. When I do a lot of engagement work, I will have a large number of unique visitors to a process over a long period of time. That number of repeat visitors might be smaller. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. In the moment that you have someone, what can you get from that one person where you are letting them know that they are a part of that process, they are understanding that they are a part of that process, and they understand that they have a moment to contribute something that can be incorporated into that process? Commissioner Dowell – One of the comments that we heard from those missing demographics is that they are tired of people knocking on their doors. That is what people from public housing say. They are tired of people knocking on their doors and asking them the same questions and not getting any results. I am giving you that tidbit to have a strategic plan. Ms. Thomas – That’s the other part of this. We don’t want to make it that people are feeling like they are being surveyed to death. That’s another part of the intentionality of our design is trying to work with those communities to make sure we are inviting them in an intentional manner to the process, while also being able to understand what they have to share that we can incorporate into that process. Ms. Koch – There are questions on the back of the agenda for engagement. I would encourage you to reach out to Ms. Thomas with your thoughts on that. 21 3. Stribling Avenue Site Review Charlie Armstrong, Southern Development Group – You saw this site before in a different iteration we brought to you for feedback. We actually had made a rezoning application on this site to rezone it from R-1S to R-2. It’s a little over eleven acres at the end of Stribling Avenue. The comprehensive plan calls for as many as 15 units per acre on this site, which would equal as much as 170 units. This is a study we did of what the by right zoning R-1S says what can and should be on the site if it is developed. It calls for some R-2 up in the front and zoned R-1S in the rear two thirds of the site. It comes out to a total of 46 homes and it is a very suburban layout. That’s what zoning calls for. Previous plan for rezoning is what we brought to you before, when we were contemplating a rezoning to R-2. It looks pretty much the same in layout and concept as the by right zone. It’s just a few more units because it’s now all duplex units instead of some single family attached and some single family detached. This would be 68 duplex units. This is what we talked about before. None of us were particularly inspired by this. Everyone on the planning commission indicated that they wanted to see something less suburban, more interesting, and denser. There is no getting around the fact that the new design is denser. It is contemplating smaller homes, a mix of duplex, triplex, quadplex, and some small multi-family buildings. Kevin Riddle – He came to us and wanted us to explore the possibility of something a little less suburban. Something that would be a little more urban, finer grain with more streets and alleyways penetrating and reaching the dwellings. We thought as a part of that exercise, it would be a good idea to explore what are the winning qualities already there on the property and try to leave those intact as much as possible, while concentrating a lot of housing, which the city needs, within the heart of the property. We also sought to create a mingling of public space within the neighborhood, mostly in the form of these cascading greens that would terrace down the property in between the townhomes. In the orange on the map, we have apartments that are laid out somewhat distinct from the townhomes, but allowing for even greater density on the site and even more housing for the city. That was our approach to provide an alternative to some of the development we already see in the adjacent Morgan Court neighborhood. Mr. Armstrong – A quick note about pedestrian orientation and vehicle service. There is on street parking envisioned on the main roads and all of the other parking would be under buildings. The houses are envisioned to front on those green spaces between them. The alleys are going to be service oriented and not the front and the primary access to a house for visitors. We have had two meetings with the Frys Spring Neighborhood Association that were well attended by different groups each time. The feedback was pretty consistent from the neighborhood. Housing is good. We need affordability and more homes generally in the city was a common and universal theme. Traffic is bad. That was another universal theme from the neighbors. Stribling Avenue badly needs pedestrian improvements and has for decades. That is what we have heard so far. I can’t say that I disagree with anything that the neighborhood said. With this plan, we would need to come up with some proffers to mitigate some of that impact. Affordable housing would be a major focus with at least 15% affordable. A proffer of some kind to help actually make the pedestrian improvements on Stribling happen that have been talked about for a while. There are a number of things that stand in the way of that. One of those things is funding. We can help move those things along. I think that’s a pretty critical theme for the success of this project and to satisfy the neighborhood need. It’s been there for a long time. We are here to hear your feedback. We don’t have an application in for this. We have had a goal of a robust listening process before even making an application that decides what way to go with this. Whether it is to be a by right development or if it wants to be something different. This is the second iteration of that. Does it want to be something different process? By right can be thought of as the small option, R-2 as the medium option, and this can be thought of as the large option. We have pretty much eliminated the medium option from contention. We are down to thinking of it as small or large in these plans. Commissioner Green – It’s the direction we talked about. We talked about the location on the county line, the accessibility to jobs. I appreciate you going back and taking a look at this. I like the green space. This is exactly 22 what we were talking about and what we have been thinking about in this area. It provides housing for the university. I am still concerned about Stribling Avenue traffic and sidewalks. Commissioner Lahendro – I think that it’s well conceived. I like the green space as part of the design. The clustering of the apartments on the outside next to the mature hardwoods, the perimeter, and the trail. I think they are a well-conceived design and it is providing what we have been asking for in the comprehensive plan process. Commissioner Dowell – I am definitely glad to see that we have dedicated affordable housing. I do want us to be cautious about the definition of affordable or the phrase affordable housing. Commissioner Stolzenberg – I think this is a lot better than the last plan. I think it’s a no brainer in my mind to get more affordable housing and more community benefits, while you build more housing. I did have a couple more specific comments or questions. It seems that there is a lot of parking here. It seems like a lot of parking, especially that close to UVA. I don’t know that reducing parking would necessarily add more housing, given that you are at the 15 DUA called for by the comprehensive plan. It seems like you are going to have a lot of empty parking spaces sitting there unused. Even though you say that they are townhomes, two of these appear to be single family detached dwellings. Given their location, these two might be a good opportunity to make them a small triplex. I think that it’s a good plan. I really like the connection to Morgan Court and creating a connected street layout. I think the trail is good. I would like to hear more from staff about getting that Stribling Avenue sidewalk implemented. It makes a lot of sense for the sidewalk to be built. Commissioner Solla-Yates – I am very excited to see this. It makes a lot of sense. This is an area where you do not need a car. You can walk to UVA, jobs, and services. It’s exciting to see a possibility for housing here. The problem is that people are going to be suspicious of a car free lifestyle if there are no sidewalks or trails. I am excited to see that there are some thoughts about sidewalks in here. I am happy to see the housing. The housing and green space makes sense. I am happy to see buildings around green space. Chairman Mitchell – I would be very interested in what you are going to do to protect the creek. Unfortunately, there is no money in the CIP that we recommended for sidewalks. Whatever you decide to do, we have a problem there with the sidewalks. We have to work with Council and the people that know best how to help improve the infrastructure. This is a nightmare without the proper infrastructure. Commissioner Stolzenberg – Is it possible to break down that Stribling sidewalk into smaller segments? You have the Morgan Court connection. There is a sidewalk along Morgan and up Huntley. It’s plausible that people in your development could walk up that way, hit Stribling near Sunset. If we could get part of the sidewalk project done and if that does significantly reduce the cost and makes it feasible for the city that would get us more than halfway there towards remediating the whole sidewalk situation on Stribling. Mr. Armstrong – We see that as a possibly, if not vehicular access, it’s pedestrian or emergency point type of access. Chairman Mitchell – What are the rules regarding emergency vehicle access? Missy Creasy – Typically, a development with this many units, you have to have two points of access. They’re going to have to find a way to establish that as part of them moving forward. They’ll have to figure out a way to make that connection, which is likely to mean a purchase of property from people here to make that connection. There was a vague discussion about trails and connectivity Commissioner Dowell - What effort have you made to contact the owner to buy the easement to get that second contact point? Mr. Armstrong – Have not contacted. There would be a lot of problems to solve to create that access. 23 Alex Ikefuna – How do you plan to allocate the 15% affordable housing in the property? Will it be concentrated in one building or dispersed? Mr. Armstrong – We will try to disperse it whenever possible Commissioner Green – Sales, rentals, all of the above? How easy will it be to rent without parking? Mr. Armstrong - All of the above. It would be difficult to rent/sell without parking. There is room for parking under the building. Mayor Walker – How many bedrooms are in the townhomes? Mr. Armstrong - 2-3? Could maybe put 4th in garage space underneath if possible. Commissioner Green - Have you looked at the concentration of jobs in close radius? Mr. Armstrong – No, but there are plenty of jobs in close radius and more coming to Fontaine. Commissioner Dowell - Access is a really big issue, but need to have somewhere affordable to have access to. Would prefer having the affordable units (not 80% AMI) near sidewalks. Would prefer to have affordable units near trail. Do not sacrifice safety. 4. Public Comment Margo Buchara, Huntley Ave – has dog, walks a lot, walks through this property, along creek. Stribling is a death trap and it is a miracle that something hasn’t happened there. It is just awful. Is there a requirement that there are sidewalks prior to this project going through regardless of who is pays for it? Paul Josey – 80% of the properties on Stribling Avenue are rental properties and low income. Stribling is a prime area of affordable housing. I see runners, residents walking along street and it is a highly pedestrian street, very friendly. When Huntley came in, contractors didn’t care about speed. Blind curves, blind hills, are truly unsafe for kids and walkers. Street is not safe, not for all residents. There is concern with taking a street and doubling the units. Doubling the amount of units on Stribling could compromise the low and middle income units families living there. Compliments Southern Development for coming to community. There is a need for wide sidewalks, speed humps. It’s unsafe. Moved off street last year because terrified for safety of kids in his front yard. Margo Buchara – unsafe intersection, blinking lights like on OLR would be needed. Maybe even traffic light. Julie Ponfacer – supportive of urban development, affordable housing, but wanted to point out problems. Daughter walks Stribling to get to high school. Dark, dangerous, jumping into people’s yards, if two cars trying to pass – forget it for pedestrians. It’s unsafe, a mess. Concern about impact to Moores’ Creek. Lives on unnamed tributary to Moores’ Creek, sees degradation. Want to make sure not having negative impact to creek. Cut through to Morgan Ct will utterly change existing Huntly neighborhood without permission from Huntley residents. Will change face of neighborhood to a through street rather than an in and out neighborhood. Highly dense, highly pedestrian neighborhood with lots of people outside. Cars would be changing the entire nature of Huntley Neighborhood. Maybe have second access off Stribling. Responsibility not to degrade an entire other neighborhood. Cynthia Gibson – if make through street at Morgan Ct will have major intersection at its intersection with Huntley. Have visibility problems there already at sidewalks. Concerned that if people are using it as a cut through, people won’t respect the neighborhood for speed or safety. People who bought on Morgan Ct won’t appreciate it being turned into a through street. Huntley doesn’t support it. Had to make parking on one side of 24 the street to allow emergency vehicle access to the houses but don’t have any enforcement of parking. Already stressed by having a limited amount of parking on one side of the street. Greg Schmit – affirm desperate need for affordable housing, need for density. Pedestrian, cyclist, driver. Affirm need for Stribling improvements. Curious about where vehicles will go if Morgan Ct connection is made. Will people go to Sunset. Also not safe for pedestrians or vehicles. Curvy, blind hills. Meeting was adjourned at 8:38 PM 1 Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DOCKET March 10, 2020 – 5:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS NDS Conference Room I. COMMISSION PRE-MEETING (Agenda discussion(s)) Beginning: 4:30 pm Location: NDS Conference Room Members Present: Chairman Mitchell, Commissioner Lahendro, Commissioner Solla-Yates, Commissioner Heaton, Commissioner Stolzenberg, Commissioner Green Members Absent: Commissioner Dowell Staff Present: Patrick Cory, Missy Creasy, Carrie Rainey, Alex Ikefuna, Lisa Robertson, Paul Oberdorfer Chair Mitchell called the meeting to order at 4:55pm and began review of the agenda. Commissioners reviewed the staff report and site plan for the evenings meeting. II. COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING – Meeting called to order at 5:31 PM by the Chairman A. COMMISSIONER’S REPORT Commissioner Green – I had a TJPDC meeting last Thursday. It’s time for the budget and there was a lot of discussion on the budget. During the part of the meeting where we get to talk about other things in our localities that we are moving forward with, I gave some information about our comprehensive plan. I was able to brag a little about our citizens at First Street South about their engagement and how they have come together to design this community. There was a lot of interest in how this went from other counties. Somebody maybe getting in touch with you all. They were very excited to hear about all of the community engagement. Other localities have struggled with this as well. It was awesome to be able to talk about that. Commissioner Stolzenberg – We had a PLACE meeting last month where we discussed a report to Council on why PLACE exists and what it does. Once they issue that, I will be able to tell you those things. We had a smart scale planning lunch this afternoon with the other jurisdictions from our MPO and from the rural area. We talked about the projects that are going to be submitted as smart scale from each of those jurisdictions. There is going to be a Hydraulic/29 package submitted again, which will include an overpass for pedestrians and bikes and potentially several different options of ways to improve the intersection itself, including extending Hillsdale Drive south to Holiday and changing the signalization around Angus Road. With regards to the city: We will be submitting anywhere from zero to three smart scale projects. Two of the possible submissions are West Main, Phase 3 and Preston/Grady. The third was not specified. There is a project down 5th Street Extended up to Old Lynchburg by the County Office Building, where they might put in a roundabout. That would also improve the bike facilities in that area. They just finished up a survey. They will be having a public meeting in the middle of May to talk about how to improve 5th Street Extended down to Southwood for bike and pedestrian. We also had a kickoff for the Cville civic innovation housing hub software effort. The goal is to essentially put together a tool that collects all of the available apartments in the area and helps housing navigators at various agencies, who are helping their clients find housing, to find available apartments with landlords, who are willing to accept vouchers. I think that it’s starting tonight. 2 Commissioner Heaton – I didn’t have any official meetings. I attended the symposium at City Space on the clean energy and power grid use, which I thought that was fascinating. They talked about peak use and how the grid is getting cleaner and cleaner. Technology is making our options more and more prevalent around the city. There are electric chargers going into the parking garage off of Water Street. I thought that it was really good information for the public about how to reduce your carbon footprint Commissioner Solla-Yates – I attended a Housing Advisory Committee meeting on February 19th. There was nothing on the agenda. Things did happen. Albemarle County reported that they are working to update their housing strategy, their comprehensive plan, and their zoning 12 match. They haven’t substantially updated that in 40 years. We got an update on CSRAP (Charlottesville Supplemental Rental Assistance Program). This is a program that the city does to help people find housing, preferably in the city, but also in the county. There are 101 families in the program. Eighty-eight of them are currently receiving assistance and thirteen are looking for housing. Sixty of them are in the city, twenty are in the county, and sixty-nine are on the wait list. There is a preference for people who are currently homeless. That program appears to be working pretty well. Commissioner Lahendro – The Board of Architectural Review had two meetings over the last month. The first one was on February 12th. It was a special work session with City Council. We have been tackling issues more frequently with large projects, where the projects want BAR design reviews and approvals at successive steps in the design process. For any project, there is only one Certificate of Appropriateness that can be issued, which is at the very end. We discussed what types of reviews we discuss for these early phases, what they would look like, what they would review, and how to document what the applicant can and cannot depend on for those reviews. We had a really good discussion. We are hopeful about crafting a fair process that will come from this. The second BAR meeting was the regular monthly meeting on the 19th. We had three Certificate of Appropriateness applications approved and one deferred. The Tree Commission met last night. We had a light agenda. Arbor Day will be celebrated by the City on Friday, April 24th. The details of where and what time will follow soon. We now have four open seats on the Tree Commission, but luckily there has been a great deal of interest for people being on that commission. We have over six applications. We are optimistic about getting our board up to full strength. B. UNIVERSITY REPORT Commissioner Palmer – The Board of Visitors met last week. The main item that was approved was new upper class student housing for the Branden Avenue Development Area. It’s another 350 beds with a dining component and lots of common space for student gathering and study. That will be the next thing happening there on Branden Avenue along with the Bond House, which is already open, and the student health center, which is under construction and will open in 2021. There is news today of an initiative between the University and the community with an affordable housing component to it that will seek to have the university help with some of the affordable housing issues in our community along with three other initiatives for employment, childcare, and procurement of local goods and services. I am sure that it will come in front us at some point. C. CHAIR’S REPORT Chairman Mitchell – I have been to a couple meetings of the LUPEC (Land Use Planning Environmental Council). This used to be the PACC, which was a very strategic organization that focused on development being done by UVA, Albemarle County, and the City. Another component of the PACC was the PACC Tech. This was the people that think about doing the day to day work and think about what it takes to implement the vision of the people on the PACC. The PACC and the PACC Tech have morphed into what is now the LUPEC. We still don’t know what exactly our charge is. We are working through that in the last couple of meetings. As we left the meeting last Wednesday, we saw ourselves as an advisory committee that consults with the City, the County, and UVA. Each entity talks about any development that maybe happening in the individual 3 organizations that we represent and thinks about the impact on the environment and infrastructure any development that we might undertake. In addition to staff and planning commissioners, the Rivanna Sewer Authority is represented and the University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation is also represented on the Council. We are still thinking through our reconstituted mission. I will report back when we decide who we want to be. D. DEPARTMENT OF NDS Ms. Creasy – We have our March work session scheduled for the 24th. We will be talking about the housing ordinance and the other housing related items that went forward to Council. Council has passed that onto the Commission for discussion. We are in our 100 day review period. We will be meeting with Commissioner Solla-Yates and Chairman Mitchell to work through the process for how we are going to work through that agenda. We also have a preliminary discussion for a site on Arlington Boulevard E. MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE FORMAL AGENDA Julie Converser – I am here to comment specifically on the proposed development at 240 Stribling Avenue. A lot of my neighbors were not able to come tonight. I am standing tonight for my neighbors, who could not come tonight. I have two major concerns regarding the development. The first is the safety of current residents on Stribling Avenue and JPA. The physical safety due to the car, pedestrian, and bike issues are of grave concern. The proposed development with 170 additional units would make those problems extreme and the danger extreme for walkers, riders, residents, and drivers in our Fry Springs area, particularly on Stribling and JPA. No process for development should move forward until there is an agreement in funding for improvements on Stribling Avenue and the cross between Stribling and JPA. Part of the proposal that was floated in February included a cut through to Morgan Court Road. The neighborhood was never designed to have two way traffic. It actually should be one way. The roads are very narrow. The roads in that neighborhood will not be capable of accommodating additional traffic. Any additional traffic through that neighborhood would pose physical danger and hazards for people in the environment. Joy Johnson – I am here tonight to ask you to support the site for South First Street. I want to thank Chairman Mitchell, the staff, Commissioner Green, and Paul for pulling it together so we wouldn’t disappoint the women of South First Street. These women have given up their Sundays since June of last year. If we hadn’t pulled it all together, it would have been a big disappointment. Going with development, especially with Westhaven, I don’t see how we would have gotten the momentum back. Trust is a big issue. Communication is a horrible issue. We need to fix that. We have to break down the barriers on trust. I don’t like walking into a room with you looking at me as an angry black woman. It’s because people look at poor people differently and they treat us differently. I do just want to say ‘thank you.’ I do appreciate it. Let’s work on the trust and let’s work on the momentum. Keta Igala (sp) – I want to agree with what Ms. Julie said earlier today. As a resident, I have biked, walked, and driven my car through Stribling Avenue. At any given time, there is usually somebody walking on Stribling, which confines the automobiles to be in a single file. We’re careful not to hit anybody. Everyone is sharing that one lane. Having 170 units and 200 to 600 additional cars is a considerable amount of traffic. I would like to voice my concern. If there is an opportunity to work with the developers to come up with an alternate plan, that would be wonderful. Marilyn Swinford – I want to echo the sentiments of my neighbors. Stribling is so narrow you can’t have more than two cars, with pedestrians, pass at the same time. It’s quite dangerous. There are probably 180 to 200 homes. We understand that there is a need for affordable housing in the City. This is not the right plan for this neighborhood. We don’t have the road structure for it. The mass and scale of this project is way out of 4 proportion with the rest of the neighborhood. I want to speak about Morgan Court. We have a little 30 foot wide street. We are going to have 34 homes when it is all built out. Visibility isn’t good. I was told that the 30 foot wide street was going to be a low volume street. It is not designed to be one of the major entrances into another community. You do need to go to the Huntley and Stribling intersection. Our intersection is set back, downhill, and at an angle. If you look at our stop sign, it is directly across from the front door of the upper most house under construction. We can see nothing of oncoming traffic. It is not a good intersection. We have no capacity to take on new traffic. John Hall – I do know about Stribling Avenue. I have conducted my own research study there over the past several years. Southern has built over 1,000 homes since its startup. They are indeed rich and successful as a company. They are saying that they will proffer over $700,000 for pedestrian and bikeway improvements. That means about 32 feet wide in roadway in my calculation. They admit that the Fry Springs Neighborhood Association, for the last 3 years, has begged for sidewalks. I have designed a street scape one half mile with one sidewalk. That’s 37 feet of street and sidewalk. I have contacted Dominion Energy about the strategic underground program, so that we can eliminate telephone lines and telephone poles from our sidewalks. The cost of sidewalks is said to be north of $2 million. Southern Development says that they won’t pay for it. Southern Development’s proffer needs to be north of $3 million. I or the City Attorney could file an injunction. I, with the community support and money backing, need to pause and reflect. Betsy Retcker – I am here to support the approval of the South First Street Phase II Site Plan and thank you for all of the help. We have had this race to the deadline. I just wanted to point that this maybe shows opportunity in the future, since we will be working through other properties in the city to find more ways to work closely with the city in the future to reach the deadlines on time. We are not normal developers. We are learning a lot. This extra help is needed to get to equity. The systems and processes that work for everyone. I wanted to thank you for your help and your support of this project. The women, who worked on this project, have given their presentation so many times. I know that you have heard it before. I know that they have done an amazing job. Abigail Pare – I would like to reiterate the concerns expressed earlier tonight. Walking down Stribling Avenue is problematic with no sidewalk, no street lighting. There were utilities there yesterday that took up two-thirds of the road. There was a bottleneck there. I am concerned about the safety, particularly the end with JPA. Turning left out of there is problematic. We need to sort out the access before we move any further in the development. There is a need for affordable housing. Since I moved into Morgan Court, we have already lost half the street to parking. With one side for parking, it is difficult to maneuver two cars. Chantel Bingham – I am here tonight to speak in support of the South First Street plan and hoping that you will pass that approval with a ‘yes.’ As we try to build a community where everyone is included, we are still struggling quite a bit. Not all of our black and brown families are included. It’s hard to find one where our work families can truly prosper and grow. This is, in large part, due to our housing crisis we are currently having. The cost of housing in Charlottesville is not where it needs to be. For a developer, it has taken decades to pick this token up. Riverbend Development with the CRHA and BRW Architects have. Over the past year, they have worked with residents to co-design a new housing project that would mean something for the community and contribute to equity in the community. There have been partners that stood up in support of them. The Charlottesville Food Justice Network is one of those partners. We have worked very hard to meet the planning and designing but with funding. We have worked to apply for funding with the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development. I have worked with this team to apply for funding through the City Manager’s Office. While we plan and design things, the intention has to be met with money and cash flow. We are up against a deadline. Laura Goldblatt – I am encouraging you to support the South First Street Phase II Plan, even if there are still details that need to be worked out before the LI TCH application moves forward. The people, who designed it, 5 gave up their weekends. They gave up their leisure time so they could part of building something wonderful in their community. This is a process that has been recognized. You have seen their presentation and how amazing it is for people to stand up for themselves and build something for themselves and future generations. A vote for it is a way to gain additional trust in this community. As CRHA moves forward to redevelop other properties, they can expect real resident engagement in that process that is so crucial. A vote for it is a vote for Democratic processes. You have an opportunity to say that you are voting for Democracy. I think that this is an important step in addressing the city’s housing crisis. It’s a small step, but I think that it is the beginning to make sure public housing is expanded and that residents have a voice in that process. Elaine Poon – I am a lawyer with the Legal Aid Justice Center. I just want to lift up the South First Street Plan and encourage you to approve that Site Plan. Ashley Davies – I didn’t want to miss this opportunity to thank you, staff, all of our development partners, and most importantly the residents of South First Street for their important and instrumental work that they have done here. The residents have put in over 1000 hours and their personal time to design their community. They had the opportunity to present at the Governor’s State Conference. We really feel that this is a model not happening anywhere else in the country. I do want to take this opportunity to recognize the important and gritty work that has been happening over the past year. Brandon Collins – I do want to point that tonight is an historic moment. We are asking you to approve this site plan. We think that there is a way forward that you will feel comfortable approving the site plan. It took a lot of work and we do offer thanks to the city in helping to find a way forward. It cannot be understated that this is totally an innovative process. When we say it is a Democratic process, it really is meaningful. You cannot look anywhere else in the country and see this kind of engagement. I would not even call it engagement. It transcends that concept of engagement with residents. It has put residents in decision making bodies in control of the future of their communities. They have delivered a responsible, meaningful product that’s going to help the city address the affordable housing crisis, improve the quality of life, which offers the first steps towards providing amends to the wrongs that have happened in this city, which this body has been responsible for in the past. It’s now up to partners to move this forward. We ask you to approve this site plan. Dan Gathers – I stand in support of the immense amount of work that the ladies of South First Street have done in bringing this project to you. I urge you to push that forward and to stand with those ladies that have put forth the effort and time to get this done and bring it to this point. I ask you to bring it to fruition. It’s about every resident in the city, who stands behind affordable housing and stands behind making life better for our fellow citizens. I urge you to do what is right. I urge you to put in the work and stand with them and present this to City Council and urge their support of it as well. Mike Osteen – You know the process that we have gone through. It was very innovative and exciting. It was also cumbersome. This project will be backed up a full year if it’s not approved tonight. This is the third project in a strategic pipeline that is going to transform public housing in the City of Charlottesville. If this is delayed by a year, there will be delays at Westhaven and 6th Street. Patricia Howard – I am one of those that has worked on this project since June of last year. I want to thank you for giving us the time and patience to look at what we have put together. I hope that you help us to get our tax credit. Kristin Davison – I am here as a new resident and new Housing Authority employee. I am here to support your approval of the Site Plan for Phase II of South First Street. It sounds like the plan is fully approvable. I have a very simple request. If you can’t find a way to move forward with this, I hope that you will tell the women, who have done the planning, tell them why and make it very clear. I have heard about the truly incredible efforts. 6 Teneshia Hudson – I think that you should approve the site plan. We all know the condition of housing in Charlottesville. I think that it’s important we let community members know in certain neighborhoods that they deserve adequate housing. I think that everyone should vote in a good direction today. Let’s approve the site plan tonight. Erica Williams – I echo the sentiments of all of my neighbors in the Huntley neighborhood. There is one perspective that hasn’t been shared. I have kids, who play in that cul de sac. I want you to consider the perspective of the kids. As you make the decision, I would hope that you consider not allowing Morgan Court to be a cut through. Jamie Meter – I haven’t heard anyone address the Flint Road Development. From what I understand Longwood and Moseley would be the access. I am going to echo what many of the Fry Springs neighbors have said. We don’t have the infrastructure on either of those roads. I think that we need the infrastructure before we build the housing. F. CONSENT AGENDA (Items removed from the consent agenda will be considered at the end of the regular agenda) 1. Minutes – January 14, 2020 – Pre-Meeting and Regular Meeting Commissioner Green moved to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Solla-Yates. The Consent Agenda was approved 6-0. III. JOINT MEETING OF COMMISSION AND COUNCIL Beginning: 6:00 PM Continuing: Until all public hearings are complete Format: (i) Staff Report, (ii) Applicant, (iii) Hearing, (iv) Commissioner Discussion and Motion 1. ZM20-00001 - Flint Hill PUD - DEFERRED by Applicant IV. COMMISSION’S ACTION ITEMS Continuing: until all action items are concluded. 1. Site Plan - South First Street Phase 2 i. Staff Report Carrie Rainey, City Planner - Ashley Davies of Riverbend Development, LLC, and Scott Collins, P.E., of Collins Engineering, are representing the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (CRHA). This Site Plan seeks approval of a development referred to as “1st Street South Apartments – Phase IIA & IIB.” Phase II, as depicted in the Site Plan will include construction of 113 multifamily dwellings, a community center, and office space. City Council approved a Special Use Permit with conditions, as well as a Critical Slopes Waiver, on January 6, 2020 to permit private outdoor recreational facilities and reduced yard setbacks of five (5) feet within the Phase II development site. On January 6, 2020, City Council 7 also granted a Critical Slopes Waiver, as recommended by the Commission, to allow the Developer to disturb Critical Slopes during land clearing and construction activities. Both Council resolutions are included within the final site plan. Staff has reviewed four previous site plan submissions as detailed in the staff report you received today. The current submission before the Planning Commission was received today at 3:15 PM and has not been reviewed by staff. Based on the review of previous submissions, as to which staff determined the site plan satisfies the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance set forth within Articles 3, 8, and 9 of Chapter 34 in the applicants’ representation, staff notes that no material changes have occurred in submission number five. Staff believes that submission five could be in compliance with the applicable zoning and public infrastructure requirements. Potential motions were included in the staff report you received today for reference. ii. Commission Discussion and Motion Motion: Commissioner Solla-Yates - I move to approve the Site Plan dated March 10, 2020 for 1st Street South Apartments – Phase IIA & Phase IIB, based on a finding that the Site Plan contains the minimum details required by City Code §34-828 and satisfies the requirements of City Code Chapter 34, Articles 3, 8 and 9 to such an extent that the only zoning requirement remaining to be satisfied in order to obtain a building permit is the posting of surety bonds. Nothing in this approval shall preclude the Stormwater Management Plan or the Erosion & Sediment Control Plan depicted within the Site Plan from being changed at a later date, as may be required by the City’s Stormwater or E&S Administrator under the laws, regulations or ordinances governing administration of the VSMP or VESCP programs. (Seconded by Commissioner Green) The Motion was passed 6-0. Commissioner Green – I do want to thank staff for your work and everyone that has worked on this so very hard. While we review this, it is important to make sure that the quality of your project that you have work so hard. It is the same quality as these million dollar condos. We don’t want anything to go wrong on that. Sometimes it takes a little bit of time. Thanks for your patience. I know that it’s been frustrating. There is some equity versus equality here. Trust is huge for us to continue building here and for this to go sideways would not be good for the city. For the staff, I have been harsh on you this week. When we look at things through this equity lens with this kind of project, we do have to find a way to say ‘yes’ in these tight timelines. That is not always going to fit within our nice governmental processes and procedures. We have to find a way to be as invested in this as a local government employee as much as those people, who spent their time after work on Sundays. If we have to work a little on Sunday, then so be it. We have to find a way to say ‘yes,’ and it be just the same quality. I had to say that. It’s too important. We have to find some new processes and procedures to look at these things that are this important through our equity lens. Meeting was adjourned at 6:32 PM