Agenda PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DOCKET TUESDAY, June 14, 2022 at 5:30 P.M. Hybrid Meeting I. Commission Pre-Meeting (Agenda discussion(s)) Beginning: 5:00 p.m. Location: (CitySpace, 100 5th St NE, Charlottesville, VA 22902 and Electronic/Virtual) II. Commission Regular Meeting Beginning: 5:30 p.m. Location: (CitySpace, 100 5th St NE, Charlottesville, VA 22902 and Electronic/Virtual) A. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS B. UNIVERSITY REPORT C. CHAIR'S REPORT D. DEPARTMENT OF NDS E. MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE FORMAL AGENDA F. CONSENT AGENDA (Items removed from the consent agenda will be considered at the end of the regular agenda) i. Minutes – Regular meeting – August 10, 2021 ii. Preliminary Site Plan - 218 West Market 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. SP22-00005 – 1000 Monticello Road – Piedmont Realty Holdings III LLC (the “Applicant”) as owner of the property located at 1000 Monticello Road, near the intersection of Monticello Road and Bainbridge Street identified by Tax Map and Parcel (TMP) 570036000 (the “Subject Property”) has submitted an application seeking approval of a Special Use Permit (SUP) for the property. The property is currently zoned NCC Neighborhood Commercial Corridor. The Comprehensive Land Use Map for this area calls for Neighborhood Mixed Use Corridor which recommends commercial, employment and residential uses and allows buildings up to 5 stories in height. Pursuant to City Code Sec. 34-700, the Owner submitted a request for increased density from a By-Right 21 Dwelling Units per Acre (“DUA”) to 42 DUA. The Owner is proposing a mixed-use building with 11 residential units and a single commercial unit. The Subject Property is approximately 0.808 acres with road frontage on Monticello Road and Bainbridge Street. The SUP, if approved, would allow for the construction of 11 new units on the Subject Property in addition to the existing 23 units already on the site. Additional information pertaining to this application may be viewed online at www.charlottesville.gov/agenda. Persons interested in the Special Use Permit application may also contact NDS Planner Brian Haluska by e-mail (haluska@charlottesville.gov) or by telephone (434-970-3186). 2. SP22-00004 – 923 Harris Street – 923 Harris Street LLC (the “Owner”) and Shimp Engineering (the “Applicant”) have submitted an application seeking approval of a Special Use Permit (SUP) for the property located at 923 Harris Street, near the intersection of Harris Street and Cynthianna Drive identified by Tax Map and Parcel (TMP) 350112000 (the “Subject Property”). The property is currently zoned IC Industrial Corridor. The Comprehensive Land Use Map for this area calls for Business and Technology Mixed Use which recommends light industrial/production uses along with allowing for other commercial/residential uses and buildings up to 6 stories in height. Pursuant to City Code Sec. 34-458(b) and 34-480 the Applicant and Owner submitted a request for increased density from a By-Right 21 Dwelling Units per Acre (“DUA”) to 62 DUA. The Applicant is proposing a mixed-use building with 7 residential units and a commercial studio space; and as the Subject Property is approximately 0.13 acres with road frontage on Harris Street, the SUP, if approved, would allow for the construction of the 7 units on the Subject Property. Additional information pertaining to this application may be viewed online at www.charlottesville.gov/agenda. Persons interested in the Special Use Permit application may also contact NDS Planner Brian Haluska by e-mail (haluska@charlottesville.gov) or by telephone (434-970-3186). 3. ZM22-00001 – 415 10th Street NW (Old Trinity Church) – Landowner Dairy Holdings, LLC (the “Owner”) has submitted an application seeking a Rezoning for approximately 0.188 acres of land identified within the 2022 City real estate records by Real Estate Parcel Identification Number 040046000 ( “Subject Property”). The Subject Property has frontage on 10th Street NW and Grady Avenue. The application proposes to change the zoning district classification of the Subject Property from R-1S (Residential Single-Family) to B-2 (Commercial) subject to certain proffered development conditions (“Proffers”). The Proffers include: (1) All non-residential uses allowed under B-2 zoning, other than Art Gallery, Auditorium, Houses of Worship, Club (private), Music Hall, Educational Facilities, Technology Based Business, and Offices, shall not be permitted on the subject property, and (2) No additional vehicular ingress and egress to the subject property. The Comprehensive Land Use Map for this area calls for General Residential which recommends up to 2.5 stories in height, up to 3 units per lot (or 4 units if the existing structure remains) and additional unit allowance depending on zoning allowances. Information pertaining to this application may be viewed online at www.charlottesville.gov/agenda. Persons interested in the Rezoning application may contact NDS Planner Brian Haluska by e-mail (haluska@charlottesville.gov) or by telephone (434-970-3186). IV. COMMISSION’S ACTION ITEMS Continuing: until all action items are concluded. 1. Preliminary Discussion – Lochlyn Hill, Block 4b V. FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE/ADJOURN Tuesday July 12, 2022 – 5:00 PM Pre- Meeting Tuesday July 12, 2022 – 5:30 PM Regular Minutes - August 31, 2021, September 14, Meeting 2021, October 11, 2021, October 12, 2021, October 21, 2021, November 9, 2021 Comprehensive Plan Major Subdivision – Preston Commons (Robinson Place) Critical Slope Waiver – Azalea Springs 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 , 12th and Rosser/CH Brown Historic Conservation District (six properties) Rezoning and SUP – 0 Carlton Road Rezoning – Mount View PUD Critical Slopes Waiver – Belmont Condominiums Site Plan –Flint Hill PUD, 1223 Harris, Lyndhall Apartments Special Use Permit – Fire Station on 250 Bypass Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Manufactured Housing Future Entrance Corridor • 920 E High Street - Comprehensive Sign Plan Request (Sentara) • 1815 JPA - New apartment building (Wassenaar+Winkler Architects) • 1801 Hydraulic Road – revised Comp Sign Plan, revised design review (Hillsdale Place, Riverbend) 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 5/1/2022 TO 5/31/2022 1. Preliminary Site Plans 2. Final Site Plans a. UVA Contemplative Commons ROW – May 6, 2022 b. Aspen Dental – 1252 Emmet Street North – May 23, 2022 3. Site Plan Amendments a. 1719 Hydraulic Road (Dominion Storage Tanks) – April 28, 2022 b. First Presbyterian Church Amendment #1 – May 10, 2022 4. Subdivision a. 2428 Jefferson Park Avenue (BLA) – May 10, 2022 August 10, 2021 Planning Commission Minutes are included as the last documents in this packet. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPLICATION NUMBER: P21-0111 DATE OF MEETING: June 14, 2022 Project Planner: Brian Haluska Date of Staff Report: May 31, 2022 Applicant: Timmons Group Applicant’s Representative(s): Craig Kotarski Current Property Owner: Heirloom Downtown Mall Development LLC Property Street Address: 218 West Market Street (“Subject Property”) Tax Map & Parcel: 330276000 Current Zoning Classification: Downtown Corridor Overlay District: Architectural Design Control District, Urban Core Parking District Reason for Planning Commission Review: Preliminary site plan reflects the proposed development of a property that is the subject of an approved special permit per Sections 34- 820(d) Vicinity Map Applicant Property Page 1 of 4 P21-0111 218 West Market Street Preliminary Site Plan Standard of Review Site plan approval is a ministerial function of Planning Commission in which no discretion is involved. If this preliminary 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. As per Section 34-823(c), 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. Applicant’s Request (Summary) Mr. Craig Kotarski of Timmons Group, on behalf of the Heirloom Downtown Mall Development LLC, is seeking Planning Commission approval for the 218 West Market Street Preliminary Site Plan. This preliminary site plan proposes a 101 foot tall mixed-use building with 90 residential units and 22,035 square feet of commercial space. On September 8, 2020, City Council approved Special Use Permit SP19-00006 authorizing a mixed-use building with residential density up to 240 dwelling units per acre and up to 101 feet in building height. The Director of Neighborhood Development Services extended the validity of this SUP until March 23, 2023 on March 4, 2022. As per the City’s Zoning Ordinance, Planning Commission shall review this preliminary site plan because it reflects the proposed development of property that is subject to a Special Use Permit. Site Plan Requirements A. Compliance with the City’s Erosion and Sediment Control ordinance (Chapter 10) Staff has determined that this preliminary site plan complies with the City’s Erosion and Sediment Control ordinance. Erosion and Sediment Control plans are included as site plan Sheets C3.0 through C3.2, and Stormwater Management Plans are included as site plan Sheet C6.0. B. Compliance with applicable Downtown Corridor District zoning regulations (Sections 34-556 - 34-564) The property is zoned Downtown Corridor District. The project complies with all requirements of that district. Page 2 of 4 P21-0111 218 West Market Street Preliminary Site Plan C. Compliance with general standards for site plans (Section 34-827) Staff has determined that this site plan contains the following information as required: 1. General site plan information, including but not limited to project, property, zoning, site, and traffic information: Found on Sheet C0.0. 2. Existing condition and adjacent property information: Found on Sheet C2.0. 3. Phasing plan: The project will be constructed in one phase. 4. Topography and grading: Found on Sheet C5.0. 5. Existing landscape and trees: Found on Sheet C2.0. 6. The 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: Found on Sheet C0.0. No new roads are proposed. 9. Location and size of existing water and sewer infrastructure: Found on Sheet C2.0. 10. Proposed layout for water and sanitary sewer facilities and storm drain facilities: Found of Sheet C4.0. 11. Location of other existing and proposed utilities and utility easements: Found on Sheet C4.0. 12. Location of existing and proposed ingress to and egress from the property, showing the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection: Found on Sheet C4.0. 13. Location and dimensions of all existing and proposed improvements: Found on Sheets C4.0. 14. All areas intended to be dedicated or reserved for public use: N/A. 15. Landscape plan: N/A. 16. Where deemed appropriate by the director due to intensity of development: a. Estimated traffic generation figures for the site based upon current ITE rates: Found on Sheet C0.0. b. Estimated vehicles per day: Found on Sheet C0.0. D. Additional information to be shown on the site plan as deemed necessary by the director or Commission in order to provide sufficient information for the director or Commission to adequately review the site plan. The Special Use Permit granted by City Council on September 8, 2022 includes four conditions, which are provided on Sheet C0.1 of the preliminary site plan. Condition 1 is the only condition that has details that must be reflected on the site plan, and the site plan is in compliance with this condition. Conditions 2 and 3 will be addressed in the Board of Architectural Review’s consideration of the project, and the Page 3 of 4 P21-0111 218 West Market Street Preliminary Site Plan applicant will be required to demonstrate adherence to Condition 4 prior to any construction activity being authorized on the site. E. Compliance with Additional Standards for Specific Uses (Sections 34-930 - 34-938) No improvements regulated by these sections are proposed. Public Comments Received Site Plan Conference Required by Z.O. Sec. 34-821 The City hosted a preliminary site plan conference on October 20, 2021 beginning at 1:00pm. Property owners within 500 feet and the North Downtown Neighborhood Association were notified of the meeting per requirements in Section 34-41(c)(2). Staff has previously received comment objecting to the height of the project, and the impact it will have on traffic on Old Preston Avenue and Market Street. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the preliminary site plan. Attachments 1. Preliminary Site Plan dated August 10, 2021 and last revised March 30, 2022 2. Special Use Permit Resolution dated September 8, 2020 Page 4 of 4 SITE DATA: 218 W MARKET STREET TEL 434.295.5624 FAX 434.295.8317 www.timmons.com 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200 | Charlottesville, VA 22903 TAX MAP PARCEL: 330276000 TOTAL SITE AREA: 0.562 ACRES LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE:0.66ACRES PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE IMPERVIOUS AREA: EXISTING 0.61 ACRES PROPOSED0.66 ACRES CHARLOTTESVILLE OFFICE SOURCE OF SURVEY, BOUNDARY, AND TOPOGRAPHY: TIMMONS GROUP 28 IMPERIAL DRIVE STAUNTON, VA 24401 (540) 885-0920 REVISION DESCRIPTION DATED: JUNE 14, 2019 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA DATUM REFERENCE: VERTICAL: NAVD 88 HORIZONTAL: NAD83, VA STATE GRID, SOUTH ZONE MISS UTILITY TICKET NUMBER: (TICKET SUBMITTED ON 6/25/2019) A914803153-00A USE: CURRENT:RETAIL PROPOSED: MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS RESIDENTIAL 65 1 BEDROOM UNITS 25 2 BEDROOM UNITS 90 TOTAL UNITS FOR RENT *UP TO 134 UNITS ALLOWED PER SUP COMMERCIAL 4 RETAIL SPACES [5,600 SF + 7,635 SF + 4,120 SF + 4,680 SF = 22,035] 08/10/2021 PAVED PARKING AND VEHICULAR CIRCULATION AREA IS LOCATED UNDER THE BUILDING AND ACCESSED THROUGH A PROPOSED ENTRANCE OFF OF OLD PRESTON AVE. PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN ZONED: DOWNTOWN CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICTS:HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT APPROVALS URBAN CORE PARKING ZONE PROJECT LOCATION 11/19/2021 3/30/2022 1/7/2022 SETBACKS: PRIMARY STREET FRONTAGE (MARKET STREET): 0' MINIMUM, 20' MAXIMUM DIRECTOR OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SECONDARY STREET FRONTAGE (OLD PRESTON AVENUE): 0' MINIMUM, 20' MAXIMUM DATE SIDE AND REAR (NOT ADJACENT TO LOW DENSITY RES.): NONE STEPBACK: STREETWALL 40' MAXIMUM Sheet List Table NAD83 STEPBACK AT HEIGHT OF STREET WALL 10' MINIMUM DATE Sheet Number Sheet Title ADJACENT AREAS: NORTH - W. MARKET STREET/RETAIL C0.0 COVER 08/10/2021 EAST - RESTAURANT/RETAIL DRAWN BY SOUTH - OLD PRESTON AVENUE/HOTEL C0.1 SUP CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WEST - OFFICE/THEATER C1.0 NOTES & DETAILS J. DENKO ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT:70' MAX. (UP TO 101' VIA SPECIAL PERMIT) 45' MIN. C1.1 DETAILS DESIGNED BY PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT: 101' AS ALLOWED BY APPROVED SUP C1.2 DETAILS J. DENKO MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIALTY: DENSI 134 DUA (PER SUP) C2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS CHECKED BY MAXIMUM PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY: 90 DUA C2.1 DEMOLITION PLAN C. KOTARSKI PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: C3.0 E&SC N&DT 1 SPACE PER DWELLING UNITS OVER THE BY-RIGHT NUMBER OF UNITS C3.1 E&SC N&DT SCALE 90 DWELLING UNITS X 1 SPACE/DWELLING UNIT - 24 DWELLING UNITS BY RIGHT = 63 SPACES SEC. 34-971 PROVISION OF PARKING SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED FOR A DEVELOPMENT IN THE URBAN CORE PARKING ZONE UNLESS SUCH DEVELOPMENT REQUIRES A C3.2 E&SC PHASE I AS SHOWN SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR INCREASED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY ABOVE THAT ALLOWED BY RIGHT. PARKING REQUIRED PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL C4.0 LAYOUT AND UTILITY PLAN ADDITIONAL UNITS ALLOWED AS A RESULT OF THE INCREASED DENSITY, UNLESS SUCH REQUIREMENT IS WAIVED BY COUNCIL. TOTAL = 63 PARKING SPACES C4.1 PARKING AND MAIN LEVEL PLAN C5.0 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN PARKING REDUCTION SEC. [ 34-985.b ] BUS STOP WITHIN 300 FT OF THE SITE = <4 SPACE> VICINITY MAP C6.0 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 78 LONG TERM BIKE SPACES - 60 LONG TERM BIKE SPACES (REQ.) = 18 SPACES AT 1:5 RATIO - 3 SPACES TOTAL = 14 SHEETS TOTAL = 66 SPACES - 4 SPACES - 3 SPACES 59 PARKING = SPACES REQUIRED SCALE: 1" = 500' These plans and associated documents are the exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and may not be reproduced in whole or in part and shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever, inclusive, but not TOTAL PARKING SPACES PROVIDED: 59 SPACES PROVIDED (CONSISTS OF 11 COMPACT SPACES AND 3 ACCESSIBLE SPACES, 1 OF WHICH IS VAN ACCESSIBLE) ACCESSIBLE SPACES REQUIRED: OWNER: FOR 51-75 TOTAL SPACES, 3 ACCESSIBLE SPACES REQUIRED, 1 OF WHICH SHALL BE VAN-ACCESSIBLE. HEIRLOOM DOWNTOWN MALL DEVELOPMENT LLC UTILITY DEMANDS BICYCLE PARKING REQUIRED (PER SECTION 34-882 OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY CODE) RETAIL: LONG TERM:22,035SF X 1 SPACE PER 10,000 SF FLOOR AREA = 2.2 BICYCLE SPACES (2 MIN.) 178 COLUMBUS AVE #231409 WATER FLOW (AVERAGE DAILY DEMAND) SEE SHEET C1.2 FOR AWWA M2 WATER CUSTOMER DATA SHEET SHORT TERM: 22,035SF X 1 SPACE PER 5,000 SF FLOOR AREA = 4.4 BICYCLE SPACES (2 MIN.) NEW YORK, NY 10019 218 W MARKET STREET MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING:LONG: 65 BEDROOMS X 0.5 SPACE / BEDROOM = 57.5 BICYCLE SPACES AVERAGE FLOW RATES (FROM TABLE 9-1 & 9-2, CHARLOTTESVILLE STANDARDS & DESIGN MANUAL): SHORT: 25 BEDROOMS X 0.1 SPACE / BEDROOM = 11.5 BICYCLE SPACES APARTMENTS/CONDOMINIUMS: 300 GPD X 89 UNITS = 26,700 GPD TOTAL LONG TERM =60 BICYCLE SPACES REQUIRED TOTAL SHORT TERM 16 = BICYCLE SPACES REQUIRED ENGINEER OF RECORD: RETAIL: 2000 GPD/AC X 0.506 AC = 1012 GPD TOTAL: 27,712 GPD BICYCLE PARKING PROVIDED: 78 LONG TERM SPACES (WITHIN THE PARKING GARAGE - "SARIS STACK RACK" AND "SARIS BIKE CORRAL") *58 LOWER PARKING + 20 ELEVATED PARKING TIMMONS GROUP AVERAGE HOUR: 27,712 GPD/24 = 1155 GALLONS PER HOUR CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 16 SHORT TERM SPACES 608 PRESTON AVENUE SUITE 200 MAX HOUR = 300% OF AVERAGE HOUR = 1155 X 3 = 3,464 GALLONS TOTAL =95 BICYCLE SPACES PROVIDED CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 S:\103\43750-218_W_Market\DWG\Sheet\PRELIM SITE PLAN\43750-103-C0.0-COVR.dwg | Plotted on 3/30/2022 3:18 PM | by Jessica Denko PEAK HOUR = MAX HOUR X 1.5 = 3,464 X 1.5 = 5,196 GALLONS = 86.6 GPM LOCATION OF NEARBY FIRE HYDRANTS: ALONG OLD PRESTON AVENUE. (APPROX. 52' FROM NEW BUILDING) CONTACT: CRAIG KOTARSKI, P.E. COVER FINAL WATER METER SIZING WILL BE PROVIDED AT FINAL SITE PLAN UTILITIES:CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE PUBLIC WATER, SEWER TELEPHONE: 434-327-1688 SEWER FLOW (AVERAGE DAILY FLOW) PROJECT TIMING: THE ANTICIPATED START DATE FOR THE PROJECT IS SUMMER 2022. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ARE ANTICIPATED TO LAST AVERAGE FLOW RATES (FROM TABLE 9-1 & 9-2, CHARLOTTESVILLE STANDARDS & DESIGN MANUAL): APPROXIMATELY 12-18 MONTHS. APARTMENTS/CONDOMINIUMS: 300 GPD X 89 UNITS = 26,700 GPD RETAIL: 2000 GPD/AC X 0.506 AC = 1,012 GPD limited to construction, bidding, and/or construction staking without the express written consent of TIMMONS GROUP. WETLANDS: NO WETLANDS ARE IMPACTED AS PART OF THIS PROJECT. TOTAL: 26,700 GPD FLOODPLAIN: THIS SITE IS NOT WITHIN A 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN. CRITICAL SLOPES: NO CRITICAL SLOPES ARE LOCATED ON THIS PROPERTY. BUILDING AND SITE SIGNAGE: SIGNAGE PACKAGE TO BE SUBMITTED UNDER SEPARATE COVER PUBLIC UTILITY NOTES: BUILDING CODE EDITION:2018 VUSBC A. PER THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WATERWORKS REGULATIONS (PART II, ARTICLE 3, SECTION 12 VAC 5-590 THROUGH 630), ALL BUILDINGS THAT HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION:1B CONTAMINATING THE POTABLE WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (HOSPITALS, INDUSTRIAL SITES, BREWERIES, ETC.) SHALL HAVE A BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE INSTALLED WITHIN THE FACILITY. OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION: MIXED USE INCLUDING: THIS DEVICE SHALL MEET SPECIFICATIONS OF THE VIRGINIA UNIFORM STATEWIDE BUILDING CODE, RESIDENTIAL R-2 SHALL BE TESTED IN REGULAR INTERVALS AS REQUIRED, AND TEST RESULTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED HOTEL R-1 TO THE REGULATORY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR IN THE DEPARTMENT OF UTILITIES. RESTAURANT/ASSEMBLY A-2 B. ALL BUILDINGS THAT MAY PRODUCE WASTES CONTAINING MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED (100) PARTS RETAIL M PER MILLION OF FATS, OIL, OR GREASE SHALL INSTALL A GREASE TRAP. THE GREASE TRAP SHALL OFFICE B MEET SPECIFICATIONS OF THE VIRGINIA UNIFORM STATEWIDE BUILDING CODE, MAINTAIN RECORDS PARKING S-2 OF CLEANING AND MAINTENANCE, AND BE INSPECTED ON REGULAR INTERVALS BY THE REGULATORY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR IN THE DEPARTMENT OF UTILITIES. C. PLEASE CONTACT THE REGULATORY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR AT 970-3032 WITH ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE GREASE TRAP OR BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICES. GENERAL ADA NOTES: THIS SITE PLAN APPROVAL SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUCTED OR INTERPRETED AS THE CITY'S VERIFICATION THAT THE SITE PLAN COMPLIES WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. JOB NO. 43750 SHEET NO. C0.0 S:\103\43750-218_W_Market\DWG\Sheet\PRELIM SITE PLAN\43750-103-C0.0-COVR.dwg | Plotted on 3/30/2022 3:18 PM | by Jessica Denko THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN CHARLOTTESVILLE OFFICE 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200 | Charlottesville, VA 22903 TEL 434.295.5624 FAX 434.295.8317 www.timmons.com DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION 218 W MARKET STREET 11/19/2021 REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS 1/7/2022 REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS DATE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA SCALE 3/30/2022 REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS JOB NO. C0.1 1" = 10' DRAWN BY SHEET NO. J. DENKO J. DENKO 43750 CHECKED BY DESIGNED BY 08/10/2021 C. KOTARSKI SUP CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL These plans and associated documents are the exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and may not be reproduced in whole or in part and shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever, inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding, and/or construction staking without the express written consent of TIMMONS GROUP. GENERAL NOTES: DRAINAGE SITE PLAN LEGEND UTILITIES 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL EXERCISE CARE, ESPECIALLY AT INTERSECTIONS AND GUTTER LINES, TO PROVIDE POSITIVE 1. ANY DAMAGE TO EXISTING UTILITIES CAUSED BY CONTRACTOR OR ITS SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL BE DRAINAGE. ANY AREAS WHERE WATER IS IMPOUNDED SHALL BE CORRECTED BY CONTRACTOR AT NO EXISTING CONTRACTOR'S SOLE RESPONSIBILITY AND REPAIRED AT CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. ADDITIONAL COST. POSITIVE DRAINAGE OF ALL ROADWAY AREAS TO THE STORM DRAIN INLETS OR OTHER PROPERTY LINE X FENCE 2. ACCEPTABLE DRAINAGE CHANNELS AS NOTED ON THE PLANS IS REQUIRED. THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS DO NOT GUARANTEE THE EXISTENCE, NON-EXISTENCE OR LOCATION OF UTILITIES. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE EXISTENCE AND LOCATION OR THE NON-EXISTENCE OF UTILITIES. AT 2. LEAST CONTRACTOR 48 SHALL MAINTAIN EXISTING STREAMS, DITCHES, DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, CULVERTS AND FLOWS POST/BOLLARD XXX MAJOR CONTOUR HOURS PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION OR CONSTRUCTION, CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY MISS UTILITY AT ALL TIMES DURING THE WORK. CONTRACTOR SHALL PAY FOR ALL PERSONAL INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE SIGN XXX MINOR CONTOUR (1-800-552-7001) AND/OR THE RESPECTIVE UTILITY COMPANIES FOR GAS, WATER, SEWER, POWER, PHONE WHICH AND MAY OCCUR AS A RESULT OF FAILING TO MAINTAIN ADEQUATE DRAINAGE. TEL 434.295.5624 FAX 434.295.8317 www.timmons.com 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200 | Charlottesville, VA 22903 CABLE. CONTRACTOR SHALL TIMELY ARRANGE TO HAVE THE VARIOUS UTILITIES LOCATED, AND TO HAVE THEM 3. ALL PIPES, DI'S AND OTHER STRUCTURES SHALL BE INSPECTED BY THE ENGINEERING INSPECTOR BEFORE BEING BUMPER BLOCK SURVEY CONTROL MONUMENT REMOVED OR RELOCATED, OR TO DETERMINE THE METHOD OF PROTECTION ACCEPTABLE TO THE RESPECTIVE BACKFILLED OR BURIED. THE ENGINEERING INSPECTOR MAY REQUIRE CONTRACTOR, AT NO ADDITIONAL COST, OWNER, IF THE METHOD OF PROTECTION IS NOT OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONDUCT ITS TO UNCOVER AND RE-COVER SUCH STRUCTURES IF THEY HAVE BEEN BACKFILLED OR BURIED WITHOUT SUCH TC TRAFFIC CONTROL BOX SURVEY CONTROL POINT WORK IN THE VICINITY OF EXISTING UTILITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RESPECTIVE UTILITY'S RULES INSPECTION. AND REGULATIONS. ANY COST INCURRED FOR REMOVING, RELOCATING OR PROTECTING UTILITIES SHALL4. BE REMOVED BORNE PIPE SHALL BE THE PROPERTY OF CONTRACTOR AND IF NOT SALVAGED FOR RE-USE, SHALL BE U UNKNOWN MANHOLE BY CONTRACTOR UNLESS INDICATED OTHERWISE. CONTRACTOR SHALL EXCAVATE TO LOCATE BURIED UTILITIES DISPOSED OF LAWFULLY. THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE FAR ENOUGH IN ADVANCE OF ITS WORK TO ALLOW FOR HORIZONTAL AND /OR VERTICAL ADJUSTMENTS STORM SEWER 5. TO ALLITS STORM SEWER PIPE AND DROP INLETS SHALL BE CLEARED OF DEBRIS AND ERODED MATERIAL PRIOR TO PROPOSED CHARLOTTESVILLE OFFICE WORK AND/OR THE UTILITIES. NO ADJUSTMENT IN COMPENSATION OR SCHEDULE WILL BE ALLOWED FORFINAL ACCEPTANCE. D STORM SEWER MANHOLE DELAYS RESULTING FROM CONTRACTOR'S FAILURE TO CONTACT AND COORDINATE WITH UTILITIES. 6. ALL STORM SEWER PIPE JOINTS SHALL BE SEATED AND SEALED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUFACTURER'S W WATER 3. WHEN THE WORK CROSSES EXISTING UTILITIES, THE EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED SPECIFICATIONS. CATCH BASIN AND PROTECTED FROM DAMAGE DUE TO THE WORK. ALL METHODS FOR SUPPORTING AND MAINTAINING THE 7. ALL EXISTING ROOF DRAINS AND OTHER DRAINAGE CONDUIT TIED INTO EXISTING PIPE SHALL BE TIED INTO G GAS EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE RESPECTIVE UTILITY COMPANY AND/OR THE ENGINEER. NEW PIPE. ALL EXISTING ROOF DRAINS AND OTHER DRAINAGE CONDUIT BLOCKED OR DISRUPTED FROM THEIRSAN SANITARY SEWER CONTRACTOR SHALL EXERCISE CARE TO INSURE THAT THE GRADE AND ALIGNMENT OF EXISTING UTILITIES ARE PRE-CONSTRUCTION DRAINAGE PATTERNS SHALL BE SHORTENED, EXTENDED OR OTHERWISE CONNECTED TO S STORM REVISION DESCRIPTION MAINTAINED AND THAT NO JOINTS OR CONNECTIONS ARE DISPLACED. BACKFILL SHALL BE CAREFULLY PLACED THE NEW WORK USING MATERIALS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEERING INSPECTOR, AND IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE AND COMPACTED TO PREVENT FUTURE DAMAGE OR SETTLEMENT TO EXISTING UTILITIES. ANY UTILITIES NEW DRAINAGE PATTERNS ARE ACCEPTABLE TO ENGINEER. SAN SANITARY REMOVED AS PART OF THE WORK, AND NOT INDICATED TO BE REMOVED OR ABANDONED, SHALL BE RESTORED W WATER LINE CATCH BASIN USING MATERIALS AND INSTALLATION EQUAL TO THE UTILITY'S STANDARDS. WATER MANHOLE 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY LANDOWNERS, TENANTS AND THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO THE INTERRUPTION VEGETATION OF ANY W 1 STORM MANHOLE SERVICES. SERVICE INTERRUPTIONS SHALL BE KEPT TO A MINIMUM. WATER VALVE D 5. ALL RECTANGULAR WATER METER BOXES LOCATED IN SIDEWALKS SHALL BE REPLACED WITH ROUND 1. ONES. THETO REMOVING ANY VEGETATION, CONTRACTOR SHALL MEET WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS PRIOR SANITARY MANHOLE S ADJUSTMENT OF ALL MANHOLE TOPS, WATER VALVE BOXES, GAS VALVE BOXES AND WATER METER BOXES SHALL TO REVIEW THE LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION AND OBTAIN PERMISSION TO REMOVE VEGETATION ENGINEER FIRE HYDRANT E BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF CONTRACTOR. REQUIRED TO DO THE WORK. SANITARY CLEAN OUT G GAS LINE 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE CITY UTILITIES DIVISION AT LEAST TWO FULL WORKING DAYS IN2. ADVANCE TREE AND PLANT ROOTS OR BRANCHES THAT MAY INTERFERE WITH THE WORK SHALL BE TRIMMED OR CUT ONLY FIRE HYDRANT TO ARRANGE GAS SERVICE LINE ADJUSTMENTS TO BE PERFORMED BY THE CITY. WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE OWNER AND ENGINEER. ANY TREES OR PLANTS WHICH ARE SHOWN TO REMAIN GAS METER 7. ALL WATER METER, VALVES AND FIRE HYDRANT ADJUSTMENTS/RELOCATIONS SHALL BE COORDINATED OR THAT DO NOT INTERFERE WITH THE WORK, BUT ARE DAMAGED BY CONTRACTOR OR HIS SUBCONTRACTORS, FDC PERFORMED BY THE CONTRACTOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED BY CONTRACTOR AT NO ADDITIONAL COST. GAS MARKER UTILITIES REQUIREMENTS. METER UGT COMMUNICATIONS/TELEPHONE LINE TRAFFIC AND SIGNAGE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN SETBACK EROSION CONTROL & WORK AREA PROTECTION AND MAINTENANCE T TELEPHONE/COMMUNICATIONS MANHOLE WATER VALVE 1. ALL TEMPORARY NO PARKING REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR WITH APPROVAL OF THE COMMUNICATIONS VAULT 1. ALL FENCES REQUIRED TO BE REMOVED OR DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SALVAGED, STORED, TRAFFIC ENGINEER. BOLLARD PROTECTED AND RE-INSTALLED BY CONTRACTOR. IF SUCH FENCE MATERIAL CANNOT BE REUSED DUE2.TOCONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE NECESSARY REFLECTORS, BARRICADES, TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES AND/OR FLAG UGP ELECTRIC LINE 11/19/2021 3/30/2022 STREET SIGN 1/7/2022 DAMAGE CAUSED BY CONTRACTOR, CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL NEW FENCE OF THE SAME TYPE OF MATERIAL.PERSONS TO INSURE THE SAFETY OF ITS WORKERS AND THE PUBLIC. E ELECTRIC MANHOLE TEMPORARY FENCING REQUIRED BY PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS SHALL BE PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR. DATE 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN SAFE AND PASSABLE PUBLIC ACCESS TO PROPERTIES AND THE PUBLIC X FENCE CONTRACTOR IS ADVISED TO CONTACT PROPERTY OWNERS AT LEAST FORTY-EIGHT (48) HOURS IN ADVANCE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY DURING CONSTRUCTION. EXCEPT AS APPROVED IN ADVANCE IN WRITING BY THE ENGINEER, ELECTRIC PULLBOX REMOVING ANY FENCE IN ORDER TO COORDINATE RELOCATION AND TO ESTABLISH AND CONFIRM WITH THE TWO WAY TRAFFIC SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT ALL TIMES THROUGH WORK AREAS WITHIN THE PUBLIC XXX MAJOR CONTOUR OWNER THE PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONDITION OF ANY FENCE TO BE REMOVED, DISTURBED OR REPLACED.RIGHT-OF-WAY. THESE TRAFFIC CONTROLS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MOST CURRENT MUTCD ELECTRIC METER 2. CONTRACTOR IS PERMITTED TO WORK IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND ANY TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT MANUAL. ACCESS FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT ALL TIMES. ADDITIONALLY XXX MINOR CONTOUR DATE EASEMENT SHOWN ON THE PLANS. HOWEVER, CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY PROPERTY OWNER(S) FORTY-EIGHT CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ADEQUATE PEDESTRIAN BARRIERS AND MAINTAIN PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION UTILITY POLE (48) HOURS PRIOR TO WORKING ON ANY PRIVATE PROPERTY TO COORDINATE ACCESS AND TO DETERMINE DURING A CONSTRUCTION. SITE LIGHT 08/10/2021 STORAGE AREA FOR MATERIALS IF NEEDED. COORDINATION OF ACCESS TO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND DECIDUOUS TREE 4. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED IN WRITING BY THE ENGINEER, THE WORK SHALL BE COORDINATED AND X PARKING SPACE COUNT DRAWN BY STORAGE OF MATERIALS THEREON SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE ENGINEER. CONTRACTOR'S FAILURE TO PERFORMED IN A MANNER SO THAT ALL EXISTING FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE AT ALL TIMES DURING GUARDRAIL SO NOTIFY AND COORDINATE WITH PROPERTY OWNERS AND/OR THE ENGINEER MAY RESULT IN DELAYS. THE NO WORK. TC TOP OF CURB J. DENKO ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION OR TIME FOR PERFORMANCE WILL BE GIVEN FOR ANY SUCH DELAYS. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY PROPERTY OWNER(S) TWELVE (12) HOURS IN ADVANCE OF BLOCKING ANY 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL, AT HIS EXPENSE, MAINTAIN THE WORK SITE IN A CLEAN AND ORDERLY APPEARANCEENTRANCE. AT ALL NO ENTRANCE SHALL BE BLOCKED FOR MORE THAN TWELVE (12) HOURS IN ANY 24 HOUR PERIOD DESIGNED BY TIMES. ALL DEBRIS AND SURPLUS MATERIAL COLLECTED SHALL BE DISPOSED OF OFF THE WORK SITE BY WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE PROPERTY OWNER, EXCEPT WHERE NEW ENTRANCES ARE CONSTRUCTED. CONTRACTOR, AT HIS EXPENSE. J. DENKO 6. WITHIN 24 HOURS OF THEIR REMOVAL, CONTRACTOR SHALL REPLACE MAILBOXES, STREET SIGNS, TRAFFIC 4. EXISTING LAWNS, TREES, SHRUBS, FENCES, UTILITIES, CULVERTS, WALLS, WALKS, DRIVEWAYS, POLES, SIGNS, SIGNS, AND THE LIKE THAT ARE REMOVED FOR CONSTRUCTION. PERMANENT OR SUITABLE TEMPORARY ITEMS GRADING CHECKED BY RIGHT-OF-WAY MONUMENTS, MAILBOXES AND THE LIKE SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM DAMAGE DURING THE WILL BE USED AS THE STATUS OF WORK PERMITS. PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY STOP SIGNS MUST BE IN TC PLACE = TOP OF CURB WORK. ANY DAMAGE CAUSED TO SUCH ITEMS SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED BY CONTRACTOR AT NOAT ALL TIMES. BC = BOTTOM OF CURB C. KOTARSKI ADDITIONAL COST. PROPERTY PINS DISTURBED BY CONTRACTOR THAT ARE NOT SHOWN ON THE PLANS 7. TO BE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING THE CITY TRAFFIC DIVISION ONE FULL WORKINGEP DAY = EDGE OF PAVEMENT DISTURBED SHALL BE RESTORED BY A LICENSED SURVEYOR AT CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. PRIOR TO ANY CONCRETE POUR WHERE TRAFFIC AND STREET SIGNS ARE TO BE REPLACED. UPON SUCH EC = EDGE OF CONCRETE SCALE 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL EMPLOY EROSION CONTROL DEVICES AND METHODS AS REQUIRED TO MEET THE NOTIFICATION, THE CITY WILL PROVIDE SIGN POST SLEEVES, WHEN NEEDED, AND IDENTIFY THE LOCATION TW = TOP OF WALL 1" = 10' REQUIREMENTS AND INTENT OF THE CITY EROSION CONTROL ORDINANCE. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDEWHERE THE SIGNS ARE TO BE PLACED. BW = BOTTOM OF WALL NECESSARY DIVERSION DITCHES, DIKES OR TEMPORARY CULVERTS REQUIRED TO PREVENT MUD AND8. DEBRIS ALL SIGNAGE AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE SHOWN ON PLANS AND SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE TS = TOP OF STAIRS FROM BEING WASHED ONTO THE STREETS OR PROPERTY. CONTRACTOR'S VEHICLES SHALL BE KEPT CLEAN TO MUTCD. BS = BOTTOM OF STAIRS PREVENT MUD OR DUST FROM BEING DEPOSITED ON STREETS. NO AREA SHALL BE LEFT DENUDED FOR 9. MORE A TEMPORARY STREET CLOSURE PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR CLOSURE OF SIDEWALKS, PARKING PACES, AND THAN SEVEN (7) CALENDAR DAYS. ROADWAYS AND IS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER. GENERAL NOTES 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL CLEAN UP, RESTORE, PERMANENTLY SEED AND MAINTAIN ALL DISTURBED AREAS IMMEDIATELY UPON COMPLETION OF WORK ON EACH SITE. TOPSOIL, SEED, FERTILIZER AND MULCH SHALL BE 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL REQUIREMENTS FOR AS BUILT DOCUMENTATION, AS REQUIRED BY THE LOCALITY. THIS INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT PLACED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY STANDARDS ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS. A PERMANENT STAND OF MISCELLANEOUS GRASS LIMITED TO, TESTING, INSTALLATION DOCUMENTATION, SURVEY, ETC. ALL ADEQUATE TO PREVENT EROSION SHALL BE ESTABLISHED PRIOR TO FINAL ACCEPTANCE. 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS, INSPECTIONS, BONDS, AND OTHER APPROVAL RELATED REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE DISCUSSED WITH THE LOCALITY PRIOR TO BEGINNING 7. AS DETERMINED BY THE ENGINEER, ANY DEFECTIVE, FAULTY, CRACKED, BROKEN OR GRAFFITIED SIDEWALKS, These plans and associated documents are the exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and may not be reproduced in whole or in part and shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever, inclusive, but not CONSTRUCTION. DRIVEWAYS, HANDICAP RAMPS OR CURB & GUTTER SHALL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED PRIOR TO FINAL ITEMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL POLICIES. CONTACT 2. ALL MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENT ACCEPTANCE. NO ADDITIONAL PAYMENT WILL BE MADE FOR SUCH WORK. FOR CITY STREET/SIDEWALK CUT PERMITS, PLEASE CALL (434) 970-3361. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS. 2. THE 8. IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ADHERE TO REQUESTS FROM THE CITY'S E&S INSPECTOR CONTRACTOR WILL BE REQUIRED TO PLACE “DEAR NEIGHBOR” DOOR HANGER NOTIFICATIONS ON THE 3. PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSULT THE ENGINEER TO ADD OR MODIFY E&S MEASURES DURING CONSTRUCTION. FRONT DOOR OF ALL RESIDENCES AFFECTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION AND “SIDEWALK” SAFETY SIGNS AT EACH AND VERIFY THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANS BY ALL FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LOCATION WITH WORKING CREWS. THIS SHALL BE DONE PRIOR TO ANY WORK STARTING. AGENCIES. 3. WATER METERS THAT ARE TO BE MOVED SHALL BE MOVED COMPLETELY IN THE SIDEWALK OR COMPLETELY OUT 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE ELEVATIONS OF ALL POINTS OF CONNECTION OR PROPOSED WORK TO EXISTING CURBS, EXISTING ASPHALT, SANITARY LINES, EARTHWORK AND SITE CONDITIONS OF THE SIDEWALK. WATER METERS MOVED IN THE SIDEWALK SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN 18" OF THE EDGE. WATERLINES, ETC, PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 4. RETAINING WALLS WITH A MAX HEIGHT OF 12" OR LESS SHALL BE POURED IN CONTINUITY WITH THE SIDEWALK. 218 W MARKET STREET 5. UPON DISCOVERY OF SOILS THAT ARE UNSUITABLE FOR FOUNDATIONS, SUBGRADES, WALLS WITH A MAX HEIGHT GREATER THAN 12" SHALL BE SEGMENTAL BLOCK WALLS. OR OTHER ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL 1. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON THE PLANS, ALL CUTS AND FILLS SHALL MATCH EXISTING SLOPES OR BE NO GREATER THAN 2:1. 5. ALL SIGNS TO BE RELOCATED SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN 6 INCHES BEHIND THE BACK EDGE OF THE SIDEWALK. IMMEDIATELY CONTACT THE OWNER. THESE AREAS SHALL BE EXCAVATED BELOW PLAN 6. MAILBOXES SHALL BE RELOCATED TO THE FRONT OF THE SIDEWALK BUT SHALL ALSO PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 3 GRADE AS DIRECTED BY THE OWNER, BACKFILLED WITH SUITABLE MATERIAL AND 2. NO NEW SIDEWALK SHALL EXCEED 2.0% CROSS-SLOPE (PERPENDICULAR TO THE DIRECTION OF PEDESTRIAN COMPACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENT. TRAFFIC). FEET OF CLEARANCE BEHIND THE MAILBOX TO MEET ADA REQUIREMENTS. 6. ALL STORM SEWER DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH VDOT I 7. EXISTING ROOF DRAINS SHALL BE ROUTED THROUGH SIDEWALK. ROOF DRAINS LARGER THAN 4" WILL REQUIRE AND I LD-94 (D) 121.13. 3. ALL GRADING AND IMPROVEMENTS TO BE CONFINED TO THE PROJECT AREA UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. A TROUGH DRAIN. 7. ALL RCP STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE REINFORCED TONGUE AND GROVE CONCRETE 4. ALL MATERIALS AND INSTALLATION DETAILS SHALL CONFORM TO THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE ENGINEERING CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA NOTES & DETAILS DIVISION STANDARDS AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE CITY ORDINANCES. PIPE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM-C-76. PIPE SHALL BE MINIMUM CLASS III OR GREATER IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENT VDOT STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 5. ANY UNUSUAL OR UNANTICIPATED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY REPORTED TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT 8. IF PRE-CAST UNITS ARE TO BE USED CERTIFICATION AND VDOT STAMP WILL BE S:\103\43750-218_W_Market\DWG\Sheet\PRELIM SITE PLAN\43750-103-C1.0-NTDT.dwg | Plotted on 3/30/2022 3:18 PM | by Jessica Denko ENGINEER. REQUIRED ON ALL UNITS. 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS, ELEVATIONS AND LOCATIONS PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK,1. BUILDING AND STREET NUMBERS SHALL BE PLAINLY VISIBLE FROM STREET. 9. ALL CONCRETE SHALL BE A3-AE (AIR ENTRAINED 3,000 PSI), UNLESS OTHERWISE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IN THE EVENT THERE ARE ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN SUCH 2. A KNOXBOX KEY BOX SHALL BE MOUNTED TO THE SIDE OF THE FRONT OR MAIN ENTRANCE. NOTED. CONDITIONS AND THOSE SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 3. AN ELEVATOR KEYBOX WILL BE REQUIRED. 10. DESIGN CHANGES, SPECIFIED MATERIALS CHANGES AND/OR FIELD CHANGES FROM 4. OVERHEAD WIRING OR OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE HIGHER THAN 13.5'. THE APPROVED PLANS NEED TO BE RESUBMITTED TO THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO 5. AN APPROVED WATER SUPPLY DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE AS SOON AS COMBUSTIBLE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. A LETTER OF EXPLANATION SHALL ACCOMPANY THE CONCRETE AND ASPHALT MATERIAL ARRIVES ON SITE. REVISED PLANS AND/OR THE DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS, WHICH MUST BE SUBMITTED AND APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. 6. IF THE FLOOR LEVEL OF THE HIGHEST STORY IS MORE THAN 30' ABOVE THE LOWEST LEVEL OF FIRE DEPARTMENT 11. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND limited to construction, bidding, and/or construction staking without the express written consent of TIMMONS GROUP. 1. ALL FORMS SHALL BE INSPECTED BY THE ENGINEERING INSPECTOR BEFORE ANY CONCRETE IS PLACED. THE VEHICLE ACCESS, THEN A CLASS I STANDPIPE SYSTEM MUST BE INSTALLED IN ADDITION TO THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM. UTILITIES SHOWN ON PLANS IN AREAS OF CONSTRUCTION PRIOR TO STARTING WORK. ENGINEER INSPECTOR MAY REQUIRE CONTRACTOR, AT NO ADDITIONAL COST, TO REMOVE AND REPLACE 7. WHERE A BUILDING HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED TO A HEIGHT GREATER THAN 50' OR FOUR STORIES, AT LEAST ONE CONTACT ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF LOCATION OR ELEVATION IS DIFFERENT FROM CONCRETE PLACED PRIOR TO OR WITHOUT SUCH INSPECTION. TEMPORARY LIGHTED STAIRWELL SHALL BE PROVIDED UNLESS OR MORE PERMANENT STAIR ARE ERECTED AS THE THAT SHOWN ON PLAN. IF THERE APPEARS TO BE A CONFLICT, AND/OR UPON CONSTRUCTION 2. ALL MATERIAL INSIDE FORMS SHALL BE CLEAN AND FREE OF ALL ROCKS AND OTHER LOOSE DEBRIS. SUB-BASE PROGRESSES. DISCOVERY OF ANY UTILITY NOT SHOWN ON THIS PLAN, CALL MISS UTILITY OF MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPACTED BY MECHANICAL MEANS. 8. BUILDINGS FOUR OR MORE STORIES IN HEIGHT SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH NOT LESS THAN ONE STANDPIPE OR CENTRAL USE VIRGINIA AT 1-800-552-7001. DURING CONSTRUCTION. SUCH STANDPIPES SHALL BE INSTALLED WHEN THE PROGRESS OF CONSTRUCTION 12.IS THE NOT INSTALLATION OF SEWER, WATER, AND GAS MAINS (INCLUDING SERVICE 3. CONCRETE SHALL NOT BE PLACED UNLESS THE AIR TEMPERATURE IS AT LEAST 40 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT (F) IN LATERALS AND SLEEVES) SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE SHADE AND RISING. MORE THAN 40' IN HEIGHT ABOVE THE LOWEST LEVEL OF FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS. SUCH STANDPIPE SHALL BE AGGREGATE BASE COURSE. 4. CONCRETE SHALL NOT BE PLACED UNTIL STEEL DOWELS HAVE BEEN INSTALLED IN EXISTING CONCRETE IN PROVIDED WITH FIRE DEPARTMENT HOSE CONNECTIONS AT ACCESSIBLE LOCATIONS ADJACENT TO USABLE13. STAIRS. A PRIME COAT SEAL BETWEEN THE AGGREGATE BASE AND BITUMINOUS CONCRETE ACCORDANCE WITH CITY STANDARDS. SUCH STANDPIPES SHALL BE EXTENDED AS CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSES TO WITHIN ONE FLOOR OF THE HIGHEST WILL BE REQUIRED AT THE RATE OF 0.30 GALLONS PER SQUARE YARD (REC-250 PRIME 5. 1/2” PREMOLDED EXPANSION JOINT MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED AT A MAXIMUM OF 30' INTERVALS ON NEW POINT OF CONSTRUCTION HAVING SECURED DECKING OR FLOORING. COAT) PER VDOT STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 9. SMOKING SIDEWALK, CURB, CURB & GUTTER, AT EACH END OF DRIVEWAY ENTRANCES, AT EACH END OF HANDICAP RAMPS, TO BE ALLOWED IN ONLY DESIGNATED SPACES WITH PROPER RECEPTACLES. "NO SMOKING" SIGNS 14. SHALL BE THE SCHEDULING OF AGGREGATE BASE INSTALLATION AND SUBSEQUENT PAVING SOME POINT ON ENTRANCE WALKS AND STEPS ADJUSTMENTS, AND ALONG BUILDINGS AND WALLS WHERE NEW POSTED AT EACH BUILDING SITE AND WITHIN EACH BUILDING DURING CONSTRUCTION. ACTIVITIES SHALL ACCOMMODATE FORECAST WEATHER CONDITIONS PER SECTION CONCRETE SIDEWALKS ARE PLACED AGAINST THEM. 10. WASTE DISPOSAL OF COMBUSTIBLE DEBRIS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE BUILDING AT THE END OF EACH WORKDAY. 315 OFTHE ROAD AND BRIDGE SPECIFICATIONS. 11. CUTTING AND WELDING. OPERATIONS INVOLVING THE USE OF CUTTING AND WELDING SHALL BE DONE IN 15. THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE SHALL HAVE APPROVED THE AGGREGATE BASE 6. ALL EXISTING CURBS, CURB & GUTTER, SIDEWALK AND STEPS TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE TAKEN OUT TO THE ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 35, OF THE VIRGINIA STATEWIDE FIRE PREVENTION CODE, ADDRESSING WELDING AND COURSE(S) FOR DEPTH, TEMPLATE AND PERFORMED THE REQUIRED FIELD INSPECTION NEAREST JOINT. DEMOLITION AND DISPOSAL COST TO BE INCLUDED IN OTHER UNIT BID ITEMS. NO SEPARATE HOTWORK OPERATIONS. (PROOF ROLL) PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF ANY SURFACE COURSE(S). CONTACT THE PAYMENT WILL BE MADE FOR THIS WORK. OWNER FOR INSPECTION FOR THE AGGREGATE BASE COURSE(S) 48 HOURS PRIOR TO 12. FIRE EXINGUISHERS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH NOT LESS THAN ONE APPROVED PORTABLE FIRE EXTINGUISHER APPLICATION AT EACH OF THE SURFACE COURSE(S). 7. DRIVEWAY ADJUSTMENTS ARE TO BE DONE IN GENTLE TRANSITIONS RATHER THAN ABRUPT BREAKS AT THE STAIRWAY ON ALL FLOOR LEVELS WHERE COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN ACCUMULATED. BACK OF WALKS. GRAVEL DRIVEWAYS ABOVE STREET GRADE SHALL BE PAVED FOR A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 20' 16. ALL VEGETATION AND ORGANIC MATERIAL MATERIAL IS TO BE REMOVED FROM THE 13. REQUIRED VEHICLE ACCESS FOR FIRE FIGHTING SHALL BE PROVIDED TO ALL CONSTRUCTION OR DEMOLITION SITES. PROPOSED PAVEMENT LIMITS PRIOR TO CONDITIONING OF THE SUBGRADE. BEYOND THE BACK OF THE SIDEWALK OR CURB & GUTTER APRON WHERE APPLICABLE. VEHICLE ACCESS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITHIN 100' OF TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONS. 17. CERTIFICATION AND SOURCE OF MATERIALS ARE TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE OWNER 8. EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT SHALL BE SAW CUT AND REMOVED AS PER THE SPECIFICATIONS. REMOVAL VEHICLE SHALL ACCESS SHALL BE PROVIDED BY EITHER TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT ROADS, CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING FOR ALL MATERIALS AND BE IN ACCORDANCE THEWITH ROAD AND BRIDGE BE DONE IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO NOT TEAR, BULGE OR DISPLACE ADJACENT PAVEMENT. EDGES SHALL BE VEHICLE LOADING UNDER ALL WEATHER CONDITIONS. VEHICLE ACCESS SHALL BE MAINTAINED UNTIL PERMANENT FIRE SPECIFICATIONS, AND ROAD AND BRIDGE STANDARDS . CLEAN AND VERTICAL, ALL CUTS SHALL BE PARALLEL OR PERPENDICULAR TO THE DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC. APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS ARE AVAILABLE. ALL PAVEMENT SHALL BE CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING FIRE APPARATUS 18. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION/MAINTENANCE OF 9. DISPOSAL OF ALL EXCESS MATERIAL IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF CONTRACTOR. WEIGHING 85,000LBS. TRAFFIC PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES CONTAINED 14. A PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR FIRE LINE INSTALLATION. A DETAILED DRAWING (2 SETS) SHOWING FITTINGS AND THRUST IN THE 2011 EDITION OF THE VIRGINIA WORK AREA PROTECTION MANUEL FOR REVIEW BY THE ENGINEER, OWNER AND CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE PRIOR TO BLOCKS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH THE PERMIT APPLICATION. ONCE INSTALLED, THE FIRE LINE REQUIRES A VISUAL STARTING WORK THAT IMPACTS TRAFFIC ON PUBLIC ROADS. INSPECTION AND A PRESSURE TEST INSPECTION BY THE FIRE MARSHALL'S OFFICE. 19. ALL NEW HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE REQUIREMENTS ON-SITE AND WITHIN ALL 15. FIRE HYDRANTS, FIRE PUMP TEST HEADER, FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONS OR FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM CONTROL STRUCTURES SHALL COMPLY WITH THE 2018 UNIFORM STATEWIDE BUILDING CODE, JOB NO. VALVES SHALL REMAIN CLEAR AND UNOBSTRUCTED BY LANDSCAPING, PARKING OR OTHER OBJECTS. LANDSCAPING IN 2009 VIRGINIA CONSTRUCTION CODE, 2010 ADA STANDARDS FOR ACCESSIBLE THE AREA OF THESE ITEMS SHALL BE OF THE TYPE THAT WILL NOT ENCROACH ON THE REQUIRED FIVE FOOT RADIUS DESIGNON AND ICC/ANSI A117.1-03 43750 MATURITY OF THE LANDSCAPING. 20. HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SIGHT DISTANCES SHALL BE FREE OF PARKED VEHICLES. 16. NO VEHICLE/MACHINERY OF ANY TYPE, CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS OR CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS IS TO BE PARKED SHEET NO. WITHIN 15 FT OF EITHER SIDE OR IN FRONT OF A FIRE HYDRANT. C1.0 S:\103\43750-218_W_Market\DWG\Sheet\PRELIM SITE PLAN\43750-103-C1.0-NTDT.dwg | Plotted on 3/30/2022 3:18 PM | by Jessica Denko SETTER IS A MCDONALD 720B712WFFF775 NOTE: CURRENT CITY STANDARD FOR 2" METER THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN CHARLOTTESVILLE OFFICE 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200 | Charlottesville, VA 22903 TEL 434.295.5624 FAX 434.295.8317 www.timmons.com DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION 218 W MARKET STREET 11/19/2021 REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS 1/7/2022 REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS DATE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA SCALE 3/30/2022 REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS JOB NO. C1.1 1" = 10' DRAWN BY SHEET NO. J. DENKO J. DENKO 43750 CHECKED BY DESIGNED BY 08/10/2021 C. KOTARSKI DETAILS These plans and associated documents are the exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and may not be reproduced in whole or in part and shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever, inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding, and/or construction staking without the express written consent of TIMMONS GROUP. HANDICAP SIGN EOP LOCATION (VAN) HANDICAP SIGN LOCATION (TYP.) VA. SIGN FOR THE DISABLED ON 0.80 GAUGE ALUMINUM. COLORS: GREEN BORDER & FACE OF LEGEND, BLUE SYMBOL FOR ACCESSIBILITY, CONCRETE BUMPER CURB WHITE BACKGROUND. BLOCK ANCHOR WITH PAINTED 2% MAX. 18' 18' 5/8" REBAR IMBEDDED PER VDOT 4" 24" IN GROUND TEL 434.295.5624 FAX 434.295.8317 www.timmons.com 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200 | Charlottesville, VA 22903 SPEC. PAINTED 4" STRIPE (TYPICAL) 8' 5' 8' 8' 8' 9' TYPICAL VAN ACCESSIBLE ACCESSIBLE THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE HANDICAP SPACES REGULAR SPACE CHARLOTTESVILLE OFFICE TYPICAL PARKING SPACE DETAILS No Scale REVISION DESCRIPTION 6' ABOVE 6' ABOVE FINISHED FINISHED GRADE GRADE SPACES SHALL BE IDENTIFIED BY ABOVE GRADE SIGNS AS RESERVED FOR PHYSICALLY REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS DISABLED PERSONS. PROVIDE ONE (1) R-7-8 SIGN AT EACH PARKING SPACE INDICATED ON SITE PLAN. SIGN SHALL BE ALUMINUM (PAINTED WHITE) WITH GREEN LETTERS AND INTERNATIONAL WHEELCHAIR SYMBOL. SIGN SHALL BE PLACED ON STEEL POST 1-1/2" O PAINTED BLACK SET IN MIN. 2' OF CONCRETE. PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN ADA PARKING SIGNS No Scale 11/19/2021 3/30/2022 1/7/2022 DATE DATE 08/10/2021 DRAWN BY J. DENKO DESIGNED BY J. DENKO CHECKED BY C. KOTARSKI SCALE 1" = 10' These plans and associated documents are the exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and may not be reproduced in whole or in part and shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever, inclusive, but not 218 W MARKET STREET CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA S:\103\43750-218_W_Market\DWG\Sheet\PRELIM SITE PLAN\43750-103-C1.0-NTDT.dwg | Plotted on 3/30/2022 3:18 PM | by Jessica Denko DETAILS limited to construction, bidding, and/or construction staking without the express written consent of TIMMONS GROUP. 0.80 GAUGE ALUMINUM. COLORS: RED BORDER & TEXT, WHITE BACKGROUND. NO PARKING ANYTIME TOW-AWAY ZONE 6' ABOVE FINISHED GRADE NO PARKING ANYTIME TOW-AWAY ZONE SIGN No Scale JOB NO. 43750 SHEET NO. C1.2 G OHP W OHP TM# 330274000 ESCAFE BUILDING, LLC D.B. 1030 PG. 765 TM# 330271000 MCSWAIN PROPERTIES, LLC SMH 09-428 D.B. 793 PG. 817 TOP=451.72' INV IN=445.00' 8" DI OHP INV IN=451.72' 6" PVC OHP G AN TEL 434.295.5624 FAX 434.295.8317 www.timmons.com 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200 | Charlottesville, VA 22903 INV OUT=444.96' 8" DI 8'' S SD GRATE W TOP=449.46' NAIL FOUND INV OUT=445.06' 30" CMP IN BUILDING FACE P IRON ROD BRICK WALL WATER MOVING THROUGH RC FOUND STRUCTURE CAN'T SEE INV. IN ALK 18" OHP THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE ASPHALT ASPHALT OHP .W OHP CHARLOTTESVILLE OFFICE 10" DEC OHP 18" DEC 10" DEC 10" DEC 12" DUMPSTER NC OHP DEC PAD 10" DEC G S P 12" DEC S OH 30" DEC D CO CURB OHP CURB 12" DEC OHP FL OHP FL W P OHP REVISION DESCRIPTION OH OHP OHP 456 . OHP NC OHP OHP 5 30" DEC CO 45 CP AN 12" DEC 8'' S TO 30" R P OH G REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS P 4 OH 45 MHD CE OHP ANGES W TOP=452.63' OHP FLUSH CURB ENTRAN 17 PARKING SPACES INV IN=448.73' 18" RCP G 7.6' P ASPHALT INV IN=449.86' 6" PVC OH 455 E 448 CMP CH 3 INV OUT=448.51' 18" RCP NC 45 P RC RA ASPHALT AN G W 8'' S NT 9 18" 0 44 451 45 OHP 452 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN BE 30" ASPHALT UR 6 PARKING SPACES C 6 PARKING SPACES OHP W G SH 4.5' FLU 11/19/2021 454 447 3/30/2022 30" DEC 1/7/2022 12" DEC 50' PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY DATE MARKET STREET SD INLET W/ GRATE SD INLET W/ GRATE OHP G TOP=449.35' TOP=446.52' W AN . NC INV OUT=447.28' 12" RCP INV IN=444.25' 12" RCP 8'' S CONC. WALK CONC. INV OUT=444.16' 12" RCP CO DATE OHP 12" RCP G 08/10/2021 E NC 453 P W FL FL RC DRAWN BY OHP RA 15" CURB T CURB P J. DENKO EN TW-451.47' TW-451.41' RC 18" G 1.5' COLUMNS W 449.79' RB 451.96' CONC. STEPS (TYP) DESIGNED BY 16" DEC 449.97' CONC. STEPS OHP 4 RUNS 5 RISERS AN 7 RUNS 8 RISERS CU METAL HANDRAIL 6.8' CONC. J. DENKO 8'' S METAL HANDRAIL 451.95' CONC. D SD INLET/MHD SH G 451.96' 449.96' 449.96' 449.96' 446 452 CHECKED BY S62°53'38"E TOP=445.70' D FLU OHP 25.01' BLDG. HEIGHT INV IN=441.85' 30" RCP(E) METAL BLDG. HEIGHT THRESHOLD 449.97' 474.54' PEAK C. KOTARSKI BLDG. HEIGHT BLDG. HEIGHT INV IN=441.60' 15" RCP MHD W HANDRAIL 468.55' E 468.51' 466.72' INV IN=441.61' 30" RCP(S) TOP=447.52' 10-IN CI LIN SCALE Y INV OUT=440.05' 36" RCP INV IN=444.75' 18" RCP A CP OHP CONC. STEPS F-W 1" = 10' G INV OUT=444.71' 18" RCP IGH UE W 3 RUNS 4 RISERS CURB R T-O 36" 451 C R EN 4.7' FL 8.6' G OHP AN 5' K P BLI AV 8'' S AL RC S56°28'06"E 450.37' .W 24.98' 18" TH ON CITY PID: 330276000 445 NC MARKET STREET PROMENADE, LLC OHP CO W G PU WID EST 450 INST. NO. 20170003093 RB ZONED: DH G These plans and associated documents are the exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and may not be reproduced in whole or in part and shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever, inclusive, but not W BLE R OHP CU 16" DEC 2" WATER METER FL RIA LD P G AN O 8'' S S50°08'48"E METAL 44 OHP 449 DD VA CON C. HANDRAIL 4 24.91' SMH 09-427 12.3' TOP=443.65' W MHD DWS W OHP 218 W MARKET STREET THRESHOLD 450.00' TOP=445.65' G INV IN=439.70' 8" DI LK 1 STORY BRICK BUILDING W FL INV OUT=439.64' 8" DI INV IN=442.95' 18" RCP WA 1.5' COLUMNS RB 218 WEST MARKET STREET (TYP) INV OUT=442.83' 18" RCP ALK CU G 3.6' . NC 448 S EXISTING CONDITIONS OHP C. W CO GS 443 N CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA CON ILI OHP 449.90' RA 23.8' L W G TA FF=441.16' S:\103\43750-218_W_Market\DWG\Sheet\PRELIM SITE PLAN\43750-103-C2.0-EXIS.dwg | Plotted on 3/30/2022 3:19 PM | by Jessica Denko ME N W SA 447 N45°01'53"W BLDG. HEIGHT SLIDING DOOR LE 8'' 468.54' G 18.12' 5.14' WIDE AB OHP RT 18" DEC BLDG. HEIGHT PO FL RB 464.60' OHP 442 CU BLDG. HEIGHT CONC. WALLS P 466.55' W/HANDRAILS RC limited to construction, bidding, and/or construction staking without the express written consent of TIMMONS GROUP. 446 G THRESHOLD 450.08' W 18" AT 3' DOOR BLDG. HEIGHT N 449.97' W S41°20'59"E SA OHP 466.49' G 8'' 4.96' G PROPERTY LINE ALONG CENTERLINE OF PARTY WALL OHP METAL HANDRAIL DRILL HOLE SET NOTE: ALL UTILITIES ARE LABELED AND SHOWN AS TM# 330278000 8.72' 441 44 IN CONC. WALK MARKED BY MISS UTILITY. MISS UTILITY TICKET INDICATED SD GRATE 5 JOHN CONOVER AND WATER LINES WERE PRIVATE AND THEREFORE NOT TOP=444.87' CHISELED X 3' DOOR VIRGINIA DAUGHERTY, TRUSTEES FOUND IN MARKED. MISS UTILITY TICKET INDICATED GAS LINES MAY INV OUT=442.57' 12" RCP CONC. WALK TM# 330277000 D.B. 984 PG. 34 BE ABANDONED AND WERE NOT MARKED. MATERIALS D OHP LIGHT HOUSE STUDIO WERE NOT MARKED BY MISS UTILITY. G N W ROOF OVERHANG SA LR.# 201500001506 OHP E 8'' NA P RC D8 SD GRATE 24" 3 S TOP=444.99' INV OUT=442.64' 12" RCP MHD 440 MHD TOP=441.88' OHP TOP=438.69' G INV IN=438.77' 18" RCP INV IN=434.04' 36" RCP INV OUT=437.23' 24" RCP OHP INV IN=433.89' 24" RCP W N SA INV OUT=432.20' 36" RCP 8'' D G SCALE 1"=10' OHP 0 10' 20' OHP S S JOB NO. G W P 43750 RC SMH 09-426 " TOP=439.02' 36 SHEET NO. INV IN=433.78' 8" DI G INV IN=433.83' 8" DI FROM BLDG C2.0 INV IN=433.79' 10" DI FROM OMNI G OHP W OHP TM# 330274000 ESCAFE BUILDING, LLC D.B. 1030 PG. 765 TM# 330271000 MCSWAIN PROPERTIES, LLC SMH 09-428 D.B. 793 PG. 817 TOP=451.72' INV IN=445.00' 8" DI OHP INV IN=451.72' 6" PVC OHP G AN TEL 434.295.5624 FAX 434.295.8317 www.timmons.com 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200 | Charlottesville, VA 22903 INV OUT=444.96' 8" DI 8'' S SD GRATE W TOP=449.46' NAIL FOUND REMOVE INV OUT=445.06' 30" CMP IN BUILDING FACE P IRON ROD BRICK WALL WATER MOVING THROUGH RC FOUND STRUCTURE CAN'T SEE INV. IN ALK 18" OHP X THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE ASPHALT ASPHALT OHP .W OHP 10" DEC X CHARLOTTESVILLE OFFICE X X X X OHP 18" DEC X X 12" DUMPSTER 10" DEC 10" DEC NC OHP DEC PAD 10" DEC G REMOVE REMOVE S P 12" DEC S OH 30" DEC D CO CURB OHP CURB 12" DEC OHP X FL REMOVE INLET OHP FL W P OHP OH REVISION DESCRIPTION OHP OHP 456 C. OHP OHP N OHP 5 30" DEC CO 45 " RCP X AN 12" DEC 8'' S P OH G 30 REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS GES TO P 4 OH 45 MHD CE OHP W REMOVE TOP=452.63' OHP FLUSH CURB ENTRAN 17 PARKING SPACES INV IN=448.73' 18" RCP N G REMOVE INV IN=449.86' 6" PVC A P ASPHALT OH 455 E 448 H 3 INV OUT=448.51' 18" RCP C 45 C REMOVE P AN RC MP ASPHALT AN TR G W 8'' S 9 18" 30" C 0 44 EN 451 45 OHP 452 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN ASPHALT RB REMOVE REMOVE CURB REMOVE CU 6 PARKING SPACES 6 PARKING SPACES OHP W G SH FLU 454 11/19/2021 447 3/30/2022 30" DEC 1/7/2022 12" DEC REMOVE 50' PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY X DATE X MARKET STREET SD INLET W/ GRATE SD INLET W/ GRATE OHP G TOP=449.35' TOP=446.52' W AN . NC INV OUT=447.28' 12" RCP INV IN=444.25' 12" RCP 8'' S CONC. WALK CONC. REMOVE INLET INV OUT=444.16' 12" RCP CO REMOVE OHP DATE 12" RCP REMOVE INLET G 08/10/2021 E NC 453 P W FL FL RC REMOVE COLUMNS DRAWN BY OHP RA (TYP.) 15" CURB T CURB J. DENKO CP EN TW-451.47' TW-451.41' R REMOVE COLUMN 18" G 1.5' COLUMNS W 449.79' RB 16" DEC 451.96' (TYP.) CONC. STEPS 449.97' REMOVE (TYP) COLUMN REMOVE COLUMNS CONC. STEPS DESIGNED BY OHP 4 RUNS 5 RISERS (TYP.) AN 7 RUNS 8 RISERS CU REMOVE METAL HANDRAILS METAL HANDRAIL CONC. (TYP.) J. DENKO 8'' S METAL HANDRAIL 451.95' CONC. D SD INLET/MHD SH G 451.96' 449.96' 449.96' 449.96' 446 452 S62°53'38"E TOP=445.70' D CHECKED BY FLU OHP 25.01' BLDG. HEIGHT REMOVE METAL HANDRAIL INV IN=441.85' 30" RCP(E) METAL BLDG. HEIGHT THRESHOLD 449.97' 474.54' PEAK C. KOTARSKI BLDG. HEIGHT BLDG. HEIGHT INV IN=441.60' 15" RCP MHD W HANDRAIL 468.55' E 468.51' 466.72' INV IN=441.61' 30" RCP(S) TOP=447.52' 10-IN CI LIN SCALE Y REMOVE INV OUT=440.05' 36" RCP INV IN=444.75' 18" RCP A P OHP CONC. STEPS F-W 1" = 10' G RC INV OUT=444.71' 18" RCP IGH UE W 3 RUNS 4 RISERS CURB T-O 36" 451 C R EN FL G OHP AN ALK P BLI AV 8'' S RC S56°28'06"E 450.37' .W 24.98' 18" TH ON CITY PID: 330276000 445 NC MARKET STREET PROMENADE, LLC OHP CO W G PU WID EST 450 INST. NO. 20170003093 REMOVE WATER METER BOX RB ZONED: DH G These plans and associated documents are the exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and may not be reproduced in whole or in part and shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever, inclusive, but not REMOVE W BLE R OHP CU 16" DEC REMOVE COLUNM 2" WATER METER REMOVE FL P (TYP.) EXISTING VA OLD SSWR G LATERAL AN RIA 8'' S S50°08'48"E METAL 44 OHP 449 CON C. HANDRAIL DD 4 24.91' REMOVE CURB REMOVE METAL HANDRAIL SMH 09-427 TOP=443.65' W MHD DWS W OHP REMOVE 218 W MARKET STREET THRESHOLD 450.00' TOP=445.65' G INV IN=439.70' 8" DI ALK 1 STORY BRICK BUILDING W FL 1.5' COLUMNS INV OUT=439.64' 8" DI INV IN=442.95' 18" RCP RB 218 WEST MARKET STREET .W (TYP) INV OUT=442.83' 18" RCP LK CU G NC 448 REMOVE COLUNM S A REMOVE EXISTING WATERLINE. OHP (TYP.) C. W CO NA D8 GS PLACE CAP AT CONNECTION 443 3 N DEMOLITION PLAN CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA CON ILI OHP 449.90' REMOVE HANDRAILS LRA W G TA S:\103\43750-218_W_Market\DWG\Sheet\PRELIM SITE PLAN\43750-103-C2.1-DEMO.dwg | Plotted on 3/30/2022 3:19 PM | by Jessica Denko FF=441.16' ME N BLDG. HEIGHT REMOVE W SA 447 N45°01'53"W SLIDING DOOR LE 8'' 468.54' G 18.12' 5.14' WIDE AB OHP RT 18" DEC BLDG. HEIGHT PO FL RB 464.60' X OHP 442 REMOVE CU BLDG. HEIGHT CONC. WALLS SCALE 1"=10' P 466.55' W/HANDRAILS RC limited to construction, bidding, and/or construction staking without the express written consent of TIMMONS GROUP. 446 G THRESHOLD 450.08' EXISTING GAS W 18" AT 3' DOOR 0 10' 20' BLDG. HEIGHT SERVICE LINE TO N 449.97' W S41°20'59"E SA BE ABANDONED OHP 466.49' G 8'' 4.96' AT THE MAIN AND G PROPERTY LINE ALONG CENTERLINE OF PARTY WALL REMOVED BY THE OHP REMOVE METAL HANDRAIL CITY TM# 330278000 DRILL HOLE SET NOTE: ALL UTILITY LATERALS TO BE REMOVED SHALL 441 SD GRATE 44 JOHN CONOVER AND IN CONC. WALK REMOVE BE DEMOLISHED ALL THE WAY TO THE MAIN 5 EXISTING TOP=444.87' CHISELED X 3' DOOR VIRGINIA DAUGHERTY, TRUSTEES FOUND IN SSWR INV OUT=442.57' 12" RCP CONC. WALK TM# 330277000 D.B. 984 PG. 34 DETERMINE LOCATION OF GAS METER AND LATERAL D LEGEND: OHP LIGHT HOUSE STUDIO G SERVICE LINE FOR 210 MARKET STREET. TEST N W ROOF OVERHANG SA LR.# 201500001506 OHP E PIT IF NEEDED. IF GAS LINE IS IN CONFLICT IF 8'' PROPOSED ENTRANCE OR SIDEWALK, THE P REMOVE CONCRETE RC SD GRATE SERVICE LINE IS TO BE RELOCATED. CONTACT 24" S TOP=444.99' CITY GAS DEPARTMENT. INV OUT=442.64' 12" RCP MHD 440 MHD TOP=441.88' REMOVE ASPHALT OHP TOP=438.69' G INV IN=438.77' 18" RCP INV IN=434.04' 36" RCP INV OUT=437.23' 24" RCP OHP INV IN=433.89' 24" RCP W N SA INV OUT=432.20' 36" RCP REMOVE BUILDING 8'' D G X REMOVE TREE OHP OHP S S JOB NO. G SAW CUT W P 43750 RC SMH 09-426 " TOP=439.02' 36 SHEET NO. INV IN=433.78' 8" DI G INV IN=433.83' 8" DI FROM BLDG C2.1 INV IN=433.79' 10" DI FROM OMNI TEMPORARY RIGHT-OF-WAY DIVERSIONS EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NARRATIVE: MINIMUM STANDARDS : PROJECT DESCRIPTION AN EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM ADOPTED BY A DISTRICT OR LOCALITY MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FOLLOWING 70' MIN. 5:1 EXISTING 18" THIS PROJECT INCLUDES THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING STRUCTURE AND PARKING LOT, AS WELL AS THE CONSTRUCTION OF TECHNIQUES AND METHODS: CRITERIA, VDOT #21A STONE MIN. A 3' PAVEMENT A MULTISTORY BUILDING WITH A BELOW GROUND PARKING GARAGE AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE 0.66 IS ACRES. MS-1. PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY SOIL STABILIZATION SHALL BE APPLIED TO DENUDED AREAS WITHIN SEVEN DAYS AFTER FINAL FILTER 6" MIN. A MOUNTABLE BERM GRADE IS REACHED ON ANY PORTION OF THE SITE. TEMPORARY SOIL STABILIZATION SHALL BE APPLIED WITHIN SEVEN DAYS TO CLOTH (OPTIONAL) ADJACENT PROPERTY DENUDED AREAS THAT MAY NOT BE AT FINAL GRADE BUT WILL REMAIN DORMANT FOR LONGER THAN 14 DAYS. PERMANENT SIDE ELEVATION THE PROJECT SITE IS BOUND BY MARKET STREET TO THE NORTH, EXISTING BUILDINGS TO THE WEST AND THE EAST, AND OLDSTABILIZATION SHALL BE APPLIED TO AREAS THAT ARE TO BE LEFT DORMANT FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR. TEL 434.295.5624 FAX 434.295.8317 www.timmons.com 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200 | Charlottesville, VA 22903 EXISTING GROUND PRESTON AVENUE TO THE SOUTH. MS-2. DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT, SOIL STOCKPILES AND BORROW AREAS SHALL BE STABILIZED OR PROTECTED WITH 70' MIN. SEDIMENT TRAPPING MEASURES. THE APPLICANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TEMPORARY PROTECTION AND PERMANENT 6' EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS M IN IMUM WASHRACK 10' MIN. THE SITE CURRENTLY CONTAINS A COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND A PARKING AREA. STABILIZATION OF ALL SOIL STOCKPILES ON SITE AS WELL AS BORROW AREAS AND SOIL INTENTIONALLY TRANSPORTED FROM B (OPTIONAL) THE PROJECT SITE. TYPICAL GRAVEL STRUCTURE 10' RWD 3.11-1 EXISTING OFF-SITE AREAS 12' MIN. MIN. THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE PAVEMENT NO OFFSITE AREAS WILL BE DISTURBED MS-3. A PERMANENT VEGETATIVE COVER SHALL BE ESTABLISHED ON DENUDED AREAS NOT OTHERWISE PERMANENTLY STABILIZED. CHARLOTTESVILLE OFFICE PERMANENT VEGETATION SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED ESTABLISHED UNTIL A GROUND COVER IS ACHIEVED THAT IS UNIFORM,TEMPORARY RIGHT-OF-WAY DIVERSION B VDOT #1 COARSE AGGREGATE 10' MIN. CRITICAL EROSION AREAS MATURE ENOUGH TO SURVIVE AND WILL INHIBIT EROSION. No Scale POSITIVE DRAINAGE TO THERE ARE NO CRITICAL EROSION AREAS ON THIS SITE. * MUST EXTEND FULL WIDTH OF SEDIMENT MS-4. SEDIMENT BASINS AND TRAPS, PERIMETER DIKES, SEDIMENT BARRIERS AND OTHER MEASURES INTENDED TO TRAP SEDIMENT INGRESS AND EGRESS OPERATION TRAPPING DEVICE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AS A FIRST STEP IN ANY LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITY AND SHALL BE MADE FUNCTIONAL BEFORE PLAN VIEW UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, ALL VEGETATIVE AND STRUCTURAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES SHALL BE UPSLOPE LAND DISTURBANCE TAKES PLACE. REVISION DESCRIPTION COMPACTED SOIL CWD TO HAVE VDOT CONSTRUCTED AND MAINTAINED ACCORDING TO MINIMUM STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS OF THE CURRENT ADDITION OF STANDARD EC-2 12' MIN. THE VIRGINIA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK. THE MINIMUM STANDARDS OF THE VESCH SHALL BE ADHEREDMS-5. STABILIZATION TO MEASURES SHALL BE APPLIED TO EARTHEN STRUCTURES SUCH AS DAMS, DIKES AND DIVERSIONS IMMEDIATELY MATTING ON UPHILL 3" MIN. UNLESS OTHERWISE WAIVED OR APPROVED BY A VARIANCE BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION. AFTER INSTALLATION. 18" MIN. SIDE FLOW 3" MIN. STORMWATER RUNOFF CONSIDERATIONS MS-6. SEDIMENT TRAPS AND SEDIMENT BASINS SHALL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED BASED UPON THE TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA TO FILTER CLOTH SECTION A-A STORMWATER RUNOFF WILL BE DETAINED IN STORAGE PIPES AND OFFSITE CREDITS WILL BE PURCHASED. BE SERVED BY THE TRAP OR BASIN. REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS STRUCTURAL PRACTICES: A. THE MINIMUM STORAGE CAPACITY OF A SEDIMENT TRAP SHALL BE 134 CUBIC YARDS PER ACRE OF DRAINAGE AREA AND THE 6'-7" 1. TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE - 3.02 A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SHALL BE PROVIDED AT THE TRAP SHALL ONLY CONTROL DRAINAGE AREAS LESS THAN THREE ACRES. DD 4.5' MIN. 3.09-1 LOCATION INDICATED ON THE PLANS. IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THIS MEASURE BE MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION. ITS PURPOSE IS TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF MUD TRANSPORTED ONTO PAVED PUBLIC ROADS BY MOTOR B. SURFACE RUNOFF FROM DISTURBED AREAS THAT IS COMPRISED OF FLOW FROM DRAINAGE AREAS GREATER THAN OR EQUAL VEHICLES OR RUNOFF. TO THREE ACRES SHALL BE CONTROLLED BY A SEDIMENT BASIN. THE MINIMUM STORAGE CAPACITY OF A SEDIMENT BASINTEMPORARY SHALL DIVERSION DIKE - 3.07 STONE FILTERS SHALL BE PLACED AT THE INLET OF ALL DRAINAGE STRUCTURES AS BE 134 CUBIC YARDS PER ACRE OF DRAINAGE AREA. THE OUTFALL SYSTEM SHALL, AT A MINIMUM, MAINTAIN THE STRUCTURAL 2. STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION No Scale REINFORCED CONCRETE DRAIN SPACE INDICATED ON PLANS. ITS PURPOSE IS TO PREVENT SEDIMENT FROM ENTERING THE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM PRIOR TOINTEGRITY OF THE BASIN DURING A 25-YEAR STORM OF 24-HOUR DURATION. RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS USED IN RUNOFF SECTION B-B PERMANENT STABILIZATION. CALCULATIONS SHALL CORRESPOND TO A BARE EARTH CONDITION OR THOSE CONDITIONS EXPECTED TO EXIST WHILE THE SEDIMENT BASIN IS UTILIZED. PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 3. DUST CONTROL- 3.39 DUST CONTROL IS TO BE USED THROUGH THE SITE IN AREAS SUBJECT TO SURFACE AND AIR CE 3.02 MOVEMENT. MS-7. CUT AND FILL SLOPES SHALL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED IN A MANNER THAT WILL MINIMIZE EROSION. SLOPES THAT ARE VEGETATIVE PRACTICES: FOUND TO BE ERODING EXCESSIVELY WITHIN ONE YEAR OF PERMANENT STABILIZATION SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH ADDITIONAL STONE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 1. TOPSOIL (TEMPORARY STOCKPILE)- 3.30 TOPSOIL SHALL BE STRIPPED FROM AREAS TO BE GRADED AND STOCKPILED FOR SLOPE STABILIZING MEASURES UNTIL THE PROBLEM IS CORRECTED. No Scale 11/19/2021 LATER SPREADING. STOCKPILE LOCATIONS SHALL BE LOCATED ONSITE AND SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH TEMPORARY SILT 3/30/2022 1/7/2022 FENCE AND VEGETATION. MS-8. CONCENTRATED RUNOFF SHALL NOT FLOW DOWN CUT OR FILL SLOPES UNLESS CONTAINED WITHIN AN ADEQUATE TEMPORARY DATE 2. TEMPORARY SEEDING - 3.31 ALL DENUDED AREAS WHICH WILL BE LEFT DORMANT FOR MORE THAN 30 DAYS SHALL BE OR PERMANENT CHANNEL, FLUME OR SLOPE DRAIN STRUCTURE. SEEDED WITH FAST GERMINATING TEMPORARY VEGETATION IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING GRADING OF THOSE AREAS. SELECTION OF THE SEED MIXTURE SHALL DEPEND ON THE TIME OF YEAR IT IS APPLIED. MS-9. WHENEVER WATER SEEPS FROM A SLOPE FACE, ADEQUATE DRAINAGE OR OTHER PROTECTION SHALL BE PROVIDED. BLOCK AND GRAVEL DROP INLET SEDIMENT FILTER 3. PERMANENT SEEDING- 3.32 FOLLOWING GRADING ACTIVITIES, ESTABLISH PERENNIAL VEGETATIVE COVER BY PLANTING SEED TO REDUCE EROSION, STABILIZE DISTURBED AREAS, AND ENHANCE NATURAL BEAUTY. MS-10.ALL STORM SEWER INLETS THAT ARE MADE OPERABLE DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PROTECTED SO THAT SEDIMENT-LADEN DATE 4. 3.36 A PROTECTIVE COVERING BLANKET OR SOIL STABILIZATION MAT SHALL BE INSTALLED ON PREPARED PLANTING AREAS WATER CANNOT ENTER THE CONVEYANCE SYSTEM WITHOUT FIRST BEING FILTERED OR OTHERWISE TREATED TO REMOVE SEDIMENT. PERSPECTIVE VIEW 08/10/2021 OF CHANNELS TO PROTECT AND PROMOTE VEGETATION ESTABLISHMENT AND REINFORCE ESTABLISHED TURF. CONCRETE WIRE BLOCK DRAWN BY MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES MS-11. BEFORE NEWLY CONSTRUCTED STORMWATER CONVEYANCE CHANNELS OR PIPES ARE MADE OPERATIONAL, ADEQUATE OUTLET SCREEN 1. PROVIDE SEDIMENT TRAPPING MEASURES AS A FIRST STEP IN GRADING, SEED AND MULCH IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING PROTECTION AND ANY REQUIRED TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT CHANNEL LINING SHALL BE INSTALLED IN BOTH THE CONVEYANCE J. DENKO INSTALLATION. CHANNEL AND RECEIVING CHANNEL. DESIGNED BY 2. PROVIDE TEMPORARY SEEDING OR OTHER STABILIZATION IMMEDIATELY AFTER GRADING. MS-12. WHEN WORK IN A LIVE WATERCOURSE IS PERFORMED, PRECAUTIONS SHALL BE TAKEN TO MINIMIZE ENCROACHMENT, CONTROL 3. ISOLATE TRENCHING FOR UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE FROM DOWNSTREAM CONVEYANCES IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE PERIMETER POLYETHYLENE FABRIC (ATTACH SEDIMENT TRANSPORT AND STABILIZE THE WORK AREA TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE DURING CONSTRUCTION. J. DENKO CONTROLS. TO POSTS WITH 4. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES SHALL BE MAINTAINED UNTIL THEY ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED TO NONERODIBLE MATERIAL SHALL BE USED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF CAUSEWAYS AND COFFERDAMS. EARTHEN FILL MAY BE METAL TIE WIRES.) CHECKED BY COMPLY WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS OR STATE LAW. USED FOR THESE STRUCTURES IF ARMORED BY NONERODIBLE COVER MATERIALS. WIRE FABRIC C. KOTARSKI PERMANENT STABILIZATION MS-13. WHEN A LIVE WATERCOURSE MUST BE CROSSED BY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES MORE THAN TWICE IN ANY SIX-MONTH PERIOD, A LINE POST ALL NON-PAVED AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH PERMANENT SEEDING IMMEDIATELY TEMPORARY VEHICULAR STREAM CROSSING CONSTRUCTED OF NONERODIBLE MATERIAL SHALL BE PROVIDED. CONVENTIONAL GROUND LINE GRAVEL FILTER SCALE METAL (T) OR FOLLOWING FINISHED GRADING. SEEDING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH STD. & SPEC. 3.32, PERMANENT SEEDING. SEED (U) POSTS BRACING CONCRETE FOOTING WIRE 1" = 10' TYPE SHALL BE AS SPECIFIED FOR "MINIMUM CARE LAWNS" AND "GENERAL SLOPES" IN THE HANDBOOK FOR SLOPES LESSMS-14. THANALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO WORKING IN OR CROSSING LIVE WATERCOURSES SCREEN FILTERED PERSPECTIVE VIEW 3:1. FOR SLOPES GREATER THAN 3:1, SEED TYPE SHALL BE AS SPECIFIED FOR "LOW MAINTENANCE SLOPES" IN TABLE 3.32-DSHALL BE MET. PERSPECTIVE VIEW OF PLASTIC FENCE METAL FENCE WATER THE HANDBOOK. FOR MULCH (STRAW OR FIBER) SHALL BE USED ON ALL SEEDED SURFACES. IN ALL SEEDING OPERATIONS SAF 3.10 RUNOFF OVERFLOW SEED, FERTILIZER AND LIME SHALL BE APPLIED PRIOR TO MULCHING. MS-15.THE BED AND BANKS OF A WATERCOURSE SHALL BE STABILIZED IMMEDIATELY AFTER WORK IN THE WATERCOURSE IS WATER COMPLETED. WITH SAFETY FENCE SEDIMENT MS-16. UNDERGROUND UTILITY LINES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS IN ADDITION TONo Scale SEQUENCE OF INSTALLATION : OTHER APPLICABLE CRITERIA: DROP INLET PHASE I - SHEET C3.2 TABLE 3.31-B SEDIMENT WITH GATE 1. A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING IS REQUIRED WITH THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE E&S INSPECTOR, CONTRACTOR, OWNER, A. NO MORE THAN 500 LINEAR FEET OF TRENCH MAY BE OPENED AT ONE TIME. ACCEPTABLE TEMPORARY SEEDING PLANT MATERIALS These plans and associated documents are the exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and may not be reproduced in whole or in part and shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever, inclusive, but not AND ENGINEER. THIS MEETING SHALL TAKE PLACE ON SITE. "QUICK REFERENCE FOR ALL REGIONS" 2. INSTALL INLET PROTECTION AND PERIMETER MEASURES: CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE, SAFETY FENCE AND SILT FENCE. B. EXCAVATED MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED ON THE UPHILL SIDE OF TRENCHES. 3. INSTALL SEDIMENT TRAP AND RIGHT OF WAY DIVERSION. DIRECT STORMWATER DRAINAGE TOWARDS SEDIMENT TRAP AND PLANTING DATES SPECIES RATE (LBS./ACRE) AWAY FROM PROPERTY BOUNDARIES AT ALL TIMES. C. EFFLUENT FROM DEWATERING OPERATIONS SHALL BE FILTERED OR PASSED THROUGH AN APPROVED SEDIMENT TRAPPING SPECIFIC APPLICATION: THIS METHOD OF INLET PROTECTION IS APPLICABLE WHERE HEAVY FLOWS ARE EXPECTED AND WHERE AN OVERFLOW CAPACITY 4. INSPECT SILT FENCE AND SEDIMENT TRAP DAILY TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE FUNCTIONING PROPERLY. ADDITIONAL DEVICE, OR BOTH, AND DISCHARGED IN A MANNER THAT DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT FLOWING STREAMS OR OFF-SITESEPT. 1 - FEB. 15 50/50 MIX OF IS NECESSARY TO PREVENT EXCESSIVE PONDING AROUND THE STRUCTURE. MEASURES OR MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING MEASURES MAY BE REQUESTED BY CITY INSPECTOR TO ENSURE THAT PROPERTY. ANNUAL RYEGRASS SEDIMENT LADEN RUNOFF IS PREVENTED FROM LEAVING THE SITE. (LOLIUM MULTI-FLORUM) * GRAVEL SHALL BE VDOT #3, #357 OR #5 COARSE AGGREGATE. D. MATERIAL USED FOR BACKFILLING TRENCHES SHALL BE PROPERLY COMPACTED IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE EROSION AND & 50-100 218 W MARKET STREET PHASE II PROMOTE STABILIZATION. CEREAL (WINTER) RYE 1. BEGIN EXCAVATION. (SECALE CEREALE) IP 3.07- 3 2. SEDIMENT TRAP TO BE LOWERED AND INSPECTED THROUGHOUT EXCAVATION. DIRECT STORMWATER DRAINAGE E. RESTABILIZATION SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS. TOWARDS SEDIMENT TRAP AND AWAY FROM PROPERTY BOUNDARIES AT ALL TIMES. FEB. 16 - APR. 30 ANNUAL RYEGRASS 60-100 3. INSTALL AND MAINTAIN SHEETING & SHORING AS DESIGNED BY OTHERS. F. APPLICABLE SAFETY REGULATIONS SHALL BE COMPLIED WITH. (LOLIUM MULTI-FLORUM) STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION 4. START BUILDING CONSTRUCTION. No Scale 5. INSTALL DEWATERING PIT, FILTRATION SYSTEM, STRAW BALES, AND PUMPING STATION. MS-17.WHERE CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE ACCESS ROUTES INTERSECT PAVED OR PUBLIC ROADS, PROVISIONS SHALL BE MADE TO MAY 1 - AUG. 31 GERMAN MILLET 50 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 6. CONVERT SEDIMENT TRAP TO A SUMP PIT ONCE THE DEWATERING PIT AND PUMPING STATION HAVE BEEN MINIMIZE THE TRANSPORT OF SEDIMENT BY VEHICULAR TRACKING ONTO THE PAVED SURFACE. WHERE SEDIMENT IS S:\103\43750-218_W_Market\DWG\Sheet\PRELIM SITE PLAN\43750-103-C3.0-E&SC N&DT.dwg | Plotted on 3/30/2022 3:19 PM | by Jessica Denko (SETARIA ITALICA) INSTALLED. DIRECT ONSITE RUNOFF TO SUMP PIT. PIT TO BE PUMPED DIRECTLY TO SEDIMENT FILTRATION TRANSPORTED ONTO A PAVED OR PUBLIC ROAD SURFACE, THE ROAD SURFACE SHALL BE CLEANED THOROUGHLY AT THE TS END OF 3.31 SYSTEM. COORDINATE WITH CITY E&S INSPECTOR. EACH DAY. SEDIMENT SHALL REMOVED BE FROM THE ROADS BY SHOVELING OR SWEEPING AND TRANSPORTED TO A E&SC N&DT 7. INSTALL BUILDING SLAB AND FOUNDATIONS. SEDIMENT CONTROL DISPOSAL AREA. STREET WASHING SHALL BE ALLOWED ONLY AFTER SEDIMENT IS REMOVED IN THIS MANNER. THIS PROVISION SHALL APPLY TO INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT LOTS AS WELL AS TO LARGER LAND-DISTURBING TEMPORARY SEEDING PLANT MATERIALS 1. SET THE STAKES. 2. EXCAVATE A 4"X 4" TRENCH UPSLOPE 8. FINE GRADE PROJECT AREA. APPLY PERMANENT SOIL STABILIZATION WITHIN SEVEN DAYS AFTER FINAL GRADE IS ACHIEVED. ALONG THE LINE OF STAKES. 9. ALL STORMWATER PIPING AND STRUCTURES SHALL BE INSPECTED FOR SILT/SEDIMENT. IF PRESENT SILT/SEDIMENT SHALL ACTIVITIES. No Scale BE CLEANED OUT FOR THE SYSTEM TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE E&S INSPECTOR. 6' MAX. 10. CONTRACTOR TO CALL FOR CITY INSPECTIONS, AND RECEIVE WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE TOALL TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE REMOVED WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER FINAL SITE MS-18. PROCEED WITH CLOSING THE SUMP PIT. TABLE 3.32-D STABILIZATION OR AFTER THE TEMPORARY MEASURES ARE NO LONGER NEEDED, UNLESS OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED BY THE 11. MULCH AND SEED ALL AREAS TO BE GRASS IN FINAL CONDITION AS SOON AS FINAL GRADE IS ACHIEVED. PREVIOUSLY LOCAL PROGRAM AUTHORITY. TRAPPED SEDIMENT AND THE DISTURBED SOIL AREAS RESULTING FROM THE DISPOSITION OF SITE SPECIFIC SEEDING MIXTURES FOR PIEDMONT AREA limited to construction, bidding, and/or construction staking without the express written consent of TIMMONS GROUP. PAVED AREAS SHALL BE ROTOTILLED WITH 6" OF AMENDED TOP SOIL PRIOR TO PERMANENT SEEDING BEING APPLIED. TEMPORARY MEASURES SHALL BE PERMANENTLY STABILIZED TO PREVENT FURTHER EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION. FLOW TOTAL LBS. PER ACRE 12. ONCE CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE AND ALL CONTRIBUTING AREAS ARE STABILIZED, EROSION CONTROL MEASURES CAN BE MINIMUM CARE LAWN 4" REMOVED UPON APPROVAL FROM THE E&S INSPECTOR. MS-19. PROPERTIES AND WATERWAYS DOWNSTREAM FROM DEVELOPMENT SITES SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM SEDIMENT DEPOSITION, COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL 175-200 LBS. 3. STAPLE FILTER MATERIAL TO STAKES AND 4. BACKFILL AND COMPACT THE EROSION AND DAMAGE DUE TO INCREASES IN VOLUME, VELOCITY AND PEAK FLOW RATE OF STORMWATER RUNOFF FOR THE KENTUCKY 31 OR TURF-TYPE TALL FESCUE 90-100% EXTEND IT INTO THE TRENCH. EXCAVATED SOIL. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES, DETAILS AND STATED FREQUENCY STORM OF 24-HOUR DURATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA LISTED IN THE IMPROVED PERENNIAL RYEGRASS 0-5% VIRGINIA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK, CHAPTER 8 PAGES 20-24. KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS 0-5% PHASE I PLAN PROVIDED TO MEET PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS. FULL EROSION AND SEDIMENT GENERAL SLOPE (3:1 OR LESS) CONTROL PLAN WILL BE PROVIDED WITH FINAL SITE PLAN. KENTUCKY 31 FESCUE 128 LBS. PLEASE DO NOT REVIEW. RED TOP GRASS 2 LBS. SEASONAL NURSE CROP * 20 LBS. FLOW 150 LBS. GENERAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES: LOW-MAINTENANCE SLOPE (STEEPER THAN 3:1) * SEE SLOPE STABILIZATION SEED MIX SHEET FLOW INSTALLATION ES-1: UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN ALL VEGETATIVE AND STRUCTURAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES ACCORDING TO MINIMUM STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS VIRGINIA OF EROSION THE LATEST EDITION OF THE (PERSPECTIVE VIEW) AND SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK AND VIRGINIA REGULATIONS VR 625-02-00 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REGULATIONS. * USE SEASONAL NURSE CROP IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEEDING DATES ES-2: THE CONTROLLING EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL AUTHORITY WILL MAKE A CONTINUING REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF THE METHODS AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN. AS STATED BELOW: 3' FEBRUARY 16TH THROUGH APRIL.................................. ANNUAL RYE FLOW MAX. MAY 1ST THROUGH AUGUST 15TH............................ FOXTAIL MILLET A A ES-3: PLACE ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES PRIOR TO OR AS THE FIRST STEP IN CLEARING, GRADING, OR LAND DISTURBANCE. AUGUST 16TH THROUGH OCTOBER............................... ANNUAL RYE ES-4: MAINTAIN A COPY OF THE APPROVED EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN ON THE SITE AT ALL TIMES. NOVEMBER THROUGH FEBRUARY 15TH........................ WINTER RYE ES-5: ** SUBSTITUTE SERICEA LESPEDEZA FOR CROWNVETCH EAST OF PRIOR TO COMMENCING LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES IN AREAS OTHER THAN INDICATED ON THESE PLANS (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, OFFSITE BORROW OR WASTE AREA), SUBMIT A SUPPLEMENTARY EROSION CONTROL PLAN TO THE ARCHITECT/ENGINEER AND THE CONTROLLING EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE. FARMVILLE, VA (MAY THROUGH SEPTEMBER USE HULLED SERICEA, ALL OTHER PERIODS, USE UNHULLED SERICEA). IF FLATPEA IS USED IN LIEU POINTS A SHOULD BE HIGHER THAN POINT B. ES-6: PROVIDE ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES NECESSARY TO PREVENT EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION AS DETERMINED BY THE RESPONSIBLE LAND DISTURBER. (MODIFIED NOTE) OF CROWNVETCH, INCREASE RATE TO 30 LBS./ACRE. ALL LEGUME SEED MUST BE PROPERLY INOCULATED. WEEPING LOVEGRASS MAY BE DRAINAGEWAY INSTALLATION ES-7: ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL DRAIN TO APPROVED SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES AT ALL TIMES DURING LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES AND DURING SITE DEVELOPMENT. ADDED TO ANY SLOPE OR LOW-MAINTENANCE MIX DURING WARMER JOB NO. (FRONT ELEVATION) SEEDING PERIODS; ADD 10-20 LBS./ACRE IN MIXES. ES-8: DURING DEWATERING OPERATIONS, PUMP WATER INTO AN APPROVED FILTERING DEVICE, ENSURE THAT PUMP INLET IS KEPT ABOVE SETTLED SEDIMENT. PS 3.32 SF 3.05-2 43750 SHEET NO. ES-9: PERMANENT INSPECT ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES DAILY AND AFTER EACH RUNOFF- PRODUCING RAINFALL EVENT. MAKE ANY NECESSARY REPAIRS OR CLEANUP TO MAINTAIN THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE EROSION CONTROL DEVICES IMMEDIATELY. SEEDING MIX FOR PIEDMONT AREA SILT FENCE (W/O WIRE SUPPORT) No Scale No Scale C3.0 S:\103\43750-218_W_Market\DWG\Sheet\PRELIM SITE PLAN\43750-103-C3.0-E&SC N&DT.dwg | Plotted on 3/30/2022 3:20 PM | by Jessica Denko SOILS INFORMATION DS No Scale WELL DRAINED. HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP: B FEATURES, WELL DRAINED. HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP: B. DEWATERING STRUCTURE 3.26-3 91- URBAN LAND, 0 TO 25 PERCENT SLOPES, 10 INCHES TO RESTRICTIVE FEATURES. 34D- GLENELG LOAM, 15 TO 25 PERCENT SLOPES, MORE THAN 80 INCHES TO RESTRICTIVE ST 121B- CULPEPER, 2 TO 7 PERCENT SLOPES, MORE THAN 80 INCHES TO RESTRICTIVE FEATURES, No Scale SEDIMENT TRAP 3.13 THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN CHARLOTTESVILLE OFFICE 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200 | Charlottesville, VA 22903 TEL 434.295.5624 FAX 434.295.8317 www.timmons.com DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION 218 W MARKET STREET 11/19/2021 REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS 1/7/2022 REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS DATE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA SCALE 3/30/2022 REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS JOB NO. C3.1 1" = 10' DRAWN BY SHEET NO. J. DENKO J. DENKO 43750 CHECKED BY DESIGNED BY 08/10/2021 C. KOTARSKI E&SC N&DT These plans and associated documents are the exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and may not be reproduced in whole or in part and shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever, inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding, and/or construction staking without the express written consent of TIMMONS GROUP. CONSTRUCTION ACCESS AND NEEDS WILL PRIMARILY BE MET ON THE WEST MARKET STREET SIDE OF THE PROJECT, AS IT IS INTENDED TO HAVE PROJECT DELIVERIES FROM THAT SIDE. TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF THE SIDEWALK AND PARKING LANE ALONG WEST MARKET WILL BE NECESSARY, WITH DURATIONS COORDINATED BETWEEN THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE. CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ALONG THE OLD PRESTON AVENUE SIDE OF THE SITE WILL BE MINIMAL, HOWEVER SIDEWALK CLOSURE AND REROUTING WILL MOST LIKELY BE NECESSARY FOR SCAFFOLDING ALONG THE BUILDING. FIRE ACCESS WILL BE TEL 434.295.5624 FAX 434.295.8317 www.timmons.com 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200 | Charlottesville, VA 22903 MAINTAINED ALONG OLD PRESTON AVENUE, AS IT IS THE PRIMARY FIRE ACCESS FOR THE DOWNTOWN MALL, THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE CHARLOTTESVILLE OFFICE REVISION DESCRIPTION OHP REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS SOIL TYPE: OHP OHP 121B SOIL TYPE: SOIL TYPE: 94 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 34D OHP OHP 11/19/2021 3/30/2022 1/7/2022 DATE SMH 09-428 W TOP=451.72' G INV IN=445.00' 8" DI SD GRATE INV IN=451.72' 6" PVC TM# 330274000 INV OUT=444.96' 8" DI TOP=449.46' DATE OHP ESCAFE BUILDING, LLC OHP TM# 330271000 INV OUT=445.06' 30" CMP MCSWAIN PROPERTIES, LLC D.B. 1030 PG. 765 WATER MOVING THROUGH 08/10/2021 D.B. 793 PG. 817 LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE STRUCTURE CAN'T SEE INV. IN K = 0.66 ACRES DRAWN BY CP AL CP IRON ROD NAIL FOUND R .W FOUND BRICK WALL IN BUILDING FACE J. DENKO TO 30" R 18" SAF NC ASPHALT W SAF ASPHALT 10" DEC SAF 18" DEC 10" DEC OHP SAF 12" DEC 10" DEC 10" DEC DESIGNED BY CO SAF 12" DEC G S S OHP CURB OHP CURB DEC 30" DD CONC. WALKFLUSH CURB ENTRANCE D OHP P OH 12" DEC FL OHP DUMPSTER FL J. DENKO CE . TR CONC PAD NGES OHP CONCRETE 456 SF 5 30" DEC CHECKED BY WASHOUT 12" DEC SAF 45 AN SAF MP CHA P C. KOTARSKI OH SAF 50' PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY RB SAF 4 AN 45 MHD MARKET STREET EN SCALE 8'' S 17 PARKING SPACES TOP=452.63' P ASPHALT RC 455 OHP 3 448 INV IN=448.73' 18" RCP 1" = 20' 45 30" C P ASPHALT OH CE INV IN=449.86' 6" PVC W CU 18" G 9 0 451 452 45 44 ASPHALT 448 INV OUT=448.51' 18" RCP SH 447 6 PARKING446 SPACES E 6 PARKING SPACES G W FLU NC SD INLET 445 W/ GRATE 447 454 SD INLET W/ GRATE 444 30" DEC 12" DEC TOP=446.52' RA RC NC. OHP TOP=449.35' INV IN=444.25' 12" RCP NT INV OUT=447.28' 12" RCP IP CONC. O 15' INV OUT=444.16' 12" RCP IP OHP F C P BE SAF 12" RCP 50' AN 453 FL FL UR SA 8'' S 15" CURB P These plans and associated documents are the exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and may not be reproduced in whole or in part and shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever, inclusive, but not CURB RC HC TW-451.47' 1.5' COLUMNS TW-451.41' 18" G 16" DEC 451.96' CONC. STEPS 449.97' 449.79' W (TYP) CONC. CONC. STEPS US 451.96' 4 RUNS 5 RISERS CONC. IP 451.95' 46 449.96' AL W G 452 METAL HANDRAIL 7 RUNS 8 RISERS D A4Y SF CURBOHP RC K FL S62°53'38"E D 25.01' 449.96' THRESHOLD 449.97' BLDG. HEIGHT 449.96' METAL HANDRAIL P BLDG. HEIGHT SF F-W METAL BLDG. HEIGHT 474.54' PEAK MHD IGH UE RC OHP HANDRAIL 468.55' 468.51' BLDG. HEIGHT TOP=447.52' T-O P CONC. STEPS 36" INV IN=444.75' 18" RCP C R VEN .W FL 451 3 RUNS 4 RISERS 466.72' INV OUT=444.71' 18" RCP NC S56°28'06"E 450.37' 18" 218 W MARKET STREET 445 24.98' CITY PID: 330276000 SD INLET/MHD A CO RB AN 450 MARKET STREET PROMENADE, LLC TOP=445.70' TH ON '' S F SAF CU IP G BLI 16" DEC INV IN=441.85' 30" RCP(E) WID EST L SA 2" WATER METER OHP INST. NO. 20170003093 8 F INV IN=441.60' 15" RCP PU W ZONED: DH K OHP METAL INV IN=441.61' 30" RCP(S) S AL RB W 44 449 S50°08'48"E CONC. ING HANDRAIL ALK DD DWS 24.91' INV OUT=440.05' 36" RCP 4 .W BLE PR MHD AIL THRESHOLD 450.00' CU L C. W S:\103\43750-218_W_Market\DWG\Sheet\PRELIM SITE PLAN\43750-103-C3.2-ES&C PHASE I.dwg | Plotted on 3/31/2022 9:34 AM | by Jessica Denko CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA NC TOP=445.65' F 1.5' COLUMNS R 1 STORY BRICK BUILDING AL VA OLDG 448 (TYP) INV IN=442.95' 18" RCP CO 218 WEST MARKET STREET S ET E&SC PHASE I CON SLIDING DOOR INV OUT=442.83' 18" RCP 443 F EM RIA 449.90' 5.14' WIDE OHP SA ABL FF=441.16' G SMH 09-427 OHP 447 N45°01'53"W BLDG. HEIGHT BLDG. HEIGHT TOP=443.65' RT RB 18.12' 18" DEC 468.54' 464.60' CU L PO INV IN=439.70' 8" DI P W N 442 F BLDG. HEIGHT SAF RC SA SAF EROSION CONTROL LEGEND W CONC. WALLS INV OUT=439.64' 8" DI THRESHOLD 450.08' SF 466.55' SAF 8'' 446 W/HANDRAILS 18" AT 3' DOOR BLDG. HEIGHT 449.97' * SD GRATE S41°20'59"E 466.49' LIMITS OF CLEARING AND GRADING - G 4.96' TOP=444.87' PROPERTY LINE ALONG CENTERLINE OF PARTY WALL SAF SAF SAF SAF limited to construction, bidding, and/or construction staking without the express written consent of TIMMONS GROUP. METAL HANDRAIL DRILL HOLE SET DRAINAGE DIVIDE OHP - 441 INV OUT=442.57' 12" RCP 44 CHISELED X TM# 330278000 IN CONC. WALK 5 OHP IP FOUND IN 3' DOOR JOHN CONOVER AND CONC. WALK TM# 330277000 D ROOF OVERHANG VIRGINIA DAUGHERTY, TRUSTEES CE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 3.02 E LIGHT HOUSE STUDIO D.B. 984 PG. 34 P SD GRATE LR.# 201500001506 2 4" RC S MHD 44S0AN TOP=444.99' MHD SF SILT FENCE W 3.05 TOP=438.69' 8'' INV OUT=442.64' 12" RCP TOP=441.88' G INV IN=434.04' 36" RCP INV IN=433.89' 24" RCP INV IN=438.77' 18" RCP IP INLET PROTECTION 3.07 OHP INV OUT=437.23' 24" RCP OHP INV OUT=432.20' 36" RCP D IP DD DIVERSION DIKE 3.09 S S P G C RIGHT-OF-WAY DIVERSION "R RWD 3.11 36 W SMH 09-426 ST SEDIMENT TRAP 3.13 TOP=439.02' G INV IN=433.78' 8" DI DS DEWATERING STRUCTURE 3.26-3 UFO INV IN=433.83' 8" DI FROM BLDG D8 NA INV IN=433.79' 10" DI FROM OMNI 3 INV OUT=433.66' 8" DI TS TEMPORARY SEEDING 3.31 OF UO UF G PS PERMANENT SEEDING 3.32 O UOF O UF UF MU MULCHING 3.35 G TP TP TREE PROTECTION 3.38 W JOB NO. FO UO O SAFETY FENCE 3.01 UF SAF 43750 UF SCALE 1"=20' G SHEET NO. DC DUST CONTROL 3.39 UFO O 0 20' 40' C3.2 UF * "VIRGINIA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK" SPECIFICATION NUMBER O UF G OHP W OHP TM# 330274000 ESCAFE BUILDING, LLC D.B. 1030 PG. 765 TM# 330271000 MCSWAIN PROPERTIES, LLC SMH 09-428 D.B. 793 PG. 817 TOP=451.72' PROPOSED CONCRETE INV IN=445.00' 8" DI OHP ENCASED UNDERGROUND INV IN=451.72' 6" PVC OHP G POWER, FIBER, CABLE, INV OUT=444.96' 8" DI AND TELEPHONE TEL 434.295.5624 FAX 434.295.8317 www.timmons.com 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200 | Charlottesville, VA 22903 W CONNECTION NAIL FOUND IN BUILDING FACE IRON ROD FOUND ALK OHP ASPHALT ASPHALT .W OHP THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE NC CHARLOTTESVILLE OFFICE G S P S OH CO W P OH OHP 456 REVISION DESCRIPTION OHP OHP 5 PROPOSED VEGETATED ROOF 45 AN 12" DEC ±10,020 SF 8' ' S P OH G P 4 OH 45 REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS OHP W CONNECT OHP TO EXISTING G SIDEWALK CG-6 (TYP.) P OH 455 3 448 INV OUT=448.51' 18" RCP 45 P RC AN 5' G W 8'' S 9 18" 0 44 451 45 OHP 452 P.) TY PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 5' -6 ( OHP W CG G 7.7' 454 447 RETAIL ENTRY 11/19/2021 50' PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY 3/30/2022 1/7/2022 RETAIL ENTRY MARKET STREET OHP DATE G W AN ANGLED HOOP 8'' S CONC. WALK BIKE RACKS 7.7' WIDE EX. OHP SIDEWALK G DATE CE 453 P W AN 08/10/2021 RC OHP TR 15" DRAWN BY P EN 18 " RC G W J. DENKO RB 16" DEC OHP AN CU DESIGNED BY 8'' S 4.6' 8.1' D SD INLET/MHD SH G 4.8' 446 45 2 J. DENKO S62°53'38"E TOP=445.70' D FLU OHP ANGLED HOOP 25.01' INV IN=441.85' 30" RCP(E) CHECKED BY INV IN=441.60' 15" RCP MHD W BIKE RACKS E PROPOSED BUILDING INV IN=441.61' 30" RCP(S) TOP=447.52' C. KOTARSKI 10-IN CI LIN AY CONNECT TO INV OUT=440.05' 36" RCP INV IN=444.75' 18" RCP MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL AND P OHP EXISTING F-W SCALE G RC INV OUT=444.71' 18" RCP IGH UE W COMMERCIAL WITH CURB SIDEWALK RESIDENTIAL ENTRY 1" = 10' UNDERGROUND PARKING T-O 36" 451 C R EN FL RESIDENTIAL 25,562 SF FOOTPRINT G OHP AN K 5' P ENTRY BLI AV 8'' S AL RC S56°28'06"E .W APPROXIMATE 24.98' 18" TH ON CITY PID: 330276000 445 LOCATION OF NC EXISTING GAS PIPE MARKET STREET PROMENADE, LLC OHP CO W G PU WID EST 450 INST. NO. 20170003093 RB ZONED: DH G W BLE R OHP CU 16" DEC FL P These plans and associated documents are the exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and may not be reproduced in whole or in part and shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever, inclusive, but not 2" CORPORATION STOP RETAIL ENTRY VA OLD WITH 2" COPPER LINE G AN 2" CORPORATION STOP CONNECT TO RIA 8'' S WITH 2" COPPER LINE EXISTING S50°08'48"E 44 OHP 449 DD 4 SIDEWALK 24.91' RETAIL ENTRY SMH 09-427 NO PARKING TOP=443.65' W MHD W OHP 10"x6" CUT IN TEE ANYTIME WITH TOP=445.65' G INV IN=439.70' 8" DI K WITH 6" GATE VALVE AL W 218 W MARKET STREET FL ARROW INV OUT=439.64' 8" DI INV IN=442.95' 18" RCP RB .W INV OUT=442.83' 18" RCP 10" IN-LINE GATE 5' ALK CU G NC 448 VALVE 2''W S LAYOUT AND UTILITY PLAN OHP 5' C. W CO 2.0" WATER METER BOX 4.06' CITY GIS CENTERLINE S 5' 443 ING 10"x6" CUT IN TEE FOR COMMERCIAL USES CON 3' 2''W ST'D CG-9D ENTRANCE OHP WITH 6" GATE VALVE AIL (CITY STD W 6.2) R10' WITH 4' MIN. SIDEWALK AND CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA LR 6''W 2.0" WATER METER BOX W CURB TO UNDERGROUND G TA NA PROPOSED GAS D8 5.5' 6''W FOR RESIDENTIAL USES PARKING ME N 3 CONNECTION W SA 447 N45°01'53"W (CITY STD W 6.2) S:\103\43750-218_W_Market\DWG\Sheet\PRELIM SITE PLAN\43750-103-C4.0-SITE.dwg | Plotted on 3/30/2022 3:20 PM | by Jessica Denko LE 8'' G G 10"x6" CUT IN TEE 18.12' 6" CLASS 52 DIP AB OHP 6''W WITH 6" GATE VALVE 5.5' RT PIV 14.18' 6''W 5' PO FL RB 24' OHP 442 APPROXIMATE CU G 5' 4.19' P LOCATION OF 6" DIP FIRE LINE CONNECTION 9.63' RC EXISTING 44 G PIV G 6 6''W APPROXIMATE WATER LINE 18" W 6" CLASS 52 DIP SCALE 1"=10' limited to construction, bidding, and/or construction staking without the express written consent of TIMMONS GROUP. 6" CLASS 52 DIP LOCATION N W S41°20'59"E OF EXISTING SA PROPOSED GAS METER OHP 5.1' G GAS PIPE 8'' 4.96' 0 10' 20' G PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE ALONG CENTERLINE OF PARTY WALL R5' OHP FIRE HYDRANT CLEANOUT PROVIDED FDC 4.31' NOTES: DRILL HOLE SET INSIDE THE BUILDING TM# 330278000 1. ALL WATER LINE SHUTDOWNS MUST BE COORDINATED WITH 441 SD GRATE 44 JOHN CONOVER AND IN CONC. WALK REFER TO CITY AND PERFORMED BY THE CITY, AND THE DEVELOPER MUST 5 STD WW 5.0 TOP=444.87' CHISELED X 3' DOOR VIRGINIA DAUGHERTY, TRUSTEES HAND OUT NOTICES TO AFFECTED CUSTOMERS AT LEAST 48 FOUND IN FOR LATERAL HOURS IN ADVANCE INV OUT=442.57' 12" RCP CONC. WALK TM# 330277000 D.B. 984 PG. 34 CONNECTION D OHP 2. PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION BETWEEN W. MARKET ST. AND OLD LIGHT HOUSE STUDIO G N W ROOF OVERHANG PRESTON AVE. WILL BE PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. SA LR.# 201500001506 OHP E 34-897; LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED AT FINAL SITE PLAN 8'' P RC SD GRATE 24" S TOP=444.99' INV OUT=442.64' 12" RCP MHD LEGEND: 440 MHD 4" SDR-26 PVC TOP=441.88' SANITARY OHP TOP=438.69' G INV IN=438.77' 18" RCP INV IN=434.04' 36" RCP SEWER INV OUT=437.23' 24" RCP OHP INV IN=433.89' 24" RCP LATERAL W N GREEN ROOF SA INV OUT=432.20' 36" RCP 8'' D G BUILDING LINE OHP OHP S S CONCRETE SIDEWALK G W JOB NO. CP SMH 09-426 "R TOP=439.02' ASPHALT 43750 36 INV IN=433.78' 8" DI SHEET NO. G INV IN=433.83' 8" DI FROM BLDG INV IN=433.79' 10" DI FROM OMNI C4.0 INV OUT=433.66' 8" DI G G TM# 330274000 TM# 330274000 OHP OHP TM# 330271000 ESCAFE BUILDING, LLC TM# 330271000 ESCAFE BUILDING, LLC OHP OHP EXISTING GRATE INLET TO BE EXISTING GRATE INLET TO BE MCSWAIN PROPERTIES, LLC D.B. 1030 PG. 765 REMOVED. CONTRACTOR TO IDENTIFY MCSWAIN PROPERTIES, LLC D.B. 1030 PG. 765 REMOVED. CONTRACTOR TO IDENTIFY 16 STACK RACK D.B. 793 8 LOWER PG. 817 12 BIKE RACKS LOCATION, DIRECTION, SIZE AND D.B. 793 PG. 817 LOCATION, DIRECTION, SIZE AND K K MATERIAL OF ANY CONNECTING PIPES. MATERIAL OF ANY CONNECTING PIPES. AL AL 8 UPPER 12 STACK RACK NAIL IRON ROD 6 LOWER 12FOUND BIKE RACKS IRON ROD NAIL FOUND .W .W FOUND IN BUILDING FACE FOUND IN BUILDING FACE 6 UPPER NC NC ASPHALT ASPHALT W W ASPHALT BLDG ASPHALT BLDG CO CO 453.77' 453.77' G G S S S S OHP OHP D D OHP OHP P P OH BLDG 15 OH BLDG TEL 434.295.5624 FAX 434.295.8317 www.timmons.com 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200 | Charlottesville, VA 22903 457.10' 457.10' 12 45 STACK 6 RACK 456 8 BIKE RACKS 6 LOWER 12" DEC 455 5.5' 12" DEC 45 5 6PUPPER MIN. AISLE P OH OH 50' PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY 50' PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY TC SWK 5.5' 4 TC SWK 4 45 45 AN AN 6 BIKE RACKS MARKET STREET MARKET STREET 455.10' 455.21' 448.12' 455.10' 455.21' 448.12' 8'' S 8'' S 455 TC 455 TC THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE 20' 455 448 455 448 OHP OHP 3 447.33' 3 447.33' P 45 P 45 CHARLOTTESVILLE OFFICE OH OH RETAIL 1 W W G G 9 9 454.16' 454.16' 50 0 451 451 452 452 45 44 44 EE=454.06' 4 EE=454.06' RETAIL 4 7,635 SF 5,600 SF E E RETAIL ENTRY G G W RA W NC NC CONC. WALK CONC. WALK EE=447.06' EE=447.06' 447 447 454 TC 454 TC SWK SWK RA 453.69' 453.69' OHP OHP 453.77' 447.23' 453.77' 447.23' RETAIL ENTRY 11 COMPACT TC TC NT NT REVISION DESCRIPTION 446.51' 446.51' OHP OHP E BE RB 45 45 2 101 101 AN AN 453 453 MIN0' UR BLDG BLDG 3 3 8'' S 8'' S CU 9 C 1 2 . G G 16" DEC ST 2 16" DEC SH SH ST 2 ST 1 W W ST 1 452 20' 452 LU FLU 46 46 G AL W G 452 D 452 D RESIDENTIAL EX-1 EX-1 A4Y A4Y MIN. D D CURBOHP CURBOHP REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS LK W KF ENTRY MECH. MECH. F-W F -W IGH NUE IGH UE OHP OHP WA T-O T -O C R EN .W FL FL 451 451 MIN. 450.92' 450.92' E 20' . 13 NC NC EE=444.85' RESIDENTIAL ENTRY EE=444.85' BL AV BLI AV EE=450.79' EE=450.79' 445 445 CITY PID: 330276000 CITY PID: 330276000 CO CO R B RB 450.53' 450.53' AN AN D P S CUR 450 MARKET STREET PROMENADE, LLC 450 MARKET STREET PROMENADE, LLC IC TH ON T H ON 447.00' 447.00' 8'' S 8'' S CU G G 16" DEC 16" DEC WID EST L WID EST L INST. NO. 20170003093 INST. NO. 20170003093 OHP OHP F F 443.91' 443.91' PU PU W W ZONED: DH ZONED: DH ALK K OHP OHP PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN S AL W RB W 44 44 449 449 NG NG ALK ALK DD DD 4 4 RETAIL 2 .W .W 443.51' 443.51' BLE R BLE PR ILI ILI HC 443.02' 443.02' RB HC HC RETAIL 3 4,680 SF FL CU L 449 449 448.38' 448.38' RA RA EE=443.48' 443.15' EE=443.48' 443.15' C. W C. W VAN NC NC F EE=448.92' EE=448.92' 4,120 SF CU 8 450.00' 442.75'442.71' 450.00' 442.75'442.71' L AL G G VA OLD 448 448 CO CO TA 443 S 443 S ET (INCL.HC) OL CON CON RETAIL ENTRY ME 443 443 11/19/2021 3/30/2022 EM 1/7/2022 RIA RIA 44 44 LE OHP OHP 8 8 442.62' 442.62' BL 447.95' 447.95' DATE G G MIN. 442.69' 442.69' AB VA 447 447 RETAIL A OHP OHP 24' 42 42 RT RT ENTRY RB RB 4 4 CU L CU L PO PO W W AN AN 442 442 F F -1.4 -1.4 W W ADA SIGN S S -70.% DOWN -70.% DOWN 8'' 8'' 44 441.06' 94% NA 44 441.06' 94% NA DATE 44 44 6 BLDG 3 D8 6 BLDG D8 3 7 7 BLDG 441.02' BLDG 441.02' G G 446.85' 441.00' 446.85' 441.00' DOWN PROPERTY LINE ALONG CENTERLINE OF PARTY WALL PROPERTY LINE ALONG CENTERLINE OF PARTY WALL 08/10/2021 DRILL HOLE SET 440.96' DRILL HOLE SET 440.96' 441 441 OHP OHP 445 CHISELED X TM# 330278000 IN CONC. WALK 440.67' 445 CHISELED X TM# 330278000 IN CONC. WALK 440.67' DRAWN BY OHP OHP FOUND IN 3' DOOR JOHN CONOVER AND 440.60' 440.78' FOUND IN 3' DOOR JOHN CONOVER AND 440.60' 440.78' CONC. WALK TM# 330277000 440.32'440.28' D CONC. WALK TM# 330277000 440.32'440.28' D ROOF OVERHANG VIRGINIA DAUGHERTY, TRUSTEES ROOF OVERHANG VIRGINIA DAUGHERTY, TRUSTEES J. DENKO E LIGHT HOUSE STUDIO D.B. 984 PG. 34 440.47' E LIGHT HOUSE STUDIO D.B. 984 PG. 34 440.47' LR.# 201500001506 LR.# 201500001506 DESIGNED BY S S 440AN 440AN W W S S 8'' 8'' G G J. DENKO OHP OHP CHECKED BY SCALE 1"=20' SCALE 1"=20' OHP OHP D D C. KOTARSKI 0 20' 40' 0 20' 40' S S S S G G SCALE 1" = 20' W W PARKING PLAN GROUND FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1"=20' SCALE: 1"=20' NOTE: 1. SPACE SAVER BIKE RACK DIMENSIONS: 42" X 16" + 36" ACCESS AISLE These plans and associated documents are the exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and may not be reproduced in whole or in part and shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever, inclusive, but not 2. HOOP BIKE RACK SPACING: 4' CENTER TO CENTER SPACING 7' CLEARANCE 3. PARKING GARAGE VERTICAL CLEARANCE WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ICC/ANSI A117.1 SECTION 502.6. 4. APPLICABLE EXHAUST WILL BE PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH IMC 501.3.1, CONDTION 3 ACCESSIBLE ROUTE (MAX 5% 218 W MARKET STREET RUNNING SLOPE AND 2% PARKING AND MAIN LEVEL PLAN CROSS SLOPE, MAX 8.33% RUNNING SLOPE FOR RAMPS) CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA S:\103\43750-218_W_Market\DWG\Sheet\PRELIM SITE PLAN\43750-103-C4.1-BLDG.dwg | Plotted on 3/30/2022 3:21 PM | by Jessica Denko limited to construction, bidding, and/or construction staking without the express written consent of TIMMONS GROUP. JOB NO. 43750 SHEET NO. C4.1 G OHP W OHP TM# 330274000 ESCAFE BUILDING, LLC D.B. 1030 PG. 765 TM# 330271000 MCSWAIN PROPERTIES, LLC SMH 09-428 D.B. 793 PG. 817 TOP=451.72' INV IN=445.00' 8" DI OHP INV IN=451.72' 6" PVC OHP G AN TEL 434.295.5624 FAX 434.295.8317 www.timmons.com 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200 | Charlottesville, VA 22903 INV OUT=444.96' 8" DI 8'' S W NAIL FOUND IN BUILDING FACE P IRON ROD RC FOUND ALK 18" OHP THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE ASPHALT ASPHALT .W OHP BLDG CHARLOTTESVILLE OFFICE 453.77' NC G S P S OH D CO BLDG W P 457.10' REVISION DESCRIPTION OH OHP 456 OHP OHP 5 PROPOSED VEGETATED ROOF 45 AN 12" DEC ±10,020 SF 8'' S P OH G REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS P TC SWK 4 OH 45 MHD OHP 455.10' 455.21' W 448.12' TOP=452.63' OHP INV IN=448.73' 18" RCP 455 G TC P 447.33' INV IN=449.86' 6" PVC OH 455 3 448 INV OUT=448.51' 18" RCP 45 P RC AN G W 8'' S 454.16' 9 18" 0 44 451 45 OHP 452 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN EE=454.06' OHP W G EE=447.06' 11/19/2021 454 TC 447 3/30/2022 1/7/2022 453.69' SWK 50' PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY DATE 453.77' MARKET STREET 447.23' OHP G W TC AN 446.51' 8'' S CONC. WALK DATE OHP G 08/10/2021 E 45 101 NC 453 P W 3 RC BLDG DRAWN BY OHP RA 15" T P J. DENKO EN RC 18" G W RB DESIGNED BY 16" DEC OHP AN CU J. DENKO 8'' S 452 D SD INLET/MHD SH G 446 452 EX-1 CHECKED BY S62°53'38"E TOP=445.70' D FLU OHP 25.01' INV IN=441.85' 30" RCP(E) C. KOTARSKI INV IN=441.60' 15" RCP MHD W E INV IN=441.61' 30" RCP(S) TOP=447.52' 10-IN CI LIN SCALE Y INV OUT=440.05' 36" RCP INV IN=444.75' 18" RCP A CP OHP -W 1" = 10' G INV OUT=444.71' 18" RCP E W CURB R -OF U 36" 451 C R VEN FL 450.92' HT G OHP AN K P IG 8'' S AL RC EE=444.85' S56°28'06"E A EE=450.79' .W 24.98' 18" ON CITY PID: 330276000 445 NC BLI 450.53' MARKET STREET PROMENADE, LLC OHP CO W G PU ST 450 INST. NO. 20170003093 RB TH 447.00' E ZONED: DH G These plans and associated documents are the exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and may not be reproduced in whole or in part and shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever, inclusive, but not W BLE R OHP CU WID 16" DEC 2" WATER METER OLG FL RIA D P 443.91' AN 8'' S S50°08'48"E 44 OHP 449 DD VA 4 24.91' 443.51'SMH 09-427 443.02' TOP=443.65' W MHD W OHP 218 W MARKET STREET TOP=445.65' G INV IN=439.70' 8" DI LK 448.38' 449 EE=443.48' 443.15' GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN W FL EE=448.92' INV OUT=439.64' 8" DI INV IN=442.95' 18" RCP WA RB 450.00' 442.75' 442.71' INV OUT=442.83' 18" RCP ALK CU G . NC 448 2''W 443 S OHP C. W CO GS 443 N CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA CON ILI 2''W 44 OHP RA 8 6''W 442.62' L 447.95' W G TA S:\103\43750-218_W_Market\DWG\Sheet\PRELIM SITE PLAN\43750-103-C5.0-GRAD.dwg | Plotted on 3/30/2022 3:21 PM | by Jessica Denko 6''W 442.69' ME N W SA 447 N45°01'53"W LE 8'' G G 18.12' 2 44 AB OHP 6''W RT 6''W PO FL RB OHP 442 CU G NA -1.4 D8 P 3 0% RC 441.06' limited to construction, bidding, and/or construction staking without the express written consent of TIMMONS GROUP. G 446 -7.9 G 6''W 44 4% W 18" BLDG 7 BLDG 441.02' N W S41°20'59"E SA OHP 446.85' G 441.00' 8'' 4.96' G PROPERTY LINE ALONG CENTERLINE OF PARTY WALL OHP 440.96' TM# 330278000 DRILL HOLE SET 441 44 IN CONC. WALK 440.67' SD GRATE 5 JOHN CONOVER AND TOP=444.87' CHISELED X 3' DOOR VIRGINIA DAUGHERTY, TRUSTEES 440.60' 440.78' FOUND IN SCALE 1"=10' INV OUT=442.57' 12" RCP CONC. WALK TM# 330277000 D.B. 984 PG. 34 440.28' D OHP 440.32' LIGHT HOUSE STUDIO G N W ROOF OVERHANG SA LR.# 201500001506 0 10' 20' OHP E 440.47' 8'' P RC SD GRATE 24" S TOP=444.99' INV OUT=442.64' 12" RCP MHD 440 MHD TOP=441.88' OHP TOP=438.69' G INV IN=438.77' 18" RCP INV IN=434.04' 36" RCP INV OUT=437.23' 24" RCP OHP INV IN=433.89' 24" RCP STORM STRUCTURE TABLE W N SA INV OUT=432.20' 36" RCP 8'' STRUCTURE # TOP STRUCTURE HEIGHT DESCRIPTION D G BLDG 446.28 6.26' CONNECT TO BLDG OHP EX-1 447.24 4.79' Box OHP S S STORM PIPE TABLE JOB NO. G W P PIPE # DIA FROM - TO UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM SLOPE LENGTH DESCRIPTION 43750 RC SMH 09-426 INVERT INVERT " TOP=439.02' 36 SHEET NO. INV IN=433.78' 8" DI 101 30" BLDG - EX-1 442.02 441.85 2.00% 8.40 LF 30 inch RCP G INV IN=433.83' 8" DI FROM BLDG C5.0 INV IN=433.79' 10" DI FROM OMNI STORMWATER NARRATIVE WATER QUALITY SUMMARY THIS PROJECT PROPOSED THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING RETAIL BUILDING, PARKING AREA AND ASSOCIATED UTILITIES TO MEET WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS, THIS PROJECT PROPOSES A FOLLOWED BY THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW MIXED USE BUILDING WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING, UTILITY CONNECTIONS AND 10,020 SF LEVEL 1 VEGETATED ROOF. THE SUMMARY PER THE VIRGINIA ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE IS 0.66 ACRES. RUNOFF REDUCTION SPREADSHEET IS PRESENTED BELOW. GUTTER SPREAD CALCULATIONS AT MARKET ST. CURB TO MEET WATER QUANTITY REQUIREMENTS, THE SITE HAS BEEN ANALYZED CONSIDERING TWO OUTFALLS TO WHICH SITE DATA STORMWATER IS DISCHARGING. PRE DEVELOPED AREA PRE COMBINED FLOW TOTAL = 0.66 ACRES AREA = 0.24 AC SITE OUTFALL 1 MANAGED TURF = 0.05 ACRES 0.23 AC (IMPERVIOUS) IN THE PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITION, THE MAJORITY OF THE SITE (PRE AREA 1A) DRAINS THROUGH ONSITE INLETS AND ROOF IMPERVIOUS = 0.61 ACRES 0.01 AC (MULCH AREA) TEL 434.295.5624 FAX 434.295.8317 www.timmons.com 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200 | Charlottesville, VA 22903 LEADERS TO AN EXISTING INLET IN OLD PRESTON AVE. ALSO DRAINING THROUGH THE SITE, A 30" CMP TO RCP PIPE WAS PRE DEVELOPMENT LOAD (TP) (LB/YR) = 1.32 Tc = 6 MIN DISCOVERED CONNECTED TO THE CURB INLET IN OLD PRESTON AVE. THE UPPER INLET CONNECTION TO THIS PIPE IS BURIED AND THE INCOMING PIPES ARE UNKNOWN. THE PIPES IN AND OUT OF THE STRUCTURE WERE UNDER WATER AT THE TIME OF POST DEVELOPED AREA POST COMBINED FLOW THE SURVEY. IT IS ASSUMED THE PIPE CONNECTS UNDOCUMENTED DRAINAGE STRUCTURES FROM THE PROPERTIES TO THE TOTAL = 0.66 ACRES AREA = 0.23 AC EAST. MANAGED TURF = 0.00 ACRES 0.23 AC (IMPERVIOUS) IMPERVIOUS = 0.66 ACRES 0.0 AC (MULCH AREA) THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE IN THE POST-DEVELOPED CONDITION, THE BUILDING ROOF AREA (POST AREA 1A) WILL CONNECT TO THE THE EXISTING INLET IN POST DEVELOPMENT LOAD (TP) (LB/YR) = 1.43 Tc = 6 MIN CHARLOTTESVILLE OFFICE OLD PRESTON AVE. THE OFFSITE AREA (PRE/POST 1B) WILL BE ROUTED THROUGH THE BUILDING PLUMBING AND OUTFALL MAXIMUM PERCENT REDUCTION REQUIRED FOR REDEVELOPMENT = 10% TOGETHER WITH THE BUILDING ROOF DRAINAGE TO THE INLET IN OLD PRESTON AVE. Q (CFS) TOTAL LOAD REDUCTION REQUIRED (LB/YR) = 0.22 LB/YR. PRE 2 YEAR 1.08 CFS SITE OUTFALL 2 POST 2 YEAR 1.04 CFS IN THE PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITION, THE NORTH SIDE OF THE SITE (PRE AREA 2) SHEET FLOWS ACROSS THE SIDEWALK ON TO TP LOAD REDUCTION ACHIEVED WITH MARKET STREET, WHERE THE EXISTING CURB ON MARKET STREET ACTS AS A MANMADE CHANNEL. 10,020 SF VEGETATED ROOF (LEVEL 1) = 0.22 LB/YR. REVISION DESCRIPTION IN THE POST-DEVELOPED CONDITION, THE AREA DRAINING TO SITE OUTFALL 2 (POST AREA 2) HAS BEEN REDUCED SO THAT THE REMAINING TP LOAD REDUCTION REQUIRED = 0.00 LB/YR. DISCHARGE AT SITE OUTFALL 2 MEETS THE ENERGY BALANCE EQUATION REQUIREMENTS. ADDITIONALLY, VDOT GUTTER SPREAD CALCULATIONS ARE INCLUDED ON THIS SHEET AND DEMONSTRATE THAT THE GUTTER SPREAD DOES NOT ENCROACH INTO THE TRAVEL LANE. FLOOD PROTECTION REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS WHEN COMPARED TO THE PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITION, THE POST-DEVELOPED CONDITION IN A 10-YEAR, 24-HOUR STORM WILL RESULT IN A REDUCTION OF DISCHARGE AT BOTH SITE OUTFALL 1 AND 2. REFER TO CALCULATIONS ON THIS SHEET FOR DETAILED DISCHARGE VALUES. TPRE = 1.24 [1.08 x 0.013/((0.058) 5/3 x (0.082)1/2 )]3/8 = 2.36 FT LEGEND DRAINAGE DIVIDE TPOST = 1.24 [1.04 x 0.013/((0.058) 5/3 x (0.082)1/2 )]3/8 = 2.33 FT LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN THE AREA OF SITE PROPOSED TO BE ROUTED TO SITE OUTFALL 2, COMBINED WITH THE EXISTING STREET (ONSITE AREA TO SITE DRAINAGE AREA 1A OUTFALL 1) STORMWATER FLOW TO SITE OUTFALL 2, PRODUCES A SPREAD OF 2.33 FT INTO THE PARKING LANE WITH THE 2-YEAR STORM. (OFFSITE AREA TO SITE 11/19/2021 3/30/2022 DRAINAGE AREA 1B OUTFALL 1) 1/7/2022 DATE (ONSITE AREA TO SITE DRAINAGE AREA 2 OUTFALL 2) DATE 08/10/2021 NA NA D8 D8 3 3 DRAWN BY J. DENKO DESIGNED BY J. DENKO CHECKED BY SCALE 1"=30' SCALE 1"=30' C. KOTARSKI SCALE 0 30' 60' 0 30' 60' 1" = 20' 454 454 460 460 45 45 6 6 These plans and associated documents are the exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and may not be reproduced in whole or in part and shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever, inclusive, but not OHP OHP PRE-DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE AREA 1B POST-DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE AREA 1B OFFSITE AREA THROUGH SITE OFFSITE AREA THROUGH SITE AREA = 0.98 AC AREA = 0.98 AC 218 W MARKET STREET OHP OHP IMPERVIOUS = 0.98 AC IMPERVIOUS = 0.98 AC STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN PERVIOUS = 0.00 AC PERVIOUS = 0.00 AC 458 458 OHP OHP CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA W W OHP OHP OFFSITE WATER CONNECTED TO THE BURIED G G INLET TO BE ROUTED THROUGH BUILDING TO S:\103\43750-218_W_Market\DWG\Sheet\PRELIM SITE PLAN\43750-103-C6.0-STRM.dwg | Plotted on 3/30/2022 3:21 PM | by Jessica Denko TIE TO EXISTING INLET IN OLD PRESTON OHP OHP OHP S S OHP S D S D OHP 45 45 456 5 4 456 5 PROPOSED VEGETATED ROOF 4 45 45 OHP OHP ±10,020 SF 4 EXISTING BURIED INLET AND 30" 4 45 45 limited to construction, bidding, and/or construction staking without the express written consent of TIMMONS GROUP. MHD MHD W W DRAINAGE PIPE TO BE REMOVED G G P 455 3 TOP=452.63' P 455 3 TOP=452.63' 448 448 AN AN OH 45 OH 45 0 INV IN=448.73' 18" RCP 0 INV IN=448.73' 18" RCP 8'' S 8'' S 9 9 451 451 452 452 45 45 44 44 INV IN=449.86' 6" PVC INV IN=449.86' 6" PVC SITE OUTFALL 1 447 447 454 INV OUT=448.51' 18" RCP 454 INV OUT=448.51' 18" RCP EXISTING INLET IN OLD PRESTON AVE W W SD INLET/MHD BUILDING ROOF DRAINAGE TO TIE TO EXISTING INLET SD INLET/MHD OHP OHP OHP OHP TOP=445.70' TOP=445.70' G G 453 453 INV IN=441.85' 30" RCP(E) INV IN=441.85' 30" RCP(E) INV IN=441.60' 15" RCP INV IN=441.60' 15" RCP 446 446 452 D INV IN=441.61' 30" RCP(S) 452 D INV IN=441.61' 30" RCP(S) G G S62°53'38"E D S62°53'38"E D 25.01' 25.01' SITE OUTFALL 1 W W PRE-DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE AREA 2 INV OUT=440.05' 36" RCP POST-DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE AREA 2 INV OUT=440.05' 36" RCP EXISTING INLET IN OLD PRESTON AVE AN AN TOWARDS MARKET ST. 451 TOWARDS MARKET STREET451 MHD MHD 8'' S 8'' S AREA = 0.04 AC S56°28'06"E AREA = 0.03 AC S56°28'06"E 445 445 OHP OHP 24.98' 24.98' OHP OHP IMPERVIOUS = 0.03 AC 45 TOP=447.52' IMPERVIOUS = 0.03 AC 450 TOP=447.52' PERVIOUS = 0.01 AC 0 INV IN=444.75' 18" RCP INV IN=444.75' 18" RCP W W PERVIOUS = 0 AC INV OUT=444.71' 18" RCP INV OUT=444.71' 18" RCP 44 44 449 S50°08'48"E 24.91' DD 449 S50°08'48"E 24.91' DD 4 4 MHD MHD 448 S TOP=445.65' 448 S TOP=445.65' OHP W G OHP W G INV IN=442.95' 18" RCP INV IN=442.95' 18" RCP 443 443 SITE OUTFALL 2 INV OUT=442.83' 18" RCP SITE OUTFALL 2 INV OUT=442.83' 18" RCP OHP OHP 447 N45°01'53"W 447 N45°01'53"W 442 G 442 G 18.12' 18.12' GUTTER FLOW IN GUTTER FLOW IN G MARKET STREET 4464 MARKET STREET 4464 4 6 46 POST-DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE AREA 1A W W S41°20'59"E S41°20'59"E 4.96' 4.96' PRE-DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE AREA 1A N N TOWARDS OLD PRESTON AVE. 8'' 41 8'' 41 445 445 4SA 4SA TOWARDS OLD PRESTON AVE. AREA = 0.63 AC E D AREA = 0.62 AC E D IMPERVIOUS = 0.40 AC SD GRATE IMPERVIOUS = 0.58 AC SD GRATE VEGETATED ROOF = 0.23 AC S S OHP OHP 440 440 TOP=444.99' MHD PERVIOUS = 0.04 AC TOP=444.99' MHD JOB NO. OHP OHP G TOP=441.88' G TOP=441.88' INV OUT=442.64' 12" RCP INV OUT=442.64' 12" RCP 43750 INV IN=438.77' 18" RCP INV IN=438.77' 18" RCP D D INV OUT=437.23' 24" RCP INV OUT=437.23' 24" RCP SHEET NO. S S SD GRATE S SD GRATE S C6.0 W W TOP=444.87' TOP=444.87' INV OUT=442.57' 12" RCP G INV OUT=442.57' 12" RCP G CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR AGENDA ITEM APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION NUMBER: SP22-00005 DATE OF AGENDA: June 14, 2022 Project Planner: Brian Haluska Date of Staff Report: May 16, 2022 Applicant: Piedmont Realty Holdings III, LLC Applicant’s Representative(s): Kelsey Schlein of Shimp Engineering Current Property Owner: Piedmont Realty Holdings III, LLC Application Information Property Street Address: 1000 Monticello Road (“Subject Property”) Tax Map & Parcel/Tax Status: 570036000 (real estate taxes paid current - Sec. 34-10) Total Square Footage/ Acreage Site: Approx. 0.81 acres (35,283 square feet) Comprehensive Plan (General Land Use Plan): Neighborhood Mixed Use Corridor Current Zoning Classification: Neighborhood Commercial Corridor Overlay District: None Applicant’s Request (Summary) The applicant requests a Special Use Permit (SUP) pursuant to City Code Sec. 34-700, which states that residential density up to 43 DUA is permitted with a SUP. The subject property has street frontage on Monticello Road and Bainbridge Street. Under the NCC zoning classification, 17 dwelling units could be developed by right on this site (21 DUA), per Z.O. Sec. 34-700 (Density). The site plan (Attachment C) submitted with the application depicts a development that would include 34 dwelling units as part of a multi-family residential project; since the development site is 0.81 acres, the proposed density is 42 DUA. See proposal narrative (Attachment A) and site plan submitted by the applicant pursuant to Z.O. Sec. 34-41(d)(1) and (d)(6). Page 1 of 16 SP22-00005 1000 Monticello Road The application narrative describes the construction of a new 11-unit building on the site, which currently contains 23 existing multi-family units, for a total of 34 units. The applicant further proposes that 7 of the 11 new units on the site will be designated affordable housing units, and has included a proposed condition to reflect this commitment. Vicinity Map Applicant Property Page 2 of 16 SP22-00005 1000 Monticello Road Context Map 1 Context Map 2- Zoning Classifications Applicant Property KEY - Yellow: R1-S, Light Orange: R-2, Orange: R-3, Red: B-2, Maroon: B-3, Purple: NCC, Grey: M-I Page 3 of 16 SP22-00005 1000 Monticello Road Context Map 3- General Land Use Plan, 2021 Comprehensive Plan Applicant Property KEY – Lavender: Neighborhood Mixed Use Corridor, Blue: Education, Yellow: General Residential; Orange: Medium Intensity Residential, Purple: Business and Technology Mixed Use, Pink: Neighborhood Mixed Use Node Standard of Review City Council may grant an applicant a special permit or special use permit, giving consideration to a number of factors set forth within Zoning Ordinance Sec. 34-157. If Council finds that a proposed use or development will have potentially adverse impacts, and if Council identifies development conditions that could satisfactorily mitigate such impacts, then Council may set forth reasonable conditions within its SUP approval. The role of the Planning Commission is to make an advisory recommendation to the City Council, as to (i) whether or not Council should approve a proposed SUP and if so, (ii) whether there are any reasonable development conditions that could mitigate potentially adverse impacts of the propose use or development. Section 34-157 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance lists a number of factors that Council will consider in making a decision on a proposed SUP. Following below is staff’s analysis of those factors, based on the information provided by the applicant. FOR APPLICANTS ANALYSIS OF THEIR APPLICATION PER SEC 34-157 SEE ATTACHMENT B Page 4 of 16 SP22-00005 1000 Monticello Road (1) Whether the proposed use or development will be harmonious with existing patterns of use and development within the neighborhood. The properties immediately surrounding the subject property are described as: Direction Use Zoning North Office Building/Residential NCC South Industrial M-I East Commercial/Residential NCC/B-3 West Residential NCC/R-1S The buildings immediately surrounding the subject property are mostly one (1) to two (2)- story buildings, primarily functioning as residences or offices. The subject property is on the eastern edge of the Belmont commercial district, which is characterized by one (1) to two (2)-story buildings with commercial uses. Most of these properties are zoned Neighborhood Commercial Corridor mixed use. Staff Analysis: The proposed use of the property depicted in the site plan and other application materials is a residential building containing multiple dwelling units (“multi- family dwelling”). The surrounding area is a mix of commercial buildings and single family detached dwelling units. The proposed use is harmonious with the existing patterns of use within the neighborhood, and is not a change to the current use of the property. (2) Whether the proposed use or development and associated public facilities will substantially conform to the city's comprehensive plan. Below are specific areas of the Comprehensive Plan for which the development is in compliance: Land Use – Community Vision “The built form of the city – including buildings, streets, and parks – will be walkable, people focused, protective of the natural environment, and scaled to allow additional housing types and a mix of uses throughout the city at a scale that is familiar to the city’s neighborhoods. The City will prioritize transit-oriented development, smart growth, infill, and adaptive reuse policies to address housing needs, climate change goals, reduce vehicle travel, and support walkability and bikeability.” Land Use – Objectives for Mixed Use Areas “Support the redevelopment of “underutilized” gray-field sites along community corridors.” Land Use - Goal 3 3.3: Develop strategies and partnerships that can bring underutilized properties, including historic properties, into productive and sustainable applications that will support increased residential or commercial uses, or a mix of uses. Page 5 of 16 SP22-00005 1000 Monticello Road Housing – Goal 2 2.1: Encourage mixed-use and mixed-income neighborhoods and housing developments throughout the city and support zoning changes to allow them by-right. 2.2: Promote housing redevelopment and infill development that supports bicycle and pedestrian- oriented infrastructure improvements and robust public transportation to better connect residents to jobs and commercial activity. 2.4: Target a city-wide residential vacancy rate of at least 5 percent in order to assure a well- functioning, liquid housing market. Comprehensive Plan- Staff Analysis: The General Land Use Plan calls for the subject property and areas along the Monticello Road corridor to be Neighborhood Mixed Use Corridor land use, with some Business and Technology Mixed Use adjacent to the Subject Property as well. The Comprehensive Plan specifies that Neighborhood Mixed Use Corridor areas are intended to have building forms that respond to existing residential, environmental and historic context. Uses should be commercial, employment and residential uses. Business and Technology Mixed Use is described as buildings up to 6 stories in height with light industrial/manufacturing, technology, and business uses; with residential permitted on upper floors. Several goals in the Comprehensive Plan speak to a desire to have density as appropriate in locations that will foster developments that are walkable and bikeable to the downtown area and other centers of employment, entertainment, and education. The subject property is on the eastern edge of the Belmont commercial area, and is less than a mile from the downtown core of the City. Creating more density and housing options near the downtown core will reduce commuter congestion and may open up housing options in other parts of the City. It is reasonable to permit a moderate level of density at this location, if proper conditions are applied. Many of the goals in the Housing chapter of the Comprehensive Plan deal with the preference for affordability in new housing projects. The applicant has proposed to make 2 units in the new construction portion of the site affordable at 80% AMI, and additional 5 units affordable at 65%AMI to meet these goals. The applicant has proposed a building that is 3-4 stories in height, which would be taller than any of the buildings in the Belmont commercial area, but would be comparable in height to the tallest building on the Virginia Industries for the Blind location adjacent to the Subject Property. Page 6 of 16 SP22-00005 1000 Monticello Road Streets that Work Plan The May 2016 Streets that Work Plan (approved September 2016 as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan) labels Monticello Road and Bainbridge Street both as a Local Street typology. The full Streets That Work plan can be viewed at: http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and-services/departments-h-z/neighborhood- development-services/streets-that-work/streets-that-work-plan Local Streets are characterized as the majority of the street network and have no specific associated typology due to the variation of context and available space. The Streets that Work Plan notes design elements on Local Streets should not exceed the dimensions specified for Neighborhood B streets, and that techniques such as curb extensions are appropriate. A minimum of five (5) to six (6) feet of clear zone width for sidewalks is recommended for Neighborhood B streets. Sidewalks and on-street parking are noted as the highest priority street elements. The Streets That Work Plan states that driveways should be designed to provide a continuous and level clear walk zone across the vehicular path and encourage vehicles to yield to pedestrians on the sidewalk. The proposed site plan would eliminate the existing vehicle entrance to the Subject Property on Monticello Road, which would reduce the length of the curb cut along that street. No change is shown on the Bainbridge Street frontage. Staff Analysis: Based on the current application package, staff concludes that the pedestrian network along the development frontage is, as represented in this application, consistent with the Streets that Work Plan. (3) Whether proposed use or development of any buildings or structures will comply with all applicable building code regulations. Based on the information contained within the application, the proposed development would likely comply with applicable building code regulations. However, final determinations cannot be made prior to having the details required for final site plan and building permit approvals. Page 7 of 16 SP22-00005 1000 Monticello Road (4) Potential adverse impacts, including, but not necessarily limited to: a) Traffic or parking congestion Traffic The applicant shows an existing total daily trip generation of 124 trips for the site. The proposed additional units would increase this to 182 trips, or a 45% increase. Peak-hour traffic: As shown in the trip generation (Table on Page C1 in Attachment C), the morning peak hour would have 12 trips, 75% of which would be exiting the site. The afternoon peak hour would have 15 trips, with 60% entering the site. Staff Analysis: The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the preliminary site plan and had no concerns regarding the changes to the automobile access to the site and the increase in traffic on the adjacent streets. Vehicular Access The site currently has vehicular access from Monticello Road and Bainbridge Street. The proposed plan would close the vehicle access from Monticello Road. Staff Analysis: Staff has no concern regarding the change in vehicle access. Parking The existing 23 units require 24 parking spaces. The additional 11 units will each require a single space per unit. The proposed site plan shows a total 35 parking spaces on site. Staff Analysis: Based on the information provided in the project proposal narrative and site plan, it appears that the minimum parking requirements of the zoning ordinance can be met for the proposed development. Adjacent streets also permit on-street parking. Other Modes of Transportation The subject property is on Charlottesville Area Transit’s Route 3, and is a short walk from stops on Route 1. The proposed development is also served by a complete (but mostly un-buffered) sidewalk network immediately adjacent to the subject property. Crosswalks in the general vicinity are typically unmarked. Staff Analysis: The subject property’s proximity to two bus lines, as well as the existing sidewalks in the neighborhood offer several alternative modes of transportation to automobiles. Page 8 of 16 SP22-00005 1000 Monticello Road b) Noise, lights, dust, odor, fumes, vibration, and other factors which adversely affect the natural environment The proposed development may result in increased noise, as a result of the proposed multi-family development. The upper stories include balconies, which are a potential source of additional ambient noise in the neighborhood; however, there are no statistics indicating that, overall, the noise generated by 11 dwelling units in a mid-rise apartment building would exceed noise anticipated from an equivalent number of single-family dwellings. As to noise from motor vehicles, the trip generation figures provided by the applicant (Attachment C) will not appreciably increase the noise and fumes from automobile traffic to and from the building. Staff Analysis: The impacts are consistent with what can be expected in a mixed-use neighborhood. c) Displacement of existing residents or businesses The proposed project would not displace any residents or businesses. d) Discouragement of economic development activities that may provide desirable employment or enlarge the tax base The proposed project is not proposing the removal of any structures, and would add 11 residential units to the City’s housing stock. Staff does not anticipate any discouragement of economic development activities. e) Undue density of population or intensity of use in relation to the community facilities existing or available Staff Analysis: The proposed development will necessarily result in some increased demand on physical facilities and services provided. Some of these impacts, such as impacts on the City’s water and sewer facilities, and public streets/ sidewalks, can be adequately evaluated and addressed during the site plan process, and final site plan approval is dependent on confirmation of adequate facilities or improvements provided by the applicant to ensure adequacy. A preliminary review of the proposal indicates the City’s existing water and sewer facilities are likely to be adequate to serve the proposed development. The subject property is located less than a mile from many amenities in the downtown area, including the Downtown Mall, Court Square, the JMRL Central Library, Court Square Park, and Market Street Park. In addition, the subject property is within walking distance of Belmont, Rives and Meade Parks. Page 9 of 16 SP22-00005 1000 Monticello Road Staff believes park and recreation opportunities available in proximity of the subject property can adequately accommodate the proposed increase in density created by the development. f) Reduction in the availability of affordable housing in the neighborhood The application as presented would increase the availability of affordable housing in the neighborhood. The applicant has proposed a condition as a part of the SUP that would designate 7 of the 11 new units as affordable. The condition also lays out the guidelines for these units. The Office of Community Solutions has reviewed the proposed condition and draft covenants, and made the following recommendations: 1. Pursuant to the information provided in the above tables, staff is concerned that the offered FMRs and Income Levels are not realistic as to providing affordable rental units in the City of Charlottesville. 2. Staff would like to see a longer Rental Affordability Period. 3. Staff would like to see assurances that vouchers will be accepted. 4. An acceptable marketing plan on how to market the designated affordable units should be provided to the City’s Office of Community Solutions prior to the issuance of the permit for development of the units. The marketing plan should provide detailed information on how the developer/owner will market the property, including non-discrimination of prospective tenants on the basis of race, creed, religion, color, sec, age, national origin, or source of income. 5. When completed and occupied, the owner shall provide an annual report on affordability compliance for the affordable unit(s) on a template provided by the City’s Office of Community Solutions. g) Impact on school population and facilities The proposed project site plan (Attachment C) indicates the new residential units will be one (1) and two (2) bedroom units. The project narrative (Attachment B) indicates that the site is within the Clark Elementary attendance zone. Staff Analysis: Because housing is open to all, there is a possibility that families with children could take residence here. Therefore, some impact could be created on school population and facilities is possible. The unit type and size, however, are likely to be less Page 10 of 16 SP22-00005 1000 Monticello Road attractive to families with school-aged children, and any impact on school population from the proposed development is anticipated to be minimal. h) Destruction of or encroachment upon conservation or historic districts The subject property is not within any design control district. i) Conformity with federal, state and local laws, as demonstrated and certified by the applicant Based on the information contained within the application, the proposed development would likely comply with applicable federal and state laws. As to local ordinances (zoning, water protection, etc.), it generally appears that this project, as detailed in the application, can be accommodated on this site in compliance with applicable local ordinances; however, final determinations cannot be made prior to having the details required for final site plan and building permit approvals. Specific Z.O. requirements reviewed preliminarily at this stage include massing and scale (building height, setbacks, stepbacks, etc.) and general planned uses. j) Massing and scale of project The application materials depict a new building containing three (3) stories above the surface of the subject property, viewed from the Monticello Road street frontage, with four stories above grade further into the site because of changes in topography. The building elevations in Attachment C show a building height of 41.5 feet. NCC zoning regulations (Z.O. Sec. 34-697(2)) restrict by-right building height to 45 feet, max. Per Z.O. Sec. 34-698(b)(1), the subject property has no required front setback, with a maximum 10 foot setback on Monticello Road and Bainbridge Street. Per Z.O. Sec. 34- 698(b)(4), no setback is required on the side or rear lot lines. The applicant has indicated that all on-site parking will be accessed via the existing entrance on Bainbridge Street. The existing entrance on Monticello Road will be removed as a part of the construction of the new building. Staff Analysis: The 3 story height of the new construction on Monticello Road will be a change to the Belmont commercial zone, as this building will become a focal point for anyone looking east from “downtown Belmont” As mentioned above, the height of this building is similar to that of the adjacent industrial property, rather than the one (1) and two (2) story buildings in the commercial core of the neighborhood. Page 11 of 16 SP22-00005 1000 Monticello Road The proposed construction on the site is within the by-right limits of the NCC zoning. The proposed structure could be built as shown without any additional approvals from City Council. (5) Whether the proposed use or development will be in harmony with the purposes of the specific zoning district in which it will be placed; The description for NCC states the district was established as “a zoning classification for the Fontaine and Belmont commercial areas that recognize their compact nature, their pedestrian orientation, and the small neighborhood nature of the businesses. This zoning district recognizes the areas as small town center type commercial areas and provides for the ability to develop on small lots with minimal parking dependent upon pedestrian access. The regulations recognize the character of the existing area and respect that they are neighborhood commercial districts located within established residential neighborhoods.” (Z.O. Sec. 34-541(8)). The NCC zone allows for single-family, two-family, and multi-family residential development by-right. The proposed project is an addition to an existing multi-family residential development, which staff believes to be appropriate for the district. (6) Whether the proposed use or development will meet applicable general and specific standards set forth within the zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, or other city ordinances or regulations; and Based on the information contained within the application, the proposed development would likely comply with applicable local ordinances. However, final determinations cannot be made prior to having the details required for final site plan and building permit approvals. (7) When the property that is the subject of the application for a special use permit is within a design control district, city council shall refer the application to the BAR or ERB, as may be applicable, for recommendations as to whether the proposed use will have an adverse impact on the district, and for recommendations as to reasonable conditions which, if imposed, that would mitigate any such impacts. The BAR or ERB, as applicable, shall return a written report of its recommendations to the city council. The project is not located in a design control district. Public Comments Received As required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(c)(2), the applicant held an online community meeting on April 21, 2022 beginning at 6:00pm. Property owners within 500 feet and the Belmont-Carlton Page 12 of 16 SP22-00005 1000 Monticello Road Neighborhood Association were notified of the meeting per requirements in Section 34- 41(c)(2). Two members of the public attended. Members of the public have expressed concern about the cumulative impact of all of the proposed developments in the Belmont area on traffic circulating through local streets. This application is similar to SP20-00001, and the public comments from that application are included below: The applicant hosted an online community meeting on October 8, 2020. Several members of the public were in attendance. The attendees expressed concern about the impact to traffic on site, as well as along Monticello Road. Monticello Road is a narrow road with many competing users, including cars, pedestrians, and delivery vehicles. The attendees felt that the impact of the additional traffic from this proposed development must be considered along with other proposals in the corridor, and that Monticello Road must be closely monitored to make sure it meets the needs of all users. Attendees also asked questions about the overall level of affordability being provided by the new residential units and the number of bedrooms in the units. The Planning Commission and City Council held a joint public hearing on this matter on December 8, 2020. Several members of the public spoke, mostly in opposition to the request. Commenters opposed the increase in density on the grounds that the building was out of character with the surrounding neighborhood and the zoning district classification. Staff was included on several messages from adjacent residents to the applicant. These messages raised concerns about the height of the proposed building, potential noise from HVAC units, the small setbacks on the proposed building, and the traffic impact from the change to the layout of the parking and the additional residential units. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission focus on the following items during review: impact to the surrounding neighborhood, increased traffic, access, and the pedestrian experience. Recommended Conditions Staff recommends that a request for higher density could be approved with the following conditions: Page 13 of 16 SP22-00005 1000 Monticello Road 1) Up to 42 dwelling units per acre (DUA), or 34 residential units, are permitted on the subject property. 2) The Owner shall provide affordable housing within the Property, as follows: a) For the purposes of this Condition, the term “For-Rent Workforce Affordable Dwelling Unit” means a dwelling unit where the monthly cost of rent, including any tenant paid utilities, does not exceed 125% of the Fair Market Rent by unit bedrooms for the Charlottesville MSA, the aforementioned Fair Market Rent is established annually by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). i) For-Rent Workforce Affordable Dwelling Units shall be reserved for rental to low and moderate-income households having income less than 80 percent of the Area Median Income. Area Median income means the median income for Households within the Charlottesville, Virginia HUD Metropolitan FMR Area, as published annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. b) For the purposes of this Condition, the term “For-Rent Affordable Dwelling Unit” means a dwelling unit where the monthly cost of rent, including any tenant paid utilities, does not exceed the Fair Market Rent by unit bedrooms for the Charlottesville MSA, the aforementioned Fair Market Rent is established annually by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). i) For-Rent Affordable Dwelling Units shall be reserved for rental to low and moderate- income households having income less than 65 percent of the Area Median Income. Area Median income means the median income for Households within the Charlottesville, Virginia HUD Metropolitan FMR Area, as published annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. c) Two (2) of the dwelling units constructed as a result of the approval of this special use permit request within the area of the property shall be For-Rent Workforce Affordable Dwelling Units and an additional five (5) of the dwelling units constructed as a result of the approval of this special use permit request within the area of the property shall be For-Rent Affordable Dwelling Units (collectively, the “Required Affordable Dwelling Units”) for a total of seven of the dwelling units constructed within the area of the Property provided as Required Affordable Dwelling Units. The Required Affordable Dwelling Units shall be identified on a layout plan, by unit, prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for a residential unit within the Property (“Initial Designation”). The Owner reserves the right, from time to time after the Initial Designation, and subject to approval by the City, to change the unit(s) reserved as For- Rent Workforce-Affordable Dwelling Units and For-Rent Affordable Dwelling Units, and the City’s approval shall not unreasonably be withheld so long as a proposed change does not reduce the number of Required Affordable Dwelling Units and does not result in an Affordability Period shorter than required by these conditions with respect to any of the Required Affordable Dwelling Units. Page 14 of 16 SP22-00005 1000 Monticello Road i) The Required Affordable Dwelling Units shall be reserved as such throughout a period of at least ten (10) years from the date on which the unit receives a certificate of occupancy from the City’s building official (“Rental Affordability Period”). All Rental Affordable Dwelling Units shall be administered in accordance with one or more written declarations of covenants within the land records of the Charlottesville Circuit Court, in a form approved by the Office of the City Attorney. ii) On or before January 1 of each calendar year the then current owner of each Required Affordable Dwelling Unit shall submit an Annual Report to the City, identifying each Required Affordable Dwelling Unit by address and location, and verifying the Household Income of the occupant(s) of each Required Affordable Dwelling Unit. d) The land use obligations referenced in 1.c.i and 1.c.ii shall be set forth within one or more written declarations of covenants recorded within the land records of the Charlottesville Circuit Court, in a form approved by the Office of the City Attorney, so that the Owner’s successors in right, title and interest to the Property shall have notice of and be bound by the obligations. The Required Affordable Dwelling Units shall be provided as for-rent units throughout the Rental Affordability Period. 3) An acceptable marketing plan on how to market the designated affordable units should be provided to the City’s Office of Community Solutions prior to the issuance of the permit for development of the units. The marketing plan should provide detailed information on how the developer/owner will market the property, including non-discrimination of prospective tenants on the basis of race, creed, religion, color, sec, age, national origin, or source of income. 4) When completed and occupied, the owner shall provide an annual report on affordability compliance for the affordable unit(s) on a template provided by the City’s Office of Community Solutions. Page 15 of 16 SP22-00005 1000 Monticello Road Suggested Motions 1. I move to recommend approval of this application for a Special Use Permit in the NCC zone at 1000 Monticello Road to permit residential development with additional density with the following listed conditions. a. The four (4) conditions recommended by staff b. [alternative conditions, or additional condition(s)….list here] OR, 2. I move to recommend denial of this application for a Special Use Permit in the NCC zone at 1000 Monticello Road. Attachments A. Special Use Permit Application received April 20, 2022 B. Special Use Permit Narrative dated April 12, 2022 C. Special Use Permit Exhibit dated April 12, 2022 D. Affordable Dwelling Unit Worksheet E. Draft Affordable Housing Covenant F. Office of Community Solutions analysis of the Proposed Affordable Housing Condition Page 16 of 16 Project Narrative For: 1000 Monticello Road Parcel Description: 570036000 Initial Submittal: April 12, 2022 Pre-App Meeting Date: February 14, 2022 ACREAGE EXISTING PROPOSED COMP PLAN ZONING ZONING DESIGNATION TMP 57-36 .81 NCC NCC with SUP Neighborhood for additional Mixed Use density Corridor Location: TMP 57-36 has a physical address of 1000 Monticello Rd in Charlottesville, Va. The property is located in Charlottesville’s Belmont Neighborhood, within Belmont’s Neighborhood Commercial Corridor. Project Proposal: Piedmont Realty Holdings is the owner (the “owner”) of tax map parcel 57-36 in the City of Charlottesville (the “property”). On behalf of the owner, we request a special use permit to allow for additional density for a total of 11 additional residential units on the property. The property is currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial Corridor (NCC) and residential density up to 43 DUA is permitted by special use permit. Presently, there are 23 multi-family units on the property and this proposal would allow for a total of 34 units on the .81 acre parcel, for a total of 42 DUA on the property. The 11 additional units are proposed as a mixture of studio, one and two bedroom units and would be housed in a new single multi-family structure on the northern portion of the property where, at present, there is an interior travel way and parking area on the property. There will be no displacement of existing residents during the construction of the additional building on the property; this proposal has sited the new building on an underutilized portion of the property. Of the 11 additional units requested, nine of them will be designated as affordable, as proposed as a condition of approval by the owner and applicant. Further discussion of the affordable housing provision is provided later in this project narrative. The building will not exceed the maximum height requirements for the NCC District, 45’ and will meet applicable setbacks within the district. The project design will establish: 1) Redevelopment of an underutilized portion of an existing multi-family property 2) A modern building design that is of a scale and design palette that compliments the existing neighborhood fabric 3) Building placement and stepback design that frames the street and existing pedestrian infrastructure in front of the site Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The development is consistent with the 2021 Comprehensive Plan in the following ways: Chapter 4 Land Use, Urban Form, and Historic & Cultural Preservation Goal 3. Balance Conservation and Preservation with Change Protect and enhance the existing distinct identities of the city’s neighborhoods and places while promoting and prioritizing infill development, housing options, a mix of uses, and sustainable reuse in our community. The special use permit request seeks to permit an infill development within an existing multifamily residential area. The infill development is proposed to be constructed on an underutilized parking area of the site and would create 11 new units on the property, with a small commercial user on the first floor. Goal 6. Design Excellence Continue Charlottesville’s history of architectural and design excellence by maintaining traditional urban design features and valuing historic resources while encouraging creative, context-sensitive, contemporary planning and design that supports the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The massing diagrams and concept elevations included with the special use permit application demonstrate a new compact multifamily structure that frames the existing three-story building within the property. The new structure supports the mixed-use character of this Belmont corridor and a small commercial user on the first floor would further contribute to the Monticello Road streetscape that leads to Downtown Belmont and Downtown Charlottesville. Objectives for Residential Areas Foster walkable, bikeable, and transit accessible neighborhoods. The location of the property is ideal for encouraging density. Commercial uses and services are easily accessible by walking or biking, and residents may utilize the Charlottesville Area Transit bus stop immediately adjacent to their homes. A Route 3 bus stop is located on Bainbridge Street and the property is a one-minute walk to Downtown Belmont, and a ten-minute walk to the Downtown Mall. Increase opportunities to develop diverse housing options near schools, parks, shopping districts, and employment centers. Due to the accessibility of walking and biking infrastructure, the bus network, and the proximity to various City nodes, such as Downtown Belmont and the Downtown Mall, increasing housing opportunities within this area of Belmont would facilitate resident access to areas of City employment and amenities. Impacts on Public Facilities & Public Infrastructure: American Community Survey (ACS) 5 year estimates indicate the average household size in Charlottesville is 2.38 people 1.Using the ACS average, a multi-family development with a maximum of 11 proposed units could potentially yield 26 new residents living on the property. The impacts on transportation infrastructure from 11 additional units and a small commercial space will be minimal. Using ITE trip generation estimates for multi-family development, it is estimated that the proposed 11 additional units will contribute to five additional trips in the AM peak hour (7-9 a.m.) and six additional trips in the PM peak hour (4-6 p.m.). Given the location, it is plausible many residents will choose to walk, bike, or use transit to conduct most of their daily errands and social interactions. The single-tenant commercial space may house a single office user or studio space which would attract a few 1 ACS 2013-2017 5 YR Estimates Table B25010 “Average Household Size of Occupied Housing Units by Tenure” 1000 Monticello Road Narrative 2 trips per day; if the commercial user were to be more customer-facing such as a retail tenant, the walkable context of the downtown Belmont area may contribute to further reducing trips typically affiliated with commercial retail spaces. Since this project is proposed to be constructed on a portion of the site that is an existing travel way and parking area, there is no proposed increase in imperious surfaces on the property and therefore, there will not be a greater impact on stormwater infrastructure than the existing conditions. Impacts on Schools: This property lies within the Clark Elementary School district. After attending neighborhood elementary schools, all Charlottesville students attend Walker Upper Elementary School, Buford Middle School, and Charlottesville High School. ACS 2018 5 year estimates show that there are an estimated 4,800 residents between the ages of 5-17 within City limits. 2 By dividing this estimate by the number of occupied housing units in the city, 18,613, it can be approximated that there are approximately .26 school-aged children per housing unit in Charlottesville. 3 Since 11 units are proposed on the site, it is estimated there may be an additional two school-aged children within the development. Proposed Conditions of Approval: To contribute to the affordable housing stock in the City of Charlottesville, the owner proposes the following voluntary commitments as conditions of approval if the special use permit request is approved by City Council: Affordable Housing: 1. Affordable Housing: The Owner shall provide affordable housing within the Property, as follows: a. For the purposes of this Condition, the term “For-Rent Workforce Affordable Dwelling Unit” means a dwelling unit where the monthly cost of rent, including any tenant paid utilities, does not exceed 125% of the Fair Market Rent by unit bedrooms for the Charlottesville MSA, the aforementioned Fair Market Rent is established annually by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). i. For-Rent Workforce Affordable Dwelling Units shall be reserved for rental to low and moderate-income households having income less than 80 percent of the Area Median Income. Area Median income means the median income for Households within the Charlottesville, Virginia HUD Metropolitan FMR Area, as published annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. b. For the purposes of this Condition, the term “For-Rent Affordable Dwelling Unit” means a dwelling unit where the monthly cost of rent, including any tenant paid utilities, does not exceed the Fair Market Rent by unit bedrooms for the Charlottesville MSA, the aforementioned Fair Market Rent is established annually by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 2 ACS 2018 5 YR Estimates Table DP05 “ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates” 3 ACS 2018 5 YR Estimates Table DP04 “Selected Housing Characteristics” 1000 Monticello Road Narrative 3 i. For-Rent Affordable Dwelling Units shall be reserved for rental to low and moderate- income households having income less than 65 percent of the Area Median Income. Area Median income means the median income for Households within the Charlottesville, Virginia HUD Metropolitan FMR Area, as published annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. c. Two (2) of the dwelling units constructed as a result of the approval of this special use permit request within the area of the property shall be For-Rent Workforce Affordable Dwelling Units and an additional five (5) of the dwelling units constructed as a result of the approval of this special use permit request within the area of the property shall be For-Rent Affordable Dwelling Units (collectively, the “Required Affordable Dwelling Units”) for a total of seven (7) of the dwelling units constructed within the area of the Property provided as Required Affordable Dwelling Units. The Required Affordable Dwelling Units shall be identified on a layout plan, by unit, prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for a residential unit within the Property (“Initial Designation”). The Owner reserves the right, from time to time after the Initial Designation, and subject to approval by the City, to change the unit(s) reserved as For-Rent Workforce-Affordable Dwelling Units and For-Rent Affordable Dwelling Units, and the City’s approval shall not unreasonably be withheld so long as a proposed change does not reduce the number of Required Affordable Dwelling Units and does not result in an Affordability Period shorter than required by these conditions with respect to any of the Required Affordable Dwelling Units. i. The Required Affordable Dwelling Units shall be reserved as such throughout a period of at least ten (10) years from the date on which the unit receives a certificate of occupancy from the City’s building official (“Rental Affordability Period”). All Rental Affordable Dwelling Units shall be administered in accordance with one or more written declarations of covenants within the land records of the Charlottesville Circuit Court, in a form approved by the Office of the City Attorney. ii. On or before January 1 of each calendar year the then current owner of each Required Affordable Dwelling Unit shall submit an Annual Report to the City, identifying each Required Affordable Dwelling Unit by address and location, and verifying the Household Income of the occupant(s) of each Required Affordable Dwelling Unit. d. The land use obligations referenced in 1.c.i and 1.c.ii shall be set forth within one or more written declarations of covenants recorded within the land records of the Charlottesville Circuit Court, in a form approved by the Office of the City Attorney, so that the Owner’s successors in right, title and interest to the Property shall have notice of and be bound by the obligations. The Required Affordable Dwelling Units shall be provided as for-rent units throughout the Rental Affordability Period. 1000 Monticello Road Narrative 4 SPECIAL USE PERMIT CONCEPT PLAN + EXHIBITS 1000 MONTICELLO ROAD SITE CONTEXT Sheet 1 of 8 Downtown Belmont MO CARL N TON TIC AVE EL LO RD BE LM ON TA E ST VE DG MO NBRI NTIC BAI EL LO Virginia Industries AV Clark E Elementary for the Blind CARLTON RD TMP 57-36 Submitted 12 April 2022 project: 20.020 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. 7/13/2020 SPECIAL USE PERMIT CONCEPT PLAN + EXHIBITS 1000 MONTICELLO ROAD SITE & SPECIAL USE PERMIT INFO Sheet 2 of 8 OWNER/DEVELOPER USE Piedmont Realty Holdings III, LLC EXISTING: Multifamily 6535 Woodbourne Lane PROPOSED: Multifamily; 11 units proposed & single-tenant Crozet, VA 22932 commercial TMP ZONING 57-36 EXISTING: Neighborhood Commercial Corridor PROPOSED: Neighborhood Commercial Corridor, with ACREAGE special use for increased density, >42 DUA 0.808 DENSITY NEIGHBORHOOD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Neighborhood Belmont Mixed Use Corridor PROPOSED: 11 units proposed + 23 units existing = 34 total units, 42 DUA CRITICAL SLOPES No critical slopes are present on the property. BUILDING HEIGHT Per Section 34-353 of the Charlottesville Zoning Ordinance, a FLOODZONE maximum building height of 45’ shall be permitted According to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, effective date February 4, 2005 (Community Panel 51003C0288D), this property does not lie within a floodplain. SETBACKS Per Section 34-698 of the Charlottesville Zoning Ordinance, setbacks shall be permitted as follows: PRIMARY STREET* FRONT MINIMUM: None PRIMARY STREET* FRONT MAXIMUM: 10’ SIDE & REAR ADJACENT TO ANY OTHER DISTRICT: None *Primary street: Monticello Road PARKING See sheet 5 for parking calculation TMP 57-36 Submitted 12 April 2022 project: 20.020 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. SPECIAL USE PERMIT CONCEPT PLAN + EXHIBITS 1000 MONTICELLO ROAD SITE OVERVIEW Sheet 3 of 8 Legend Parcels Addresses City Limits Existing 23 units within the site TMP 57-36 Submitted 12 April 2022 project: 20.020 SHIMP ENGINEERING, 7/13/2020 P.C. DISCLAIMER:The City makes no warranties, expressed or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness or suitability of this data, and it should not be construed or used as a legal description. The information displayed is a compilation of information obtained from various sources, and the City is not responsible for it's accuracy or how current it may be. Every reasonable effort is made to SPECIAL USE PERMIT CONCEPT PLAN + EXHIBITS 1000 MONTICELLO ROAD ZONING MAP Sheet 4 of 8 R-2 R-3 B-3 PUD R-1 B-2 R-1 M-1 TMP 57-36 7/14/2020 Submitted 12 April 2022 DISCLAIMER:The City makes no warranties, expressed or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness or suitability of this data, and it should not be construed or used as a legal description. The information displayed is a compilation of information obtained from various sources, and the City is not responsible for it's accuracy or how current it may be. Every reasonable effort is made to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the data. Pursuant to Section 54.1-402 of the Code of Virginia, any determination of topography or contours, or any depiction of physical improvements, property lines or boundaries is for general information only and shall not be used for the design, modification or construction of improvements to real property or for flood plain determination. project: 20.020 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. SPECIAL USE PERMIT CONCEPT PLAN + EXHIBITS 1000 MONTICELLO ROAD CONCEPT PLAN Sheet 5 of 8 Parking Calculations Existing 23 units: (22) Efficiency/1-bedroom/2-bedroom units, 1 space/unit, 22 spaces required (1) 3-bedroom unit, 2 spaces/unit, 2 spaces required 24 spaces required for existing 1000 Monticello Rd units Proposed 11 units: (11) 1-bedroom/2-bedroom units, 1 space/unit, 11 additional spaces required 35 spaces required for residential portion of TMP 57-36 14 Commercial: 380 sf of commercial space, 1-2 spaces required COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT Potentially up to 2 spaces required for commercial portion of TMP 57-36 Total: 33 spaces required* 35 spaces provided *Per Sec. 34-985(b)(2), where a use is located within 300’ of a bus stop on an COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT existing route, the number of parking spaces required for such use shall be reduced 21 by four spaces for uses located within Neighborhood Mixed Use District Existing bus stop location Compact spaces: per Sec. 34.977(b)(2), up to 30% of the required off-street parking Route 3 - Bainbridge St at spaces may be designed for compact cars: Monticello Road Maximum allowable of 10 compact parking spaces 10 compact parking spaces provided TMP 57-36 Submitted 12 April 2022 30 0 30 60 90 project: 20.020 Graphic Scale: 1”=30’ SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. SPECIAL USE PERMIT CONCEPT PLAN + EXHIBITS 1000 MONTICELLO ROAD MASSING DIAGRAM Sheet 6 of 8 517.5' ROOF 507.5' 4F 497' 3F 486.5' 2F 476' 1F WEST ELEVATION (MONTICELLO ROAD) NORTH ELEVATION (ADJACENT LOT) 1/8" = 1' 1/8" = 1' TMP 57-36 Submitted 12 April 2022 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS BELMONT HEIGHTS project: 20.020 SCHEMATIC DESIGN REVISIONS DECEMBER 17, 2021 P.C. SHIMP ENGINEERING, SPECIAL USE PERMIT CONCEPT PLAN + EXHIBITS 1000 MONTICELLO ROAD MASSING DIAGRAM Sheet 7 of 8 517.5' ROOF 507.5' 4F 497' 3F 486.5' 2F 476' 1F SOUTH ELEVATION (PARKING LOT) 1/8" = 1' EAST ELEVATION 1/8" = 1' TMP 57-36 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS BELMONT HEIGHTS Submitted 12 April 2022 SCHEMATIC DESIGN REVISIONS DECEMBERproject: 17, 2021 20.020 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. SPECIAL USE PERMIT CONCEPT PLAN + EXHIBITS 1000 MONTICELLO ROAD MASSING DIAGRAM Sheet 8 of 8 TMP 57-36 Submitted 12 April 2022 BUILDING MASSING PERSPECTIVES BELMONT HEIGHTS SCHEMATIC DESIGNproject: 20.020 REVISIONS DECEMBER 17, 2021 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. Affordable Dwelling Unit Ordinance Worksheet-100 Step 1: Total Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of Site A. Total size of development site: 0.81 acres B. Total square footage of site: 0.81 x (# of acres) C. 1.0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR): 35,283.60 (total sf of site D. Gross Floor Area (GFA) of ALL buildings/uses: 26,034.00 sf E. Total site FAR: 26,034.00 ÷ (total GFA of site) F. Is E greater than or equal to 1.0 FAR? NO: Your proposed development do YES: Proceed to Step 2 or Step 3. Step 2: Number of ADUs Required G. GFA in excess of 1.0 FAR: 26,034.00 - (D: total site GFA) ( H. Total GFA of ADUs required: -9,249.60 x (G: GFA in excess of 1.0 FAR) I. Equivalent density based on Units Per Acre: i. Dwelling Units per Acre (DUA) approved by SUP: 43.00 ii. SF needed for ADUs: -462.48 ÷ (H: Total GFA of ADUs) iii. Total number of ADUs required: -0.0106171 x (ii: ADU acreage) ( Step 3: Cash-in-Lieu Payment J. Cash-in-Lieu Amount Residential: 26,034.00 x K. Cash-in-Lieu Amount Mixed-Use: Total GFA of development site: GFA Occupied Commercial Space: GFA Occupied Residential Space: Total GFA Occupied Space: 0.00 GFA Non-Occupied Space*: 0.00 Amount of Payment: #DIV/0! x *GFA of non-occupied space shall include: (i) basements, elevator shafts and stairwell equipment and having a structural head room of six (6) feet six (6) inches or more, (iii) having a structural head room of six (6) feet six (6) inches or more, (v) interior balconi that do not exceed a projection of six (6) feet beyond the exterior walls of the building; mechanical structures. Step 4: Minimum Term of Affordability L. Residential Project i. Households earning up to 80% AMI: Unit Type Eff. 1BR Number of Units Market Rent HUD Fair Market Rents $752.00 $1,027.00 HUD Utility Allowance Difference per Month $0.00 $0.00 Annual Cost of ADU $0.00 $0.00 Total Annual Cost of ADUs: 0.00 (Sum of Annua Minimum Term of Affordability*: #DIV/0! (Cash-in-lieu p *If answer is less than 5, then mini M. Mixed-Use Project i. Households earning up to 80% AMI: Unit Type Eff. 1BR Number of Units Market Rent HUD Fair Market Rents $752.00 $1,027.00 HUD Utility Allowance Difference per Month $0.00 $0.00 Annual Cost of ADU $0.00 $0.00 Total Annual Cost of ADUs: 0.00 (Sum of Annua Minimum Term of Affordability: #DIV/0! (Cash-in-lieu p *If answer is less than 5, then mini 0 Monticello Road 43,560.00 = 35,283.60 square feet (sf) e) 35,283.60 = 0.74 (1.0 FAR) oes not trigger the ADU ordinance. 35,283.60 = -9,249.60 (B: total SF of site) 0.05 = -462.48 43,560.00 = -0.0106171 acres 43.00 = -0.46 (i: DUA approved) $2.370 = $61,700.58 % Residential: #DIV/0! Propotionate amount of non- occupied space GFA for residential use: #DIV/0! $2.370 = #DIV/0! ls at each story, (ii) spaces used or occupied for mechanical ) penthouses, (iv) attic space, whether or not a floor has been laid, ies, and (vi) mezzanines. GFA shall not include outside balconies parking structures below or above grade; or and roof top 2BR 3BR 4BR 5BR 6BR $1,179.00 $1,478.00 $1,772.00 $2,037.00 $2,303.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 al Cost of ADU) payment / Total annual cost of ADUs) imum term of affordability will be 5 years. 2BR 3BR 4BR 5BR 6BR $1,179.00 $1,478.00 $1,772.00 $2,037.00 $2,303.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 al Cost of ADU) payment / Total annual cost of ADUs) imum term of affordability will be 5 years. 7,860.00 sf New building 13,908.00 sf Existing building 4,266.00 sf Existing building 26,034.00 sf GFA THIS IS A FORM DOCUMENT PROVIDED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY AS A BASELINE DOCUMENT. FINAL CONTENTS AND WORDING OF A DECLARATION TO BE USED FOR A SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT WILL DEPEND ON THE SPECIFIC ZONING APPLICATION AND CITY APPROVALS Prepared by: _________________ For: ________________________ Re: City of Charlottesville Real Estate Parcel Id. No. 570036000_______________________ Formatted: Font: 9 pt, Italic DRAFT DECLARATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING COVENANTS THIS DECLARATION (hereinafter, “Declaration”) is made as of this _____day of_____________, 20221 (“Effective Date”), by Piedmont Realty Holdings III, LLC__________________________, a Virginia limited liability company (“Owner”), as DECLARANT, having an address of 6535 Woodbourne Lane, Crozet, Virginia _________________________, Charlottesville, Virginia, 2293202, as developer and owner in fee simple of the real property described herein. RECITALS R-1. The City desires to increase the amount of housing units available as affordable dwelling units and, pursuant to state enabling legislation, the City has enacted a local ordinance requiring developments of a certain density to include affordable dwelling units (“City Ordinance”). R-2. Owner is the owner of certain land located in the City of Charlottesville, having an address of ________________, 1000 Monticello Road, further identified on City Tax Map 57____ as Parcel _____ 36 (City of Charlottesville Real Estate Tax Parcel ID No. _______________), 570036000), containing approximately ________ .808 acres, and further described on Exhibit A, Commented [A1]: Exhibit A would be a legal description attached hereto and incorporated herein (the “Property”). of the boundaries of the property to which the covenant will apply. R-3. By Resolution adopted on ___________, 20221 (the “SUP Resolution”), the Commented [A2]: For a Rezoning or PUD, this would Charlottesville City Council approved a Special Use Permit, as requested by the Owner, to refer to an Ordinance (“Rezoning Ordinance”) authorize a specific development known as “__________”, “1000 Monticello Road/Belmont Heights”, consisting of a mixed-use building that includes no less than _________ 300 square feet of ground floor retail commercial space; _______ 11 +/- residential dwelling units, in the aggregate, including no fewer than 715 Affordable Units committed to an Affordability Period of no fewer than 10 years, all subject to specified development conditions (collectively, the “Project”). 1 THIS IS A FORM DOCUMENT PROVIDED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY AS A BASELINE DOCUMENT. FINAL CONTENTS AND WORDING OF A DECLARATION TO BE USED FOR A SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT WILL DEPEND ON THE SPECIFIC ZONING APPLICATION AND CITY APPROVALS R-4. As a result of City Council’s approval of the SUP Resolution, the Owner has acquired valuable additional developable residential density, and the City’s zoning ordinance, Section 34- 12, obligates the Owner to provide for the establishment of zerofive (05) affordable dwelling units in accordance with the City Ordinance as in effect on ________20221. Commented [A3]: The SUP Resolution approval date R-5. In addition to any units(s) required by the City Ordinance, the Owner within its application seeking a special use permit for the Project represented that the Project includes __________ seven (7___) committed Affordable Units, as defined in this Declaration, in excess of those described in R-4, above. R-6. The purpose of this Declaration is to establish the terms upon which all of the Affordable Units will be provided. NOW THEREFORE, the Declarant declares that the Property is and shall be held, transferred, sold, conveyed, given, donated, leased, occupied and used subject to the covenants, restrictions, conditions, easements, and affirmative obligations hereinafter set forth: ARTICLE ONE PROPERTY Section 1. Submitted Property. The real property which is and shall be transferred, sold, conveyed, given, donated, leased and/or occupied subject to the covenants and restrictions contained in this Declaration is described in Exhibit A hereto. ARTICLE TWO DEFINITIONS Section 1. Key Definitions. For the purposes of this Declaration, the terms used herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them below and, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, shall include the plural as well as the singular. Affordability Period: means a period of no fewer than ten (10) years, throughout which an Affordable Unit must be maintained and rented as an Affordable Unit. The Affordability Period commences on the date of the final certificate of occupancy authorizing residential occupancy of an Affordable Unit. Affordable Unit: means a dwelling unit that adheres to the criteria set forth in either Formatted: Not Highlight 3.2.1 or 3.2.2 of this DocumentDeclaration. reserved for occupancy by a Household that pays no Formatted: Not Highlight 2 THIS IS A FORM DOCUMENT PROVIDED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY AS A BASELINE DOCUMENT. FINAL CONTENTS AND WORDING OF A DECLARATION TO BE USED FOR A SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT WILL DEPEND ON THE SPECIFIC ZONING APPLICATION AND CITY APPROVALS more than thirty percent (30%) of its gross income for housing costs, including utilities, provided that the annual gross income of the household/occupant is less than ______eighty percent Formatted: Not Highlight (80____%) of the Area Median Income for the City of Charlottesville. Formatted: Not Highlight Area Median Income: means the median income for Households within the Charlottesville, Virginia HUD Metropolitan FMR Area, as published annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. City means the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and its officers, officials and agents, including, without limitation, any individual(s) employed by it to administer the provisions of the CitysCity’s’ zoning ordinance or any affordable dwelling unit provisions contained therein. City Ordinance: means and refers to Section 34-12 of the Code of the City of Charlottesville (1990), as amended, including any regulations adopted by resolution of the Charlottesville City Council for the administration of Section 34-12, in effect as of _____________, 2021. Commented [A4]: This would be the date on which Council approved the SUP Resolution Committed:, when used to refer to an Affordable Unit, means that such unit is reserved for occupancy by a Qualified Tenant throughout the entire Affordability Period. Household: means, collectively, the individual(s) who occupy an Affordable Unit. Project: has the meaning set forth in R-3, herein above. Qualified Tenant: means a Household whose income is verified to be less than 80____% Formatted: Not Highlight or less of the Area Median Income. Rent: means the amount of money payable by a Qualified Tenant for the right to occupy a Committed Affordable Unit, inclusive of Utilities. Residential Unit: means a residential dwelling unit within the Project providing complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation. Utilities: means charges for water, sewer, electricity, and natural gas usage. ARTICLE THREE USE RESTRICTIONS; AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT 3.1 Use of the Property; Affordability. In order to assure the integrity of the Project, and to ensure that Committed Affordable Units required by the City Ordinance are provided and occupied in accordance with the City Ordinance, the land use restrictions within this Declaration 3 THIS IS A FORM DOCUMENT PROVIDED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY AS A BASELINE DOCUMENT. FINAL CONTENTS AND WORDING OF A DECLARATION TO BE USED FOR A SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT WILL DEPEND ON THE SPECIFIC ZONING APPLICATION AND CITY APPROVALS are established for the mutual benefit and obligation of the Owner of the Project and all of the Residential Units within the Project. 3.2. Seven (7) ___________ dwelling units constructed within the Project shall be Formatted: Not Highlight Committed Affordable Units. (“Required Affordable Units”). The Required Affordable Units shall be designated on building floor plans submitted by the Owner to the City’s zoning administrator on or prior to the date on which the first certificate of occupancy is issued for any dwelling unit within the Project (“CAU Designation”). 3.2.1 _____ percent (_____%)Five (5) or more of the Required Affordable Units shall be reserved for rental to low- and moderate-income households having income less than 650 percent of the Area Median Income, throughout a period of at least ____________ ten (10____) years from the date on which each such unit receives a final certificate of occupancy from the City’s building official, and such units shall rent at or below HUD Fair Market Rent, as defined from time to time by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.. 3.2.2. ______ percent (____%) or moreTwo (2) of the Required Affordable Units shall be reserved for rental to low- and moderate-income households having income less than 80 percent of the Area Median Income, throughout a period of at least ____________ (____)ten (10) years from the date on which each such unit receives a final certificate of occupancy from the City’s building official, and such units shall rent at or below 125% of HUD Fair Market Rent as defined from time to time by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.. 3.2.3. All Required Affordable Units shall be subject to the following: 3.2.3.1 All of the Required Affordable Units shall be administered in accordance with City regulations adopted pursuant to the provisions of City Code 34-12(g), as such regulations are in effect on ___________ Commented [A5]: Date of approval of the SUP Resolution (“Regulations”) 3.2.3.2 Owner shall determine whether a Household is a Qualified Tenant prior to allowing occupancy of any Affordable Unit by that Household, and shall document the determination in accordance with the requirements of the Regulations. Thereafter, the Owner shall confirm and document the Household’s Qualified Tenant status annually. 3.2.3.3 Every lease of an Affordable Unit to a Qualified Tenant shall be in writing. Upon the expiration of the Qualified Tenant’s lease, the Owner may establish Rent for a subsequent Qualified Tenant of the Required Affordable Unit, using the criteria in the definition of Affordable Unit contained herein. 4 THIS IS A FORM DOCUMENT PROVIDED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY AS A BASELINE DOCUMENT. FINAL CONTENTS AND WORDING OF A DECLARATION TO BE USED FOR A SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT WILL DEPEND ON THE SPECIFIC ZONING APPLICATION AND CITY APPROVALS 3.2.3.4 The Required Affordable Unit shall be dispersed throughout the Project, with no more than sixty twenty-five percent (6025%) of the Required Affordable Unit located on any one floor of a building. Each Required Affordable Unit shall have substantially similar finishes and appearance as other dwelling units within the Project. 3.2.4.5 Occupants of any Required Affordable Unit shall have full access and right to use all amenities and facilities available to other residents within the Project subject to any rules, regulations, and conditions established by Owner to govern such use and access. 3.2.4.6 Occupants of the Required Affordable Units may be required to pay any customary fees and charges imposed on other residents within the Project, such as fees for garage or other parking spaces (if applicable), security deposit, move-in fee, move-out deposit, utility deposit, pet fees, etc. 3.2.4.7 From from time to time during Affordability Period, the Owner shall have the right to change which units are reserved as the Required Affordable Units, following: (i) advance written notice to the City giving the address and unit number(s) of the units to be designated and undesignated, respectively, and (ii) a written determination by the City that the Project is in compliance with the requirements of this Declaration prior to the changed designation and will continue to be in such compliance following the changed designation. 3.2.4.8 If an otherwise Qualified Tenant residing in a Required Affordable Unit has an increase in income that exceeds the guidelines specified in this Declaration, that Affordable Unit will be considered as meeting the requirements of this Declaration for a period of three (3) years, commencing on January 1 of the calendar year succeeding the year in which the income increased (the “Grace Period”). After the expiration of the Grace Period, the Owner may allow the Household to remain in the same unit; however, the Owner shall provide the City with notice in accordance with 3.2.3., above, that the Owner is amending and transferring the prior CAU designation to a different unit within the Project. 3.2.4.9 In the event of a conflict between the provisions of this Section 3.2.3 and the Regulations, the provisions of this Section 3.2.3 shall govern. 3.2.4. Nothing within this Declaration shall preclude the Owner from allowing a Household whose household income increases above the limit to move to a different, non-affordable unit within the Project, subject to a lease at a fair market rental rates, at the conclusion of the Grace Period. 5 THIS IS A FORM DOCUMENT PROVIDED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY AS A BASELINE DOCUMENT. FINAL CONTENTS AND WORDING OF A DECLARATION TO BE USED FOR A SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT WILL DEPEND ON THE SPECIFIC ZONING APPLICATION AND CITY APPROVALS 3.3. Owner shall provide the City with a Committed Affordable Unit Occupancy Annual Report (“Annual Report”) prior to January 31 of each calendar year. The Annual Report shall include data on each Required Affordable Unit for the prior calendar year. The Annual Report shall include tenant identification information showing name, address, date and term of current lease, current household size, and current verified income. The City may specify a format for the Annual Report; if the City specifies a format, that format shall be utilized by the Owner. Upon reasonable advance written notice and request, the City shall be permitted by the Owner to inspect the Owner’s books and records that are the source of information contained in the Annual Report, including, without limitation: tenant’s rental application; tenant’s signed lease agreement; tenant’s income verification and supporting documentation; and tenant’s occupancy affidavit, verifying tenant’s use of the Affordable Unit as tenant’s primary domicile. 3.4. Throughout the Affordability Period, Owner shall maintain records necessary to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this Declaration for each calendar year, as well as records demonstrating such compliance within each of the three preceding calendar years within the Affordability Period. On reasonable advance written notice to the Owner, the City shall have a right to inspect such records in the format, and in the physical or electronic location at which the records are regularly kept in the course of business. 3.5. The City shall have the right to inspect any Required Affordable Unit to verify compliance with this Declaration, following at least forty-eight (48) hours’ advance written notice to the Owner and subject to the rights of the Qualified Tenants under their leases and applicable law. ARTICLE FOUR MISCELLANEOUS TERMS 4.1. All notices, requests and demands (individually and collectively in this article, (“Notices”) required by or relating to this Declaration will be given by first class mail, return receipt requested, or by overnight courier service, postage prepaid. Notices are effective as of the third calendar day after the day on which the Notice is given. Any successor to Owner’s rights, title or interest in the Project, immediately upon acquiring such right, title, or interest, shall give Notice to the City updating the information required by Paragraph 4.1.1, below. Notices will be addressed to the parties as follows: 4.1.1. Notices to Owner shall be given to: Piedmont Realty Holdings III, LLC 6535 Woodbourne Lane Crozet, Virginia 22932 4.1.2. Notices to the City shall be given to: Charlottesville City Manager 6 THIS IS A FORM DOCUMENT PROVIDED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY AS A BASELINE DOCUMENT. FINAL CONTENTS AND WORDING OF A DECLARATION TO BE USED FOR A SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT WILL DEPEND ON THE SPECIFIC ZONING APPLICATION AND CITY APPROVALS For Attention: Zoning Administrator P.O. Box 911 (605 E. Main Street, 2nd Floor) Charlottesville, VA 22902 4.2. If the Owner is in default of this Declaration, the City shall give notice to the Owner of the breach, and the basis thereof. Owner shall have 30 days from the effective date of the City’s notice to cure such default or breach; alternatively, if action to cure such default reasonably requires more than 30 days, Owner shall commence the cure within the 30-day period and shall diligently pursue completion of the cure within a period of time that is reasonable under the circumstances. 4.3. The covenants and restrictions of this Declaration shall run with the land, and shall be enforceable against the Declarant/ Owner and its heirs, successors, and assigns, and their agents and legal representatives, throughout the Affordability Term. 4.4. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Declaration, or any part hereof, may only be amended, modified or released by an instrument in writing executed by a duly authorized official of the City, and by a duly authorized representative of the Owner. Any amendment to this Declaration that alters the terms and conditions set forth herein shall be recorded in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Charlottesville (the “Land Records”) before it shall be deemed effective. 4.5. If any provision of this Declaration is held to be unenforceable or illegal for any reason, said provision shall be severed from all other provisions. Said other provisions shall remain in effect without reference to the unenforceable or illegal provision. 4.6. This Declaration and the rights of the parties hereunder shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, without regard to conflicts of laws provisions. 4.7. The covenants set forth within this Declaration shall be separate from, and in addition to, the requirements of the City Ordinance as are applicable to the five (5) affordable dwelling units required by said City Ordinance. 4.7. This Declaration shall take effect upon its recordation in the Land Records. (Signature Page Immediately Follows) 7 THIS IS A FORM DOCUMENT PROVIDED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY AS A BASELINE DOCUMENT. FINAL CONTENTS AND WORDING OF A DECLARATION TO BE USED FOR A SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT WILL DEPEND ON THE SPECIFIC ZONING APPLICATION AND CITY APPROVALS WITNESS the following signature: DECLARANT / OWNER: ____________________________, Piedmont Formatted: Font: Bold Realty Holdings, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company By: __________________________________ ______________, Managing Member COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF _________________, to wit: I ____________________, a notary public for the Commonwealth of Virginia, do hereby certify that the foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn before me by ______________ as Managing Member of _______________________, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company. Given my hand and seal this ______ day of ______, 2021. __________________________ Notary Public My Commission expires: __________________ My Commission Number: _________________ 8 THIS IS A FORM DOCUMENT PROVIDED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY AS A BASELINE DOCUMENT. FINAL CONTENTS AND WORDING OF A DECLARATION TO BE USED FOR A SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT WILL DEPEND ON THE SPECIFIC ZONING APPLICATION AND CITY APPROVALS 9 THIS IS A FORM DOCUMENT PROVIDED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY AS A BASELINE DOCUMENT. FINAL CONTENTS AND WORDING OF A DECLARATION TO BE USED FOR A SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT WILL DEPEND ON THE SPECIFIC ZONING APPLICATION AND CITY APPROVALS EXHIBIT A TO THE DECLARATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING COVENANTS The following property is subject to the Declaration: All thoseat certain two lots or parcels of land, with improvements thereon and appurtenances thereto, situated on Monticello Road in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, being more particularly described as follows: PARCEL ONE: That certain lot or parcel of land described as Lot 1 on plat of William S. Roudabush, Jr., dated April, 1962, and recorded in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, Deed Book 234, page 178; and PARCEL TWO: Those certain lots or parcels of land described as Lots 2,3,4, 5 and 6 on the aforesaid plat recorded in said Clerk’s Office in Deed Book 234, page 178; LESS AND EXCEPT a strip of land eight fee (8’) wide, designated as Parcel 7-A on plat of William S. Roudabush, Jr., dated October, 1965, attached to a deed recorded in said Clerk’s Office, in Deed Book 271, page 537, and whereon the residue of Lot 3 is designated as Lot 3A. at the intersection of _________________, containing __________ acres, more or less, shown as Parcel _______ on a plat dated ____________, made by __________________, which plat is recorded in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia as Instrument No. __________; BEING a portion of the same property conveyed to the Grantor herein named, by deed dated _______, February 1st, 2019, from Core Piedmont, LLC__________________, Formatted: Superscript which deed is of record in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of City of Charlottesville, Virginia as Instrument No. _________________.2019-00000318. 10 Belmont Heights, 1000 Monticello Road – Special Use Permit 6/3/22 The applicant is offering the following regarding affordable housing: This application includes the Affordable Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance Worksheet, which currently identifies that zero (0) ADUs are required pursuant to the gross floor area proposed in excess of 1.0 FAR (per Sec. 34-12. - Affordable dwelling units.). The applicant is offering the following as a condition of approval: 1) The Owner shall provide affordable housing within the Property, as follows: a) For the purposes of this Condition, the term “For-Rent Workforce Affordable Dwelling Unit” means a dwelling unit where the monthly cost of rent, including any tenant paid utilities, does not exceed 125% of the Fair Market Rent by unit bedrooms for the Charlottesville MSA, the aforementioned Fair Market Rent is established annually by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). i) For-Rent Workforce Affordable Dwelling Units shall be reserved for rental to low and moderate-income households having income less than 80 percent of the Area Median Income. Area Median income means the median income for Households within the Charlottesville, Virginia HUD Metropolitan FMR Area, as published annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. b) For the purposes of this Condition, the term “For-Rent Affordable Dwelling Unit” means a dwelling unit where the monthly cost of rent, including any tenant paid utilities, does not exceed the Fair Market Rent by unit bedrooms for the Charlottesville MSA, the aforementioned Fair Market Rent is established annually by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). i) For-Rent Affordable Dwelling Units shall be reserved for rental to low and moderate- income households having income less than 65 percent of the Area Median Income. Area Median income means the median income for Households within the Charlottesville, Virginia HUD Metropolitan FMR Area, as published annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. c) Two (2) of the dwelling units constructed as a result of the approval of this special use permit request within the area of the property shall be For-Rent Workforce Affordable Dwelling Units and an additional five (5) of the dwelling units constructed as a result of the approval of this special use permit request within the area of the property shall be For-Rent Affordable Dwelling Units (collectively, the “Required Affordable Dwelling Units”) for a total of seven of the dwelling units constructed within the area of the Property provided as Required Affordable Dwelling Units. The Required Affordable Dwelling Units shall be identified on a layout plan, by unit, prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for a residential unit within the Property (“Initial Designation”). The Owner reserves the right, from time to time after the Initial Designation, and subject to approval by the City, to change the unit(s) reserved as For-Rent Workforce- Affordable Dwelling Units and For-Rent Affordable Dwelling Units, and the City’s approval shall not unreasonably be withheld so long as a proposed change does not reduce the number of Required Affordable Dwelling Units and does not result in an Affordability Period shorter than required by these conditions with respect to any of the Required Affordable Dwelling Units. i) The Required Affordable Dwelling Units shall be reserved as such throughout a period of at least ten (10) years from the date on which the unit receives a certificate of occupancy from the City’s building official (“Rental Affordability Period”). All Rental Affordable Dwelling Units shall be administered in accordance with one or more written declarations of covenants within the land records of the Charlottesville Circuit Court, in a form approved by the Office of the City Attorney. ii) On or before January 1 of each calendar year the then current owner of each Required Affordable Dwelling Unit shall submit an Annual Report to the City, identifying each Required Affordable Dwelling Unit by address and location, and verifying the Household Income of the occupant(s) of each Required Affordable Dwelling Unit. d) The land use obligations referenced in 1.c.i and 1.c.ii shall be set forth within one or more written declarations of covenants recorded within the land records of the Charlottesville Circuit Court, in a form approved by the Office of the City Attorney, so that the Owner’s successors in right, title and interest to the Property shall have notice of and be bound by the obligations. The Required Affordable Dwelling Units shall be provided as for-rent units throughout the Rental Affordability Period. Current Site Conditions: existing Residential units Will any existing affordable housing units be removed? NO If yes, how many? n/a Office of Community Solutions Staff Analysis: The table below provides information relative to the 2022 HUD guidelines for Income Limits, as well as additional information regarding realistic housing/income data. The HUD Income Limits will be based on the HUD guidelines for that year that the Certificate of Occupancy for the affordable unit(s) is issued. Income Limits / AMI Year Median Persons in Family Family 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Income 2022 $111,200 Extremely 22,020 25,170 28,320 31,440 33,960 36,480 39,000 41,520 Low Income (30%) Very Low 36,700 41,950 47,200 52,400 56,600 60,800 65,000 69,200 Income (50%) Low Income 58,720 67,120 75,520 83,840 90,560 97,280 104,000 110,720 (80%) 65% 47,710 54,535 61,360 68,120 73,580 79,040 84,500 89,960 Approximate monthly 1,223 1,398 1,573 1,747 1,887 2,027 2,167 2,307 income available for housing @25%* (@ 80% AMI) Approximate monthly 994 1,136 1,278 1,419 1,533 1,647 1,760 1,874 income available for housing @25%* (@ 65% AMI) *25% of gross monthly income calculated to approximate allowance for rent plus utilities The table below shows the 2022 HUD guidelines for Fair Market Rent (FMR). The FMR will be based on the HUD guidelines for that year that the Certificate of Occupancy for the affordable unit(s) is issued. Eff 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 2022 HUD FMR 1,024 1,063 1,264 1,562 1,959 5 units @ FMR 1,024 1,063 1,264 1,562 1,959 2 units @ 125% FMR 1,280 1,329 1,580 1,953 2,449 Monthly cost includes tenant-paid utilities In this particular application, the proposed development does not exceed 1.0 floor-area ratio (FAR), therefore the applicant is not required to provide on-site affordable dwelling units as part of the project (pursuant to City code Section 34-12). However, the applicant is offering: • Two (2) dwelling units shall be For-Rent Workforce Affordable Dwelling Units reserved for rental to low and moderate-income households having income less than 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI), where the monthly cost of rent, including any tenant paid utilities does not exceed 125% of the Fair Market Rent (FMR). • Five (5) dwelling units shall be For-Rent Affordable Dwelling Units reserved for rental to low and moderate-income households having income less than 65% of the Area Median Income (AMI), where the monthly cost of rent, including any tenant paid utilities does not exceed the Fair Market Rent (FMR). The Office of Community Solutions offers the following comments as to this application: • Pursuant to the information provided in the above tables, staff is concerned that the offered FMRs and Income Levels are not realistic as to providing affordable rental units in the City of Charlottesville. • Staff would like to see a longer Rental Affordability Period. • Staff would like to see assurances that vouchers will be accepted. • An acceptable marketing plan on how to market the designated affordable units should be provided to the City’s Office of Community Solutions prior to the issuance of the permit for development of the units. The marketing plan should provide detailed information on how the developer/owner will market the property, including non-discrimination of prospective tenants on the basis of race, creed, religion, color, sec, age, national origin, or source of income. • When completed and occupied, the owner shall provide an annual report on affordability compliance for the affordable unit(s) on a template provided by the City’s Office of Community Solutions. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION NUMBER: SP22-00004 DATE OF HEARING: June 14, 2022 Project Planner: Brian Haluska Date of Staff Report: April 21, 2022 Applicant: 923 Harris Street LLC Applicant’s Representative(s): Kelsey Schlein, Shimp Engineering Current Property Owner: 923 Harris Street, LLC Application Information Property Street Address: 923 Harris Street LLC (“Subject Property”) Tax Map & Parcel/Tax Status: 350112000 (real estate taxes paid current - Sec. 34-10) Total Square Footage/ Acreage Site: Approx. 0.114 acres (4,984 square feet) Comprehensive Plan (General Land Use Plan): Business and Technology Mixed Use Current Zoning Classification: IC – Industrial Corridor Overlay District: None Applicant’s Request (Summary) The applicant requests a Special Use Permit (SUP) pursuant to City Code Sec. 34-458 and 34- 480, which states that residential density up to 64 DUA is permitted with a SUP. The subject property has street frontage on Harris Street. Under the IC zoning classification, 2 dwelling units could be developed by right on this site (21 DUA), per Z.O. Sec. 34-480 (Use Matrix). The site plan (Attachment C) submitted with the application depicts a development that would include 7 dwelling units as part of a multi-family residential project; since the development site is 0.114 acres, the proposed density is 62 DUA. See proposal narrative (Attachment A) and site plan submitted by the applicant pursuant to Z.O. Sec. 34-41(d)(1) and (d)(6). For clarification, the City Assessor’s data shows the subject property as having an area of 0.115 acres. Page 1 of 12 SP22-00004 923 Harris St SUP The application narrative describes a mixed-use development that would eventually include 7 multi-family units and a by-right commercial use, arranged in a building that would contain four (4) stories over one (1) story of below grade parking. The applicant is further requesting a modification of parking requirements under Section 34-162(a) to reduce the number of required parking spaces on the site by one space. Vicinity Map Page 2 of 12 SP22-00004 923 Harris St SUP Context Map 1 Context Map 2- Zoning Classifications Applicant Property KEY - Yellow: R1-S, Grey: IC Page 3 of 12 SP22-00004 923 Harris St SUP Context Map 3- General Land Use Plan, 2013 Comprehensive Plan KEY – Purple: Business and Technology Mixed Use, Blue: Civic, Pink: Neighborhood Mixed Use Corridor, Yellow: Medium Intensity Residential, Bright Yellow: General Residential (Sensitive Community Area) Standard of Review City Council may grant an applicant a special permit or special use permit, giving consideration to a number of factors set forth within Zoning Ordinance Sec. 34-157. If Council finds that a proposed use or development will have potentially adverse impacts, and if Council identifies development conditions that could satisfactorily mitigate such impacts, then Council may set forth reasonable conditions within its SUP approval. The role of the Planning Commission is to make an advisory recommendation to the City Council, as to (i) whether or not Council should approve a proposed SUP and if so, (ii) whether there are any reasonable development conditions that could mitigate potentially adverse impacts of the propose use or development. Section 34-157 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance lists a number of factors that Council will consider in making a decision on a proposed SUP. Following below is staff’s analysis of those factors, based on the information provided by the applicant. Page 4 of 12 SP22-00004 923 Harris St SUP FOR APPLICANTS ANALYSIS OF THEIR APPLICATION PER SEC 34-157 SEE ATTACHMENT A (1) Whether the proposed use or development will be harmonious with existing patterns of use and development within the neighborhood. The properties immediately surrounding the subject property are described as: Direction Use Zoning North Engine Repair IC South Pet Boarding IC East Industrial IC West Residence IC The buildings immediately surrounding the subject property are mostly one (1) to two (2) story buildings, primarily functioning as offices or industrial uses, with the exception of the subject property and the property behind the subject property. The properties that front along Harris Street are commercial and industrial in use. These properties are zoned Industrial Corridor and could be redeveloped at heights similar to the subject property. Staff Analysis: The proposed use of the property depicted in the site plan and other application materials is a residential building containing multiple dwelling units (“multi- family dwelling”) and a shared art studio with sub-surface structured parking contained within the building footprint. The surrounding area is a mix of office and industrial buildings. The proposed use is a deviation from the existing pattern of development on Harris Street. (2) Whether the proposed use or development and associated public facilities will substantially conform to the city's comprehensive plan. Below are specific areas of the Comprehensive Plan for which the development is in compliance: a. Land Use - Goal 3 3.3: Develop strategies and partnerships that can bring underutilized properties, including historic properties, into productive and sustainable applications that will support increased residential or commercial uses, or a mix of uses. b. Housing – Goal 2 2.1: Encourage mixed-use and mixed-income neighborhoods and housing developments throughout the city and support zoning changes to allow them by- right. 2.4: Target a city-wide residential vacancy rate of at least 5 percent in order to assure a well- functioning, liquid housing market. Page 5 of 12 SP22-00004 923 Harris St SUP Below are specific areas of the Comprehensive Plan for which the development may not be in compliance: c. Housing – Goal 2 2.2: Promote housing redevelopment and infill development that supports bicycle and pedestrian- oriented infrastructure improvements and robust public transportation to better connect residents to jobs and commercial activity. Comprehensive Plan- Staff Analysis: The Future Land Use Plan in the 2021 Comprehensive Plan calls for the subject property and areas immediately adjacent to be Business and Technology Mixed Use land use. The Comprehensive Plan specifies that Business and Technology Mixed Use areas are intended to be the location of “light industrial and production uses, with other commercial and residential uses (where appropriate)”. The plan supports building heights up to 6 stories, with residential uses on the upper floors of those buildings. Several goals in the Comprehensive Plan speak to a desire to increase the amount of housing within the City, and the increase the use of properties as well. Streets that Work Plan The May 2016 Streets that Work Plan (approved September 2016 as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan) labels Harris Street as an Industrial typology. The full Streets That Work plan can be viewed at: https://www.charlottesville.gov/DocumentCenter/View/482/2016- Streets-That-Work-Plan-PDF Industrial streets are characterized as able to support commercial truck traffic, and have frequent curb cuts and limited pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. The Streets that Work Plan recommends a minimum clear zone width of five to six (5-6) feet for sidewalks, which are noted along with a curbside buffer zone (the area between the curb and sidewalk) as the highest priority items in the Industrial typology. Curb extensions are noted as appropriate for Industrial streets only when on-street parking is present. The existing sidewalks along Harris Street do not include a landscaped buffer as separation from the roadway. The lack of marked crosswalks in the vicinity of the property also limits the walkability of the area. Page 6 of 12 SP22-00004 923 Harris St SUP Staff Analysis: Based on the current application package, staff concludes that the pedestrian network along the development frontages is not consistent with the Streets that Work Plan due to the absence of the landscaped buffer zone. The subject property, however, has limited frontage along Harris and will need to tie into an adjacent sidewalk that also lacks a buffer. The addition of a buffer zone would impact the bicycle lanes on Harris Street and would likely not be approved by the City for that reason. (3) Whether proposed use or development of any buildings or structures will comply with all applicable building code regulations. Based on the information contained within the application, the proposed development would likely comply with applicable building code regulations. However, final determinations cannot be made prior to having the details required for final site plan and building permit approvals. (4) Potential adverse impacts, including, but not necessarily limited to: a) Traffic or parking congestion Traffic Trip generation information (VPD): The trip generation figures provided by the applicant (Table A in Attachment A) indicate that a development will have 18 vehicular trips per day according to the ITE Handbook. The category of use referenced in the ITE Manual, from which this peak-hour traffic data has been obtained, is Low Rise Multi-Family Housing and Small Office Building. Peak-hour traffic: As shown in the trip generation (Table A in Attachment A), the morning peak hour would have 2 trips, 50% of which would be exiting the site. The afternoon peak hour would have 2 trips, with 50% entering the site. Staff Analysis: Based on the trip generation figures provided by the applicant, staff has no concerns regarding the impact of the development on Harris Street. Vehicular Access The property would be accessed exclusively off Harris Street. Staff Analysis: The existing structure has a driveway access that encourages vehicles exiting the site to back into Harris Street. The proposed layout of the parking for the site would permit vehicles to exit the site moving forward, which is a preferable condition, and an improvement on the existing access. Page 7 of 12 SP22-00004 923 Harris St SUP Parking The project proposal narrative (Attachment A) indicates 6 parking spaces will be provided under the proposed building. Per Z.O. Sec. 34-984, the proposed building would be required to provide 8 parking spaces to serve the uses contemplated in the building. The Zoning Ordinance permits a reduction of one space. The site plan (Attachment B) shows 6 parking spaces. The project proposal narrative notes that the applicant is requesting a reduction of one space, as permitted under Section 34-162(a) of the Zoning Ordinance in conjunction with the SUP request, and is utilizing applicable City Code sections to reduce the parking requirement by one space. Staff Analysis: Based on the information provided in the project proposal narrative and site plan, staff supports the proposal to reduce the amount of required parking by one space on the site. There is available on-street parking on Concord Avenue less than 200 feet away from the proposed building. Other Modes of Transportation There are no bus lines that run on Harris Street. The closest bus line is the Route 9 bus line that runs down Rose Hill Drive. The closest bus stop is roughly 0.3 miles from the proposed building. The proposed development is also served by an incomplete sidewalk network immediately adjacent to the subject property and within the vicinity of the subject property. Crosswalks in the general vicinity are typically unmarked. Harris Street has a complete sidewalk between the subject property and Preston Avenue on the east side of the street. The sidewalk on the west of side of Harris Street between Preston Avenue and subject property is incomplete, as is the sidewalk north of the subject property along both sides of Harris Street. The bicycle infrastructure on Harris Street is a mix of dedicated bike lanes and sharrows. The applicant has noted in the narrative (Attachment A) that bicycle lockers will be provided for lockable parking within the garage. Staff Analysis: Staff believes the applicant’s proposal meets all applicable regulations based on the information provided. b) Noise, lights, dust, odor, fumes, vibration, and other factors which adversely affect the natural environment The proposed mixed-use development would be located between a pet boarding facility and a small engine repair shop. Page 8 of 12 SP22-00004 923 Harris St SUP Staff Analysis: The proposed development will not impact the surrounding natural environment more than the existing businesses already located on the block. c) Displacement of existing residents or businesses The existing building on the property is vacant. d) Discouragement of economic development activities that may provide desirable employment or enlarge the tax base As noted above, the existing residential structure on the site is vacant. The proposed building would include a space for an art studio. e) Undue density of population or intensity of use in relation to the community facilities existing or available The City’s Comprehensive Plan identifies community facilities as fire protection, police enforcement, and emergency response services; public utilities and infrastructure; and public parks and recreation opportunities. The applicant covers this in the project narrative (Attachment A). The applicant mentions that based on the average household size in Charlottesville, an anticipated 17 residents can be expected to reside in the building. Staff Analysis: The proposed development will necessarily result in some increased demand on physical facilities and services provided. Some of these impacts, such as impacts on the City’s water and sewer facilities, and public streets/ sidewalks, can be adequately evaluated and addressed during the site plan process, and final site plan approval is dependent on confirmation of adequate facilities or improvements provided by the applicant to ensure adequacy. A preliminary review of the proposal indicates the City’s existing water and sewer facilities are likely to be adequate to serve the proposed development. f) Reduction in the availability of affordable housing in the neighborhood The current use of the subject property is a single-family residential unit. The proposed construction of a new multi-family dwelling may possibly increase the availability of affordable housing, as this project will trigger the requirement for compliance with Sec. 34-12. (Affordable dwelling units). The applicant has indicated in the project narrative (Attachment A) that they intend to pay into the Affordable Housing Fund. Page 9 of 12 SP22-00004 923 Harris St SUP g) Impact on school population and facilities The applicant addresses this item in the proposed project narrative (Attachment A). The applicant states that they expect a total of two school-aged children to potentially reside in the new building. Staff Analysis: Because housing is open to all, there is a possibility that families with children could take residence here. Therefore, some impact could be created on school population and facilities. Given the size of the building, any impact would be minimal. h) Destruction of or encroachment upon conservation or historic districts The subject property is not within any design control district. i) Conformity with federal, state and local laws, as demonstrated and certified by the applicant Based on the information contained within the application, the proposed development would likely comply with applicable federal and state laws. As to local ordinances (zoning, water protection, etc.), it generally appears that this project, as detailed in the application, can be accommodated on this site in compliance with applicable local ordinances; however, final determinations cannot be made prior to having the details required for final site plan and building permit approvals. Specific Z.O. requirements reviewed preliminarily at this stage include massing and scale (building height, setbacks, stepbacks, etc.) and general planned uses. j) Massing and scale of project The application materials depict a new building containing four (4) stories above the surface of the subject property, viewed from the Harris Street frontages. Neither the application nor the Site Plan gives a specific height measurement for the building depicted within the materials; however, IC zoning regulations (Z.O. Sec. 34-457) restrict building height to 4 stories, max. The applicant has also noted that one (1) stories of structured parking will be below the surface of the subject property, which will be accessed from Harris Street. The graphic materials provided by the applicant (Attachment B) depict the proposed layout of the parking. The materials provided by the applicant do not provide a building height measured from grade to the top of the building roof along either of these street frontages. This detail needs to be included on the site plan. The site plan must demonstrate specifically that the building will not exceed 4 stories maximum allowable height in the IC zone. The building can also be no taller than 50 feet maximum height per Section 34-1100(b) of the Zoning Ordinance. Page 10 of 12 SP22-00004 923 Harris St SUP Staff Analysis: While the proposed building will be taller than the surrounding structures, the applicant’s proposal is for a building within the by-right height in the IC zone. (5) Whether the proposed use or development will be in harmony with the purposes of the specific zoning district in which it will be placed; The description for IC states the district is to provide areas for light industrial activity that is directed to assembly and technological businesses rather than heavy manufacturing. This district provides opportunities for large scale commercial uses and manufacturing or industrial type uses that are more compatible with the neighborhoods that surround the manufacturing properties. Regulations provide for buffering from incompatible uses, but encourage these important employment centers to locate within the district. . (Z.O. Sec. 34- 440(f)). The IC zone allows for multi-family residential development by-right. The proposed project is a multi-family residential development. (6) Whether the proposed use or development will meet applicable general and specific standards set forth within the zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, or other city ordinances or regulations; and Based on the information contained within the application, the proposed development would likely comply with applicable local ordinances. However, final determinations cannot be made prior to having the details required for final site plan and building permit approvals. (7) When the property that is the subject of the application for a special use permit is within a design control district, city council shall refer the application to the BAR or ERB, as may be applicable, for recommendations as to whether the proposed use will have an adverse impact on the district, and for recommendations as to reasonable conditions which, if imposed, that would mitigate any such impacts. The BAR or ERB, as applicable, shall return a written report of its recommendations to the city council. The subject property is not in a design control district. Public Comments Received Community Meetings Required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(c)(2) The applicant held a virtual community meeting on March 17th, 2022 beginning at 7:00 Property owners within 500 feet were notified of the meeting per requirements in Section 34- 41(c)(2). The letter provided by the applicant can be found in Attachment F. No members of the public attended the meeting. Page 11 of 12 SP22-00004 923 Harris St SUP Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the proposed application. Recommended Conditions Staff recommends that a request for higher density could be approved with the following conditions: 1. Up to 62 dwelling units per acre (DUA) are permitted on the subject property. 2. The height of the building shall be four stories above a floor of structured parking. The overall height of the building shall not exceed 50 feet. 3. The required parking for the project shall be reduced by one space for a requirement of seven on-site space, subject to any applicable reductions in the City Code. Suggested Motions 1. I move to recommend approval of this application for a Special Use Permit in the IC zone at 923 Harris Street to permit a mixed-use development with additional density with the following listed conditions. a. The three (3) conditions recommended by staff b. [alternative conditions, or additional condition(s)….list here] OR, 2. I move to recommend denial of this application for a Special Use Permit in the IC zone at 923 Harris Street. Attachments A. Applicant’s Project Narrative dated March 21, 2022 B. SUP Exhibit dated March 21, 2022 C. Massing Exhibit dated February 17, 2022 D. ADU Worksheet dated March 21, 2022 E. SUP Application dated March 21, 2022 Page 12 of 12 923 HARRIS STREET PROJECT NARRATIVE ADDRESS: 923 Harris Street, Charlottesville, VA PARCEL DESCRIPTION: 350112000 PRE-APP MEETING DATE: January 4, 2022 SUBMIT 1: February 18, 2022 REVISED: March 21, 2022 PARCEL NO. ACREAGE EXISTING PROPOSED COMP. PLAN ZONING ZONING DESIGNATION 350112000 0.114 IC IC with SUP for Business and (4,984 SF) additional Technology residential Mixed Use density TOTAL 0.114 LOCATION: The parcel fronts Harris Street and is located in the Rose Hill neighborhood. A wide variety of uses including industrial, office, and residential exist in the project’s immediate vicinity. SURROUNDING USES: A wide variety of uses surround the project. A pet care facility and an industrial tool store are the immediate neighbors to the Southwest and Northeast, respectively. To the Northwest, in the industrial zone, is a residential property, and beyond that are train tracks. Beyond the train tracks are miscellaneous small businesses and low-density residential housing. Across Harris Street are a wide variety of uses, including a gas station, warehouse space, and office space. Within walking distance from the site are the Preston Avenue corridor and McIntire Plaza, both of which contain a wide variety of consumer-oriented businesses. PROJECT PROPOSAL: On behalf of the property owner, 923 Harris Street LLC, we are requesting an increased residential density from the matter of right 1-21 DUA to 44-64 DUA via special use permit in order to provide seven dwelling units and an art studio space. With a proposed seven (7) residential units, the specific request is for a maximum density of 62 DUA. The parcel’s current use is single-family residential. The Industrial corridor district allows for up to (6) stories of height with a special use permit, however, we are proposing (4) stories, which will house (7) residential units and a shared artist studio space. Concurrent with the special use permit request and in accordance with Sec. 34-162 of the City Code, which permits certain exceptions and modifications to City Code when approved as a condition of special use permit, we request a modified parking requirement for this project. City parking regulations require one (1) space per residential unit and one (1) space for the artist’s studio space, for a total of (8) required parking spaces. We request a reduction from (1) space per residential unit to .75 space per residential unit for a total of 5.25 required spaces for the residential units. With one (1) required parking space for the commercial tenant, a total of 6.25 spaces are required for this building; in accordance with Sec. 34-985 (2), where fractional spaces result, the parking spaces required shall be computed to the nearest whole number and so (6) spaces would need to be provided on-site to serve this use. In summary, (8) parking spaces are required per Sec. 34-984 to serve this proposed building; however, we request a modification to provide (6) parking spaces to serve this building. The site is designed to accommodate bike lockers to provide parking for an alternative transportation mode and there are on-street parking spaces available approximately 200’ northeast of the site along Harris St. as well as southwest of the site along Concord Ave. Further, the mixed-use nature of the building lends itself to take advantage of shared parking between the commercial and residential uses where the commercial tenant could take advantage of on-site parking during weekdays when residents are at work and residents could take advantage of on-site parking during evenings and weekends when the commercial tenant is not occupying the space. The City Code allows for certain reductions in the number of parking spaces for particular uses, however the total reduction in parking spaces in the IC district may not exceed 20%. Given the small-scale nature of this project, a 20% reduction only permits the reduction of (1) parking space. The location of the project, well integrated into the grid network just north of Preston Avenue, creates the opportunity for residents to walk to nearby restaurants, convenience stores, a grocery store, and employers. The combination of the walkable context of this site, where a complete sidewalk network exists along the southeastern side of Harris St. and a largely complete sidewalk network exists along the northwestern side of Harris St.; the mixed-use design of the building, the proposed on-site bike lockers, and the on-street parking available in the vicinity of the site support the reduction of (2) on-site required parking spaces. PUBLIC NEED OR BENEFIT: The Comprehensive Regional Housing Study and Needs Analysis completed by Partners for Economic Solutions in 2019 states in the executive summary that, “over the past two decades, housing prices in Planning District 10 have increased rapidly as new construction failed to keep pace with the increase in demand at all but the highest rent and price levels.” The recently adopted updated Comprehensive Plan notes a 3.8% vacancy rate in renter-occupied housing units, which is representative of a constrained housing supply. This proposed project will contribute to housing stock and help to meet demand for housing in Charlottesville City limits in a way that is walkable and convenient to employment opportunities. INCREASED DENSITY JUSTIFICATION: The parcel’s use is currently a single-family home on a street without any other single-family homes. The greater Charlottesville area has a shortage of housing, particularly in walkable and transit-oriented locations. The Comprehensive Plan suggests that it is advantageous to locate housing where vehicular transportation is not required. This site is walkable to numerous jobs and amenities, including the Preston Avenue shops and stores and McIntire Plaza. COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 34-12: The proposed building triggers the City’s affordable housing requirements outlined in Sec. 34-12 as the FAR of the development exceeds 1.0. The owner intends to pay into the affordable housing fund to adhere to the affordable housing regulations. CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Providing housing in walkable, transit-oriented locations is of great importance to the goals of the comprehensive plan. Specifically, the recently adopted comprehensive plan notes the following Future Land Use Planning Objectives which would be achieved by allowing for additional residential units to take shape on this site: ● Increase opportunities for development near community amenities such as shopping, employment centers, and transit ● Increase access to transit, as well as walking and biking infrastructure, to help achieve the City’s climate goals and connect the community to jobs and amenities ● Ensure citywide, equitable opportunities for additional housing and enhanced community services By increasing the number of housing units on the site from one single-family dwelling to (7) dwelling units, the project enhances Charlottesville’s ability to house its growing population in a sustainable manner. The site’s location is ideal for walkability, bicycle use, and use of public transportation. Harris Street, Preston Avenue, and McIntire Plaza provide an abundance of diverse potential employment, shopping, and recreational opportunities within walking distance. There is very little housing on Harris Street currently. The future residents of the development will enhance the viability of adjacent and nearby businesses, just as the multitude of nearby businesses will provide potential employment and amenities to the residents. IMPACTS ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE: American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates indicate the average household size in Charlottesville is 2.38 people. Using the ACS average, a multi-family development with a maximum of 7 proposed units could potentially yield 17 new residents within Police District 5 and the fire district. Please note, household size is for all unit sizes and is not limited to one or two-bedroom households. Vehicular trips are expected to be minimal due to the walkable and transit-oriented nature of the site’s location; trip generation estimates from ITE are included in Table A. A CAT bus stop is located nearby on Preston Avenue and the development includes providing bike lockers for residents. It is expected that these two alternative transportation methods will lower the already low trip estimate. Harris Street’s bike lane facilitates the easy use of bicycles as a mode of transportation. TABLE A. ITE Trip Generation Estimates AM PEAK PM PEAK LAND IV IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL DAILY USE TOTAL CODE 220 - MF 7 1 3 4 3 3 6 12 Housing units (Low-Rise) 712 - 500 1 0 1 0 1 1 8 Small SF Office Bldg 5 7 20 IMPACTS ON SCHOOLS: The property is zoned for Greenbrier Elementary, Walker Upper Elementary, Buford Middle, and Charlottesville High. ACS 2018 5 year estimates show that there are an estimated 4,800 residents between the ages of 5-17 within City limits. By dividing this estimate by the number of occupied housing units in the city, 18,613, it can be approximated that there are approximately .26 children per housing unit in Charlottesville. Since 7 residential units are proposed on the site, it is estimated the project may contribute an additional two school-aged children. IMPACTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES: All design and engineering for improving the property will comply with applicable City and State regulations for erosion and sediment control and if applicable during the site plan development phase, stormwater management. There is very little planted greenery on Harris Street, and the property will provide a tree buffer at the rear of the property, a rear garden for occupants’ use and enjoyment, and a front garden area to enhance the streetscape. COMPLIANCE WITH USBC REGULATIONS: The proposed project will comply with all applicable USBC regulations. SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION EXHIBITS 923 HARRIS STREET EXISTING CONDITIONS Sheet 1 of 6 0 25 e ut Ro To SITE e Av n to es Pr To TMP 35-112 Revised 15 March 2022 Submitted 18 February 2022 project: 21.090 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION EXHIBITS 923 HARRIS STREET SITE & SPECIAL USE PERMIT INFO Sheet 2 of 6 OWNER/DEVELOPER USE 923 Harris Street LLC EXISTING: Residential 923 Harris Street PROPOSED: Multifamily + Artist’s Workshop Charlottesville, VA 22903 ZONING TMP EXISTING: IC 35-112 PROPOSED: IC, with special use permit request for residential density of 44-64 DUA ACREAGE 0.114 DENSITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Business & NEIGHBORHOOD Technology Mixed Use Rose Hill PROPOSED: 7 units proposed; 62 DUA FLOODZONE BUILDING HEIGHT According to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, effective Per Section 34-457(b)(5), building height for a mixed-use date February 4, 2005 (Community Panel 51003C0286D), building or development by special use permit may be this property does not lie within a Zone X 100-year permitted up to six stories, provided that no additional floodplain. height may be allowed for any building that is located within 200 feet of any low-density residential district. SOURCE OF BOUNDARY & TOPOGRAPHY Proposed building height: 4 stories Boundary and topographic survey provided by Foresight Survey, P.C., February 10, 2022. Supplementary data of surrounding area provided by Charlottesville GIS. SETBACKS Per Section 34-353 of the Charlottesville Zoning Ordinance, setbacks shall be permitted as follows: FRONT MINIMUM: None FRONT MAXIMUM: 20’ SIDE MINIMUM: None REAR MINIMUM: None TMP 35-112 Revised 15 March 2022 Submitted 18 February 2022 project: 21.090 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION EXHIBITS 923 HARRIS STREET SURROUNDING ZONING Sheet 3 of 6 n District Boundaries Multiple Zonings Multiple Zonings th Multiple Zonings Multiple Zonings Multiple Zonings th Multiple Zonings SITE Zoning 1C; B-1H oning oning Zoning 1S; R-1SC; R-1SH; R- HC; R-1SU; R1USH H R-1H; R-1U; R-1UH R-2H; R-2U; R-2UH UHD; UHDH; UMD; TMP 35-112 Revised 15 March 2022 Submitted 18 February 2022 2/16/2022 project: 21.090 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. DISCLAIMER:The City makes no warranties, expressed or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness or suitability of this data, and it should not be construed or used as a legal description. The information displayed is a compilation of information obtained from various sources, and the City is not responsible for it's accuracy or how current it may be. Every reasonable effort is made to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the data. Pursuant to Section 54.1-402 of the Code of Virginia, any determination of topography or contours, or any depiction of physical improvements, property lines or boundaries is for general information only and shall not be used for the design, modification or construction of improvements to real property or for flood plain determination. SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION EXHIBITS 923 HARRIS STREET EXISTING CONDITIONS Sheet 4 of 6 Gingerich Outdoor Power Specialist Pet Paradise TMP 35-112 Revised 15 March 2022 Submitted 18 February 2022 20 0 20 40 60 project: 21.090 Graphic Scale: 1”=20’ SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION EXHIBITS 923 HARRIS STREET CONCEPT PLAN Sheet 5 of 6 nce ba ur ist of d it s lim ed os Prop TMP 35-112 Revised 15 March 2022 Submitted 18 February 2022 20 0 20 40 60 project: 21.090 Graphic Scale: 1”=20’ SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION EXHIBITS 923 HARRIS STREET LANDSCAPE PLAN Sheet 6 of 6 “ ” TMP 35-112 Revised 15 March 2022 Submitted 18 February 2022 20 0 20 40 60 project: 21.090 Graphic Scale: 1”=20’ SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7 923 HARRIS STREET PARCEL ID: 3501120000 LEGEND: ABBREVIATIONS: ---0 GRID LINE AB ANCHOR BOLT A/C AIR CONDITIONING GR GRADE GTR GUTTER R RISER RAD RADIUS PROJECT NARRATIVE: L--4 ACT ACOUSTICAL CEILING TILE GWB GYPSUM WALL BOARD RD ROOF DRAIN NEW CONSTRUCTION 4 STORY BUILDING WITH SECTION TAG X ADJ ADJUSTABLE HB HOSE BIB REBAR STEEL REINFORCING BAR (7) 2BR APARTMENTS WWW.DISTRICTDESIGN.COM AFF ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR HC HANDICAP REC RECESSED x�x INTERIOR ELEVATION BD BOARD HD HEAD REFGREFRIGERATOR (6) CAR GARAGE PARKING WITH BICYCLE LOCKERS X 4 BIT BITUMINOUS HOR HEADER REINF REINFORCED EXTERIOR ELEVATION BKG BLOCKING HOW HARDWARE REQ REQUIRED PROJECT: I♦ @ BLDG BUILDING HGR HANGER REV REVERSE 923 HARRIS STREET DETAIL TAG BM BEAM HOR HORIZONTAL RFG ROOFING CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 BOF BOTTOM OF FOOTING HT HEIGHT RH RIGHT HAND EL.0'-0" ELEVATION TAG BR BRICK HTG HEATING RM ROOM BRG BEARING HVACHEATING VENTILATING RO ROUGH OPENING � LEVEL : ELEVATION ELEVATION TAG C COURSE AND AIR CONDITIONING RTG RATING DRAWING LIST: CAB CABINET HW HOT WATER SCHDSCHEDULE @ WINDOW TAG CFM CUBIC FEET PER MINUTE HWD HARDWOOD SECT SECTION C000 COVER PAGE AND @ DOOR TAG Cl CAST IRON CLG CEILING ID INSIDE DIAMETER INS INSULATION SF SQUARE FOOT MASSING EXHIBIT SHT SHEET � WALL TYPE CMU CONC MASONRY UNIT INT INTERIOR SIM SIMILAR 0 "'''-' DRAWING TITLE DRAWING TITLE COL COLUMN CONC CONCRETE JB JAMB JST JOIST SM# SMOOT LUMBER COMPANY DESIGNATION CONTCONTINUOUS KIT KITCHEN SPEC SPECIFICATION CPT CARPET LAM LAMINATED SPKR SPRINKLER CT CERAMIC TILE LAV LAVATORY SQ SQUARE WALL LEGEND: CTR CENTER LBS POUNDS S&R SHELF AND ROD DBL DOUBLE LH LEFT HAND STD STANDARD DEMO WALL DEM DEMOLISH/DEMOLITION LT LIGHT STL STEEL NEARBY RENT DATA: EXISTING MAS MASONRY NEW INTERIOR WALL DN DOWN MAX MAXIMUM STR STRUCTURE SUSP SUSPENDED MCINTIRE PLAZA RENTS DR DOOR NEW EXT. WALL DS DOWNSPOUT MECH MECHANICAL SYS SYSTEM STANDARD 1BR UNIT: $1600 MEMB MEMBRANE T TREAD DWG DRAWING EA EACH MFR MANUFACTURER T&G TONGUE AND GROOVE 2 BEDROOM UNIT: $1800 EL ELEVATION MIN MINIMUM TEL TELEPHONE SOURCE: ZILLOW ENCL ENCLOSURE MISC MISCELLANEOUS TEMP TEMPERED EQ EQUAL MLDGMOLDING THK THICK CONSULTANT: EQPT EQUIPMENT MO MASONRY OPENING TOF TOP OF FOOTING EX EXISTING MTD MOUNTED TOW TOP OF WALL EXP EXPANSION MTL METAL TV TELEVISION EXT EXTERIOR NO# NUMBER TYP TYPICAL FBRGL FIBERGLASS NTS NOT TO SCALE UNO UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE FD FLOOR DRAIN OC ON CENTER VB VAPOR BARRIER FON FOUNDATION OD OUTSIDE DIAMETER VCT VINYL COMPOSITION TILE FF FOIL FACE OPG OPENING VERT VERTICAL FIN FINISH OPP OPPOSITE VT VINYL TILE FL FLOOR PC PRECAST CONCRETE W/ WITH MASSING SKETCH FLG FLASHING PL PLATE WD WOOD FOM FACE OF MASONRY PLAM PLASTIC LAMINATE WIN WINDOW FS FULL SIZE PLAS PLASTER W/0 WITHOUT FT FOOT OR FEET PNL PANEL WP WATERPROOFING FTG FOOTING PNT PAINT WR WATER RESISTANT FUR FURRING PR PAIR WSCT WAINSCOT GA GAUGE PSF POUNDS PER SQ FOOT WT WEIGHT GAL GALVANIZED PSI POUNDS PER SQ INCH WWF WELDED WIRE FABRIC GC GENERAL CONTRACTOR PVC POLYVINYL CHLORIDE GL GLASS PLY PLYWOOD GENERAL NOTES: CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AND FAMILIARIZE HIMSELF WITH ALL FIELD CONDITIONS PRIOR TO SUBMITTING PROPOSALS AND COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION. FIELD CONDITIONS NOT AGREEING WITH CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE OWNER & DESIGNER PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK. ALL ADDITIONAL WORK NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE PROPOSED PROJECT WHICH IS NOT INDICATED ON DRAWINGS SHALL RECEIVE PRIOR AUTHORIZATION FROM THE HOMEOWNER. REVISION: CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INCLUSION OF ALL WORK NECESSARY FOR A COMPLETE INSTALLATION WHETHER SUCH WORK IS INDICATED ON DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS. ALL MANUFACTURED / PREFABRICATED ITEMS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH THE WRITTEN MANUFACTURES SPECIFICATIONS. JOB SITE SHALL BE KEPT IN A CLEAN AND ORDERLY FASHION AT THE END OF EACH DAYS WORK. ALL WARRANTIES, GUARANTIES AND MANUFACTURERS INSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE PRESENTED TO THE HOMEOWNER IN A COMPLETE AND ORDERLY MANNER AT THE CONCLUSION OF CONSTRUCTION. ALL WORK PERFORMED SHALL BE EXECUTED TO GREATER THAN STANDARD BUILDING QUALITY AND SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL LOCAL CODES AND ORDINANCES. THE DESIGNER SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR AND WILL NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER CONSTRUCTION MEANS, METHODS, TECHNIQUES, SEQUENCES AND PROCEDURES, OR FOR THE SAFETY PRECAUTIONS AND PROGRAMS IN CONNECTION WITH THE WORK, AND WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FAILURE OF THE CLIENT OR HIS CONTRACTORS, SUBCONTRACTORS OR ANYONE PERFORMING WORK, TO CARRY OUT THE WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE RESIDENTIAL CODES, REGULATIONS, AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. BY A LICENSED GENERAL CONTRACTOR ENTERING INTO AGREEMENT WITH THE HOMEOWNER/PROPERTY OWNER, HE AGREES TO KEEP CURRENT ALL INSURANCES, WORKER'S COMPENSATION AS REQUIRED, AND AGREES TO INDEMNIFY/HOLD HARMLESS THE HOMEOWNER/ PROPERTY OWNER FROM ANY ACCIDENTS OCCURRING FROM THE SCOPE OF WORK REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE PROPOSED PROJECT. CONTRACTORS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVING & DISPOSING OF DEBRIS, RUBBISH AND OTHER MATERIALS RESULTING FROM WORK AT THE JOB SITE. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE PROTECTION BETWEEN THE NEW CONSTRUCTION AND THE EXISTING BUILDING AND TAKE ADEQUATE MEASURES TO KEEP DUST TO A MINIMUM. UPON COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION, CONTRACTOR coooo SHALL CLEAN THE ENTIRE PREMISES AND TURN OVER ALL KEYS USED DURING CONSTRUCTION, OLD AND NEW. SEE NOTE ABOVE. ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS SHOULD BE FIELD VERIFIED INCLUDING DIMENSIONS AND STRUCTURE. SOME VARIATIONS COULD EXIST AND IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF OTHERS TO CONFIRM THE INFORMATION HEREIN. SHEET: Affordable Dwelling Unit Ordinance Worksheet-923 Harris St. SUP Concept Step 1: Total Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of Site A. Total size of development site: 0.114 acres B. Total square footage of site: 0.114 x 43,560.00 = 4,984.00 square feet (sf) (# of acres) C. 1.0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR): 4,984.00 (total sf of site) D. Gross Floor Area (GFA) of ALL buildings/uses: 8,820.00 sf E. Total site FAR: 8,820.00 ÷ 4,984.00 = 1.77 (total GFA of site) (1.0 FAR) F. Is E greater than or equal to 1.0 FAR? NO: Your proposed development does not trigger the ADU ordinance. YES: Proceed to Step 2 or Step 3. Step 2: Number of ADUs Required G. GFA in excess of 1.0 FAR: 8,820.00 - 4,984.00 = 3,836.00 (D: total site GFA) (B: total SF of site) H. Total GFA of ADUs required: 3,836.00 x 0.05 = 191.80 (G: GFA in excess of 1.0 FAR) I. Equivalent density based on Units Per Acre: i. Dwelling Units per Acre (DUA) approved by SUP: 62.00 ii. SF needed for ADUs: 191.80 ÷ 43,560.00 = 0.0044031 acres (H: Total GFA of ADUs) iii. Total number of ADUs required: 0.0044031 x 62.00 = 0.27 (ii: ADU acreage) (i: DUA approved) Step 3: Cash-in-Lieu Payment J. Cash-in-Lieu Amount Residential: 8,820.00 x $2.370 = $20,903.40 K. Cash-in-Lieu Amount Mixed-Use: Total GFA of development site: 8,820.00 GFA Occupied Commercial Space: 500.00 GFA Occupied Residential Space: 7,350.00 Total GFA Occupied Space: 7,850.00 % Residential: 0.94 Propotionate amount of non- occupied space GFA for residential GFA Non-Occupied Space*: 970.00 use: 908.22 Amount of Payment: 8,258.22 x $2.370 = $19,571.97 *GFA of non-occupied space shall include: (i) basements, elevator shafts and stairwells at each story, (ii) spaces used or occupied for mechanical equipment and having a structural head room of six (6) feet six (6) inches or more, (iii) penthouses, (iv) attic space, whether or not a floor has been laid, having a structural head room of six (6) feet six (6) inches or more, (v) interior balconies, and (vi) mezzanines. GFA shall not include outside balconies that do not exceed a projection of six (6) feet beyond the exterior walls of the building; parking structures below or above grade; or and roof top mechanical structures. Step 4: Minimum Term of Affordability L. Residential Project i. Households earning up to 80% AMI: Unit Type Eff. 1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR 5BR 6BR Number of Units Market Rent HUD Fair Market Rents $752.00 $1,027.00 $1,179.00 $1,478.00 $1,772.00 $2,037.00 $2,303.00 HUD Utility Allowance Difference per Month $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Annual Cost of ADU $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total Annual Cost of ADUs: 0.00 (Sum of Annual Cost of ADU) Minimum Term of Affordability*: #DIV/0! (Cash-in-lieu payment / Total annual cost of ADUs) *If answer is less than 5, then minimum term of affordability will be 5 years. M. Mixed-Use Project i. Households earning up to 80% AMI: Unit Type Eff. 1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR 5BR 6BR Number of Units Market Rent HUD Fair Market Rents $752.00 $1,027.00 $1,179.00 $1,478.00 $1,772.00 $2,037.00 $2,303.00 HUD Utility Allowance Difference per Month $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Annual Cost of ADU $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total Annual Cost of ADUs: 0.00 (Sum of Annual Cost of ADU) Minimum Term of Affordability: #DIV/0! (Cash-in-lieu payment / Total annual cost of ADUs) *If answer is less than 5, then minimum term of affordability will be 5 years. iil�t City of Charlottesville .Application for Special Use Permit ttt �i----------------------------1 ... I I t----1 � Project Name: _9_23 _ _H_ar_ r_is_st _ _______ ._ ____ A-\.� o V 2 Address of Property: 923 Harris St. Charl ttesville, A 2903 Tax Map and Parcel Number(s): _3_5_o1_ _ _ 0_ ________________ 200 350112000 _ 1 Current Zoning District Classification: __I_C_ Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Business and Technology Mixed Use Is this an amendment to an existing SUP?� If "yes", provide the SUP#:_________ Applicant: Shimp E ngineering contact: Kelsey Schlein Address: 912 E . High St.Charlottesville, VA 22902 (434)227-5140 kelsey@shimp-engineering.com Phone: Email: Applicant's Role in the Development (check one): D Owner D Owner's Agent l✓ I Designer DContract Purchaser Owner of Record: 923 Harris StreetLLC Address: 923 Harris St.Charlottesville, VA 22903 (202) 251-5291 Phone: Email: carmel@districtdesign.com Reason for Special Use Permit: D Additional height: __ feet l✓I Additional residential density: _ 7__ units, or __ 62 units per acre D Authorize specific land use (identify)_______________ D Other pur se s) (specifyCityCode section):_____________ (1) Applicant' Date 2) I sjtL ( ircle n . C Member LLC Manager Corporate Officer (specify) _______ Applicant's C �-gJ� Other (specify): (2) Signature___ C-JL � ___ _ _m_e_l _G_re_e_r _____ Date 2/8/22 Print _car ( ircle One): LLC Member LLC Manager Corporate Officer (specify) ________ Owner's C _ ___ c _w_N_ER Other (specify):_L_L__o __ 1 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION FOR A REZONING OF PROPERTY APPLICATION NUMBER: ZM22-00001 DATE OF HEARING: June 14, 2022 Project Planner: Brian Haluska, AICP Date of Staff Report: May 26, 2022 Applicant: Dairy Holdings, LLC Applicant’s Representative(s): Craig Kotarski, Timmons Group Current Property Owner: Dairy Holdings, LLC Application Information Property Street Address: 415 10th Street NW Tax Map & Parcel/Tax Status: 004046000 (real estate taxes paid current - Sec. 34-10) Total Square Footage/ Acreage Site: Approx. 0.19 acres (8,450 square feet) Comprehensive Plan (General Land Use Plan): General Residential (Sensitive Community Areas) Current Zoning Classification: R-1S (Residential Single Family Small Lot) Proposed Zoning Classification: B-2 Commercial Overlay District: None Applicant’s Request (Summary) Dairy Holdings, LLC (owner) has submitted a Rezoning Application pursuant to City Code Sec. 34-41 seeking a zoning map amendment to change the zoning district classification of the above parcel of land. The application proposes to change the zoning classification of the Subject Property from the existing R-1S (Residential Small Lot) to B-2 (Commercial) with proffers. The Subject Property has road frontage on 10th Street NW and Grady Avenue. The Comprehensive Land Use Map for this area calls for General Residential (Sensitive Community Area). Page 1 of 8 SP22-00001 Old Trinity Church Vicinity Map Context Map 1 Page 2 of 8 SP22-00001 Old Trinity Church Context Map 2- Zoning Classifications KEY - Pink: Central City Corridor, Yellow: R-1S Context Map 3- General Land Use Plan, 2013 Comprehensive Plan KEY: Yellow: General Residential, Purple: Urban Mixed Use Corridor, Dashed Blue line: Sensitive Community Areas Page 3 of 8 SP22-00001 Old Trinity Church Standard of Review City Council may grant an applicant a rezoning request, giving consideration to a number of factors set forth within Z.O. Sec. 34-41. The role of the Planning Commission is and make an advisory recommendation to the City Council, as to whether or not Council should approve a proposed rezoning based on the factors listed in Z.O. Sec. 34-42(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. For applicant’s analysis of their application per Sec 34-42 & Sec. 34-41(d) see Attachment X Sec. 34-42(a)(1): Whether the proposed amendment conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the comprehensive plan. Below are specific areas of the Comprehensive Plan for which the request is in compliance: a. Land Use i. Strategy 3.3 1. “Encourage adaptive re-use and potential increases in intensity of use for existing buildings, including historic structures…” Comprehensive Plan- Staff Analysis: The 2022 Comprehensive Plan stresses the preservation of historic resources and encouraging the adaptive re-use of existing buildings. The site contains a church that according to the City’s tax records was constructed in 1939. The proposal would permit a broader number of uses for the structure. The applicant has indicated that they intend to maintain the current structure in its current form, but there is no legal restriction on demolishing the structure. Page 4 of 8 SP22-00001 Old Trinity Church Staff has prepared a more detailed description of the historic nature of the property that is included as Attachment C. Streets that Work Plan The Streets that Work Plan labels 10th Street NW as “Neighborhood A” and Grady Avenue as “Neighborhood B”. Neighborhood A streets are intended to serve low to medium- density development, and put a high priority on sidewalks and bike facilities. Neighborhood B streets are similar, but do not put a priority on bike facilities. In addition, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan calls out both Grady Avenue and 10th Street NW for recommended bicycle improvements. Sec. 34-42(a)(2): Whether the proposed amendment will further the purposes of this chapter and the general welfare of the entire community. Staff finds that changing the zoning from R-1S to B-2 would have no impact in a positive or negative direction to the general welfare of the entire community, provided the existing building is maintained on the site. The applicant has indicated their intention to keep the building as it is, and mentions in the rezoning narrative that they have completed several maintenance projects on the existing structures. Because the existing building is not currently historically designated, there is no mechanism to prevent the demolition of the building in the future. Therefore, the proposed rezoning could potentially permit the redevelopment of the property in the future, utilizing the uses that the new zoning classification would permit. Sec. 34-42(a)(3): Whether there is a need and justification for the change. According to the City’s 2022 Comprehensive Plan, the City should encourage the adaptive re-use of existing structures. The current building has very limited uses available as a result of its zoning designation as R-1S. The amended zoning would encourage the re-use of the building, and is thus justification for the proposed change. Sec. 34-42(a)(4): When pertaining to a change in the zoning district classification of property, the effect of the proposed change, if any, on the property itself, on surrounding property, and on public services and facilities. In addition, the commission shall consider the appropriateness of the property for inclusion within the proposed zoning district, relating to the purposes set forth at the beginning of the proposed district classification. Page 5 of 8 SP22-00001 Old Trinity Church The proposed rezoning would have the effect of increasing the number of permitted uses in the existing structure. Currently, the property is essentially limited to use as a residential structure or a house of worship. The proposed application would permit the following additional uses of the property: • Art Gallery • Auditorium • Private Club • Music Hall • Educational Facility • Technology Based Business • Office While other uses are permitted under B-2 zoning, the applicant has proposed a proffer that would prohibit uses other than those listed above. Additionally, the applicant has proposed a proffer that would prohibit any additional vehicular ingress and egress to the subject property. The applicant is proposing to rezone the Subject Property from R-1S to B-2 with no development plan. Although no development plan is part of the application, the applicant’s stated intention is to use the property as is and not redevelop the property. As noted above, there is no legal restriction preventing the redevelopment of the property or requiring the preservation of the existing structure. Zoning History of the Subject Property Year Zoning District 1930 A-1 Residence 1949 A-1 Residence 1958 R-2 Residential 1976 R-2 Residential 1991 R-1A Residential 2003 R-1S Residential Page 6 of 8 SP22-00001 Old Trinity Church The Subject Property is bordered by: Direction Use Zoning North Residential R-1S South Residential R-1S East Mixed Use Development (Dairy Central) CC West Residential R-1S Staff finds a rezoning of the Subject Property would be an acceptable transition between the existing single-family dwellings to the south and west and the mixed-use development to the east. Public Comments Received Community Meeting Required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(c)(2) and the Community Engagement meeting Requirements during the COVID -19 Emergency approved by City Council on July 20, 2020 On April 27, 2022 the applicant held a community meeting at the Brick Cellar inside Dairy Market at 946 Grady Avenue at 6:00pm. Ten members of the public attended the meeting. The meeting was recorded and is available to the public through the developer. Several members of the public stated their preference that the owner seek historic designation of the Subject Property to ensure the building on the site would remain. Other Comments As of the date of this report staff has not received any comments from the public. Should any comments come in after the report posted, those comments will be forwarded to Planning Commission and City Council. Staff Recommendation This application raises a known issue with the City’s current zoning ordinance – the permitted use of non-residential structures in residential zones. Staff finds the proposed zoning change could contribute to goals of the City’s Comprehensive Plan encouraging the adaptive re-use of existing buildings. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request. Page 7 of 8 SP22-00001 Old Trinity Church Suggested Motions 1. I move to recommend approval of this application to rezone the Subject Property from R-1S, to B-2, with proffers, on the basis that the proposal would service the interests of the general public and good zoning practice. OR, 2. I move to recommend denial of this application to rezone the Subject Property from R- 1S to B-2, on the basis that the proposal would not service the interests of the general public and good zoning practice. Attachments A. Rezoning Application dated December 22, 2021 B. Narrative dated January 10, 2022 C. History Discussion of 415 10th Street NW, dated June 2, 2022 Page 8 of 8 City of Charlottesville 3Ut6» Application for Rezoning u ^ ^ Project Name: Old Trinity Church Rehabilitation Address of Property: ^(^,i^C Address: 2^<^ ^/l^^rr ^7: 5^/T^' 0, c^A^6TT£^tU.€ i//? 2-2 ^^Y pffi^T ?^<4A? . C(ZAt^ F^7A?S^(.r^^\ Planner: ^(A.t^ ^L-US/^A Other City Officials in Attendance: The following items will be required supplemental information for this application and must be submitted with the completed application package; 2. 3. 4. 5. Planner Signature: 2 iMS£§^ ^ City of Charlottesville a? w^» r* t^ w Application Checklist u ^ t(t c^ ^ fjjy^Q/ project Name: Old Trinity Church Rehabilitation r^!NlK^ I certify that the following documentation is ATTACHED to this application: v1 34-157(a)(2) Narrative statement: applicant's analysis of conformity with the Comprehensive Plan k^1 34-157(a)(4) Narrative statement identifying and discussing any potential adverse impacts, as well as any measures included within the development plan, to mitigate those impacts ^ 34-158(a)(6): other pertinent information (narrative, illustrative, etc.) v^f Completed proffer statement All items noted on the Pre-Application Meeting Verification. Applicant Print chris Henry Date 12/22/2021 Signature. By Its: President (For entities, specify: Officer, Member, Manager, Trustee, etc.) 3 Q^£^ ^ City of Charlottesville s L@J<" ^ ^ w Cominunity Meeting u < (t ^i to Project Name: Old Trinity Church Rehabilitation ^JNI"^ Section 34-41(c)(2) of the Code of the City of Charlottesville (adopted October 19, 2015) requires appli- cants seeking rezonings and special use permits to hold a community meeting. The purpose of a communi- ty meeting is to provide citizens an opportunity to receive information about a proposed development, about applicable zoning procedures, about applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan, and to give citizens an opportunity to ask questions. No application for a rezoning shall be placed on any agenda for a public hearing, until the required community meeting has been held and the director of neighborhood development services determines that the application is ready for final review through the formal public hearing process. By signing this document, the applicant acknowledges that it is responsible for the following, in connection to the community meeting required for this project: 1. Following consultation with the city, the applicant will establish a date, time and location for the community meeting. The applicant is responsible for reserving the location, and for all related costs. 2. The applicant will mail, by U.S. mail, first-class, postage pre-paid, a notice of the community meeting to a list of addresses provided by the City. The notice will be mailed at least 14 calendar days prior to the date of the community meeting. The applicant is responsible for the cost of the mailing. At least 7 calendar days prior to the meeting, the applicant will provide the city with an affidavit confirming that the mailing was timely completed. 3. The applicant will attend the community meeting and present the details of the proposed application. If the applicant is a business or other legal entity (as opposed to an individual) then the meeting shall be attended by a corporate officer, an LLC member or manager, or another individual who can speak for the entity that is the applicant. Additionally, the meeting shall be attended by any design professional or consultant who has prepared plans or drawings submitted with the application. The applicant shall be prepared to explain all of the details of the proposed development, and to answer questions from citizens. 4. Depending on the nature and complexity of the application, the City may designate a planner to attend the community meeting. Regardless of whether a planner attends, the City will provide the applicant with guidelines, procedures, materials and recommended topics for the applicant's use in conducting the community meeting. 5. On the date of the meeting, the applicant shall make records of attendance and shall also document that the meeting occurred through photographs, video, or other evidence satisfactory to the City. Records of attendance may include using the mailing list referred to in #1 as a sign-in sheet (requesting attendees to check off their name(s)) and may include a supplemental attendance sheet. The City will provide a format acceptable for use as the supplemental attendance sheet. Applicant: Dairy Holdings, LLC „ Chris Henry Print Chris Henry Date 12/22/2021 Signature_ President (Officer, Member, Trustee, etc.) Its: 4 /^i^ City of Charlottesville y'—sss^ Personal Interest Stateinent )tl ^ <^ to Project Name: Old Trinity Church Rehabilitation ^SJNS-^' ^ A. I swear under oath before a notary public that: A member of the City of Charlottesville Planning Commission (identified below), or their immediate family member, has a personal interest in the property or transaction that is the subject of this application. Planning Commissioner(s): Or No member of the City of Charlottesville Planning Commission, or their immediate family member, has a personal interest in the property or transaction that is the subject of this application. And A member of the City of Charlottesville City Council (identified below), or their immediate family member, has a personal interest in the property or transaction that is the subject of this application. CityCouncilor(s): Or No member of the City of Charlottesville Planning Commission, or their immediate family member, has a personal interest in the property or transaction that is the subject of this application. Applicant: Dairy Holdings, LLC By: Chris Henry Signature^ Print Ckr3 , tiri I 3& , 2-OZ2. 5 ^1I£^ ^ City of Charlottesville S3 mi aaa ^ r* ^ B Owner's Authorizations y ^ t(l ^ (Not Required) <0 "^ZNIA.^^ Project Name: Old Trinity Church Rehabilitation Right of Entry- Property Owner Permission 1, the undersigned, hereby grant the City of Charlottesville, its employees and officials, the right to enter the property that is the subject of this application, for the purpose of gathering information for the review of this rezoning application. Owner: 'PAt^-Y ((oi.\>\^^ , l^Ld Date 12/22/2021 Date By (sign name) :(/J^3 Print Name: Chris Henry Owner's: LLC Member LLC Manager Corporate Officer (specify): President Other (specific): Owner's Agent I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I have authorized the following named individual or entity to serve as my lawful agent, for the purpose of making application for this rezoning, and for all related purposes, including, without limitation: to make decisions and representations that will be binding upon my proper- ty and upon me, my successors and assigns. Name of Individual Agent: Craig Kotarski Name of Corporate or other legal entity authorized to serve as agent: 12/22/2021 Owner: Dairy Holdings, LLC Date: By (sign name): (^Y^/ Print Name: Chris Henry Circle one: Owner's: LLC Member LLC Manager Corporat^Bfficer (spedTvl: President Other (specific): 6 City of Charlottesville (^ 'tel u' W ^F r4 n Fee Schedule -s t(t C\) ^ <0 ^efNi? \ ^ Application Type Quantity Fee Subtotal Rezoning Application Fee $2000 Mailing Costs per letter $1 per letter Newspaper Notice Payment Due Upon Invoice TOTAL Office Use Only Amount Received: Date Paid_ Received By: 213 W. High Street (1920) June 2, 2022 - Page 1 of 6 City GIS 1920 Sanborn Map Note: This is the location of the congregation in 1920; however, this is not the building relocated from Palmyra, but possibly the smaller structure now behind the church on 10th Street, with the church being the structure relocated from Palmyra in 1939. 213 W. High Street (c 1937) For information only June 2, 2022 - Page 2 of 6 1937 https://geoportal.lib.virginia.edu/UVAImageDiscovery/ 1937 https://geoportal.lib.virginia.edu/UVAImageDiscovery/ City GIS 213 W. High Street (1957) For information only June 2, 2022 - Page 3 of 6 1957 https://geoportal.lib.virginia.edu/UVAImageDiscovery/ 415 10th Street, NW (1957) Images not at same scale 1957 https://geoportal.lib.virginia.edu/UVAImageDiscovery/ 415 10th Street, NW (1920) For information only June 2, 2022 - Page 4 of 6 Grady Ave 10th Street City GIS Grady Ave 1920 Sanborn Map 10th St NW 415 10th Street, NW (c1960) For information only June 2, 2022 - Page 5 of 6 Grady Ave 10th Street City GIS Grady Ave c1960 Sanborn Map 10th St NW 415 10th Street, NW For information only June 2, 2022 - Page 6 of 6 209 and 213 W. High Street (1920) 415 10th Street, NW (c1960) Possibly church from 213 W. High Street Grady Ave 1910 church, relocated to site in 1939 10th St NW Possibly house from 209 W. High Street CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Staff Summary re: existing structures at 415 10th Street NW Provided for information only. No action is proposed. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: June 14, 2022 Summary prepared by: Jeff Werner, AICP, Preservation and Design Planner Note: In preparing this summary, staff pulled from multiple sources in the NDS archives and records; however, time did not allow for appropriate attribution of each source. That information can be provided, if necessary. History and Background There are three structures on this site: the church, a fellowship hall to the rear, and a dwelling on the south side.* City GIS indicates only one construction date, 1939, the year the congregation relocated from West High Street to 415 10th Street, NW. (See the City’s 1981 Architectural and Historical Survey.) [*For simplicity—and not knowing how they were historically referred to--staff refers to the structures as church, fellowship hall, and dwelling.] The church was constructed near Palmyra in 1910 [for the Episcopal Church of the Ascension] and relocated in 1939 to 415 10th Street, NW [by the Trinity Episcopal Mission]. Between 1919 and 1939, the congregation of Trinity worshiped at a structure located at 213 West High Street [present day intersection of High, Preston, and Market]. 415 10th Street NW – June 2, 2022 1 Construction dates for the fellowship hall and dwelling are not known. 1957 aerial photos (attached) indicate no structures at the West High Street site and three at the 10th Street site. It is possible—and additional research might confirm--that the fellowship hall is the Mission’s sanctuary formerly at 213 West High Street and the dwelling is the one formerly at 209 West High Street. (See the attached 1920 Sanborn Maps and 1937 aerial photos.) While this is speculation by staff, it is worth noting the congregation relocated to 10th Street because the property at West High Street was acquired for Lane High School. This congregation acquired and relocated from Fluvanna County, well over 20 miles, a 45-ft x 30-ft building, so one can easily imagine they moved less than a mile one, possibly two, smaller buildings. After the City’s 2019/2020 historical survey of the 10th and Page Neighborhood, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources State Review Board recommended the 10th and Page Neighborhood Historic District be eligible for the Virginia Landmarks Register (VLR) and the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Formal listing requires a separate, more-detailed nomination process. The church, fellowship hall, and dwelling were found eligible as contributing structures within the historic district, but they were not recommended for individual listing. Local [City] designation is separate and [can be] wholly unrelated to state and national designation. It is only through this local [City] designation that a historic property comes under the purview of the Board of Architectural Review and, with that, is regulated by the City Code relative to demolitions, alterations, and new construction. Listing on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places, either as an individual resource or as a resource contributing to a historic district, is not required for local designation—nor vice versa—and does not result in any regulatory oversight—local, state, or federal--relative to demolitions, alterations, and new construction. (See the summary below.) From City’s 1981 Architectural and Historical Survey 415 10th Street NW – June 2, 2022 2 ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION Trinity Church is a very simple one-storey rectangular weatherboarded building set on a cinderblock foundation with a full basement. It is three bays wide and five bays long. There is a marble cornerstone inscribed "Trinity Church, 1939. The weatherboarding on both sides of the building is beaded, but not on the front and rear. It is painted white with dark green trim. The steep gable roof is covered with slate and has a boxed cornice with returns. A simple pointed-arched bargeboard of vertical beaded siding dominates the facade. There is a wheel window under the arch. Windows on the sides of the building are double-sash, pointed-arched, Gothic windows with tinted glass and architrave trim. There are narrower lancet windows in the side bays of the facade. The pointed-arched pair of entrance doors in the center bay is of simple beaded board-&- batten construction. A photograph of the building [not available] before it was moved shows a square bell tower centered above the facade, and a small gable-roofed entrance vestibule, neither of which was reconstructed on the Charlottesville site. The rear elevation has simple cornice returns without the bargeboard and is broken only by a pointed-arched attic level window above the altar. A small wing covers the rear bay of the south side. It matches in most details, including beaded weatherboarding, and is probably original. An enclosed shed-roofed porch behind it serves as a hyphen between the church building and the parish house to the west. HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION This building was designed and built in 1910 by C. Chastain Cocke for the Episcopal Church of the Ascension on the eastern edge of Palmyra. When the congregation disbanded less than three decades later, the building was given or sold to Trinity Episcopal Mansion [sic. Should be Mission] in Charlottesville. Established in 1919, Trinity had been holding services in a building at the foot of Beck's Hill [intersection of High Street, Preston Avenue, and Market Street]. In 1939, when the City began acquiring all the land in that area for the construction of Lane High School, the Diocese bought this lot at the corner of Tenth Street and Grady Avenue (City DB 100-202). The church building was dismantled and moved from Palmyra that same year. The new Trinity Episcopal Church building on Preston Avenue was completed in 1974, and this building was sold to the Monticello Dairy, Inc. (DB 357-422). It is now occupied by the Pentecostal Assembly Church. Additional Reference: City DB 197-321. From City intern research conducted in 2013 415 10th Street NW TRINITY EPISCOPAL CHURCH (DB and Page # 197-321 and 357-422) 415 10th Street NW – June 2, 2022 3 The white and green church at the corner of 10th Street and Preston Avenue was first built by the Diocesan Missionary Society, which operated from 1939 until 1957. The building became the Trinity Episcopal Church in 1951, under the leadership of Reverend Charles Fox. Charles, his wife, Lucille, and their children (Charles, Wendella, and Maurice) lived in the parish house at 415 10th Street for the first few years while Charles preached in the church. 1 Reverend Fox’s final sermon was on Sunday March 10, 1957, after which he left to serve at a church in Baltimore, Maryland. In September of 1958, Henry B. Mitchell became priest-in-charge at Trinity Church. Henry, his wife, Gertrude, and their children, Carolyn and Henry B. Jr., lived in the parish house from 1960-1964.2 The congregation of Trinity Episcopal Church has been racially mixed, even from the first service held in 1957. 3 During the school closure at the time of racial integration, Trinity Episcopal Church was opened as a temporary tutoring location for African American elementary school children. 4 c1950 Sanborn Map Sheet 34 1 Kristin’s research, p. 85 2 Agnes Cross-White, “Images of America: Charlottesville, The African-American Community”. 1998. Arcadia Publishing. p. 71 3 Agnes Cross-White, Images of America: Charlottesville, the African-American Community. (Arcadia Publishing, 1998). 70 4 James Robert Saunders and Renae Nadine Shackelford. “Urban Renewal and the End of Black Culture in Charlottesville, Virginia: An Oral History of Vinegar Hill”. 1998. McFarland & Company, Inc. p. 51 415 10th Street NW – June 2, 2022 4 See also (attached): Brennan, Eryn, 201. Religious Communities in Transition: Three African-American Churches in Preston Heights. City-designation of Historic Districts and Properties There are three local historic designations in the City: • Historical Preservation and Architectural Design Control Overlay Districts or ADC Districts. o Downtown, West Main, The Corner, etc. • Individually Protected Properties or IPPs o Single property destinations. o The Church of God in Christ at the corner of 12th Street, NW and Rosser Avenue, constructed in 1947 by Reverend C.H. Brown, is a City-designated IPP. • Historic Conservation Overlay Districts or HC Districts o Woolen Mills, Rugby Road, and Martha Jefferson Per Section 34-274 (text below), City Council can, by ordinance and based on eight criteria, designate histroci districts and individual buildings, structures or landmarks as IPPs. It is only through this local [City] designation that a historic property comes under the purview of the Board of Architectural Review and, with that, is regulated by the City Code relative to demolitions, alterations, and new construction. (Listing on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places, either as an individual resource or as a resource contributing to a historic district, is not required for local designation—nor vice versa—and does not result in any regulatory oversight—local, state, or federal--relative to demolitions, alterations, and new construction.) Additionally, local designation does not alter the underlying zoning. The Board of Architectural Review (BAR) can only approve or deny a particular design for a new building or an alteration, but that purview does go so far as to deny or prohibit a zoned use. Also, all BAR actions are appealable to City Council and then to the courts. That is, the BAR cannot, by its actions alone, prevent a demolition or prevent a new structure or alteration by denying a proposed design. While many of the local designations—districts and properties--match or overlap with state and national designations, they are entirely separate—that is, one does not result in or require the other—and only the City designation results in any local regulations and BAR purview. For example, there are IPPs are not listed on the VLR or NRHP. Conversely, for example, within the Fry’s Spring Historic District (listed only on the VLR and NRHP, not a City district) there are some IPPs that fall under BAR purview; however, nothing else in the district does. City Code Section 34-274. - Additions to and deletions from districts or protected property list. a. City council may, by ordinance, from time to time, designate additional properties and areas for inclusion within a major design control district; remove properties from a major design 415 10th Street NW – June 2, 2022 5 control district; designate individual buildings, structures or landmarks as protected properties; or remove individual buildings, structure or landmarks from the city's list of protected properties. Any such action shall be undertaken following the rules and procedures applicable to the adoption of amendments to the city's zoning ordinance and zoning map. b. Prior to the adoption of any such ordinance, the city council shall consider the recommendations of the planning commission and the board of architectural review ("BAR") as to the proposed addition, removal or designation. The commission and BAR shall address the following criteria in making their recommendations: 1. The historic, architectural or cultural significance, if any, of a building, structure or site and whether it has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the Virginia Landmarks Register; 2. The association of the building, structure or site with an historic person or event or with a renowned architect or master craftsman; 3. The overall aesthetic quality of the building, structure or site and whether it is or would be an integral part of an existing design control district; 4. The age and condition of a building or structure; 5. Whether a building or structure is of old or distinctive design, texture and material; 6. The degree to which the distinguishing character, qualities or materials of a building, structure or site have been retained; 7. Whether a building or structure, or any of its features, represents an infrequent or the first or last remaining example of a particular detail or type of architecture in the city; 8. Whether a building or structure is part of a geographically definable area within which there exists a significant concentration or continuity of buildings or structures that are linked by past events or, aesthetically, by plan or physical development, or within which there exist a number of buildings or structures separated geographically but linked by association or history. (9-15-03(3)) 415 10th Street NW – June 2, 2022 6 June 16, 2015 City of Charlottesville Neighborhood Development Attn: Brian Haluska PO Box 911, City Hall Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: Lochlyn Hill PUD Modification – Resubmission Dear Brian: Please find enclosed the following: - Revised Pages 6-7+15 of the Code of Development (per staff comments) - Revised Conceptual Development Plan (no change from Public Hearing) Per the comments made by Staff, we have revised the Code of Development language on Pages 6-7+15, along with a modification to Table A, to reflect the discussion. Should staff have any additional comments or suggestions, we are amenable to further revision. Please note the entire package of changes, as submitted with the initial submission, is being provided. We look forward to working with you on this exciting residential development project that spans both the City and County jurisdictions. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at llopez@milestonepartners.co or 434.245.5803 (o) or 434.409.1005 (c). Very truly yours, Louis J. Lopez III Pe nP ark Main Entry Feature La ne r. tD on dm oo W Trail Connection Pocket Park ‘A’ #13 Existing House/ Visitor’s Center Existing Magnolia Meadowcreek Ve Linear Park gas Golf Course Co ur t Tow 6 nh om e s Current Out-Parcel Line 6 Townhomes Community Amenity 7 Townhom County Open Townhom Limits Recreation es 5 County City Limits es Limits City #12 Limits 5 Pocket Park ‘B’ h o m es Tow n Stormwater Management Alley (Typical) Area 9 To SFD/S wnh Park-Under Flats Townh 3 Story ome FA Alley 6 omes 24 s (Typical) Units 24 Stream Buffer Units Primary Pedestrian Connector (Typical) Slope Preserve Open Space Overlook Product Legend Park County City Total 2 17 19 60’ x 100-120’ (Approx.) Creek 10 9 19 50’ x 100-120’ (Approx.) Existing Trail Stream Buffer 20 47 67 40’ x 100-120’ (Approx.) Potential Recreation/ Pedestrian Bridge Stormwater 24 20 44 Townhomes • Per Purchase Agreement Management Area • Location to be Determined Potential Connection 7 7 SFD/SFA to City Greenway 48 48 Multi Family Flats 56 148 204 Lochlyn Hill Exhibit 2: Conceptual Site Plan May 26, 2015 Albemarle County, Charlottesville, Virginia Project 011085 © 2012 Cline Design Associates, PA expressly reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these plans. These plans are not to be reproduced, changed, or copied in any form or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to any third party without first obtaining the expressed written permission and consent of Cline Design Associates, PA. 1 Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING August 10, 2021 – 5:30 P.M. Virtual Meeting I. COMMISSION PRE-MEETING (Agenda discussion(s)) Beginning: 5:00 PM Location: Virtual/Electronic Members Present: Commissioner Habbab, Commissioner Solla-Yates, Chairman Mitchell, Commissioner Russell, Commissioner Stolzenberg, Commissioner Lahendro Members Absent: Commissioner Dowell Staff Present: Joe Rice, Patrick Cory, Missy Creasy, Alex Ikefuna, Lisa Robertson, Dannan O’Connell Chair Mitchell called the meeting to order at 5:00pm and he asked Ms. Creasy to provide an overview of the agenda for the evening which was done. It was noted that the spelling of Yolunda Harrell’s name needs to be updated in the minutes. Chair Mitchell asked Commissioner Solla-Yates to review the request concerning the traffic light at 3rd and Water Street. Commissioner Solla-Yates noted that he had expressed concern about the benefit of this traffic light based on the cost of it remaining from a monetary standpoint and operational standpoint for transit. It was noted that there are at least three options that could be considered: keep the light, remove the light, place the light on flashing. Ms. Creasy noted that there was a discussion last month with Chair Mitchell, Commissioner Solla-Yates and staff including Brennen Duncan. It was noted that this item could be brought up to the full commission and if there was agreement, that staff could provide a letter to Deputy City Manager Sam Sanders with the details so consideration of the request could be given to Council. As all commissioners were in agreement with moving forward with review, it was noted that the next step would be for Traffic staff to meet with Mr. Sanders to see if he wants to take it forward to Council. Commissioner Lahendro noted his discussion with members of the Rugby neighborhood in relation to the future land use map. Commissioner Stolzenberg provided comments and a brief discussion took place. Commissioner Habbab noted that he and his firm are involved with the Park Street and MACAA sites so he will likely not be participating in the conversation. Clarification will take place prior to the meeting. II. COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING – Meeting called to order at 5:30 PM by the Chairman Beginning: 5:30 PM Location: Virtual/Electronic A. COMMISSIONER’S REPORT Commissioner Russell – Council approved the design for the Fontaine Avenue Streetscape, which is a smart-scale project. The final design will continue while property is acquired for right of way. It is projected for construction to begin sometime in 2023. 2 Commissioner Stolzenberg – I had two meetings this month. The MPO Technical Committee met. We reviewed potential smart-scale submission projects for the next round of smart-scale. There are five projects under consideration right now, including District Avenue Roundabout up by Stonefield, improvements on Fifth Street, improvements on Avon, and the Rivanna Corridor Bridge. There was another project proposed by a member of CTAC (Citizens Transportation Advisory Commission), which was a flyover leaving 29 and 250 into the middle of 29 up to Hydraulic. That seemed to be too expensive to not merit constraint or any long range transportation plan. The decision was made to put that off until we do a long range planning process. We also had a meeting of TJPDC, which is starting its process of reviewing applications for a new Executive Director. They also approved a regional affordable housing plan. That goes a long way towards generalizing the affordable housing plan of the city and the county and adding all of our outlying areas with recommendations for what they can do. The inter-government panel on climate change has released the first part of its six assessment report. Most of the material in there is bad news. Some of it is tentatively possibly good news if we act on it. I would encourage all of you to read it. We are currently at one degree Celsius of warming over the baseline. We are essentially guaranteed to go past 1.5 degrees Celsius at this point. We’re most likely looking at 3 degrees or more unless we see a very significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The good news is if we can reach net zero by the middle of the century, we will hit 1.5 degrees Celsius and then fall back/start to decline. The problem won’t keep getting worse. However, that would be a significant departure from current trends and requires significant change in how we live our lives and how we make governmental policy. I encourage you all to read that and think about that as we consider our policies moving forward. Commissioner Lahendro – Since our last meeting, I attended the Board of Architectural Review meeting on July 20th. It was a very quick meeting. We had one Certificate of Appropriateness that was passed. We had a long discussion with the designers for the new courthouse building. This was a preliminary discussion where we had the opportunity to review and comment upon some of the very conceptual designs for the new courthouse. The Tree Commission met the same night as the Planning Commission. I wasn’t able to attend. August is going to be quiet as well. There is no Tree Commission meeting in August. I was asked to attend a meeting with three residents of the Meadowbrook and Rugby Road communities. This was to listen to their concerns regarding the Comprehensive Plan recommendations that have been put forward to this point. As a result of listening to them, I did recommend that they put this in a written form that was sent to me last week. I reviewed it. I have asked that it be sent onto the other commissioners, the Council, and to our consultants. In summary, they are challenging the three main justifications for making significant changes to the land use zoning. The first justification is how population growth is being anticipated and how that population is being looked at in the future. Secondly, they’re challenging the idea that Charlottesville is landlocked and needs to be up- zoned. Thirdly, they are challenging the method used for calculating cost burden/households. I found their presentation and discussion with me to be very thoughtful and was based upon a great deal of work. I would love to hear the consultants’ response to some of these counter-arguments that have been put forward. Commissioner Solla-Yates – The Housing Advisory Committee met on July 21st. We met with some new city staff. Ashley Marshall and Sam Sanders are the new deputy city managers. We talked about how we actually are going to implement this new housing plan. The answer right now is staffing. We’re going to hire people to do the work, which is very exciting and what I wanted to hear. Mr. Sanders broke some news that a new hire with NDS has been made. It is Mr. Freas. His current priority is hiring a new Housing Coordinator to help us answer these complicated and quantitative questions that keep coming up. 3 Commissioner Habbab – No Report B. UNIVERSITY REPORT Commissioner Palmer – Fall Semester starts August 24th. We will be in full swing around Grounds starting next week. The bus schedule for UTS has changed. They’re adding a little bit more coverage and frequency. If you are interested in seeing those routes, you can go to the UTS website. They’re not back to what they were. They’re more robust. C. CHAIR’S REPORT Chairman Mitchell – I didn’t make any of the meetings this month. We have an annual meeting happening in Sept. At that meeting, we will need to elect a new chair and a new vice-chair. We have asked our senior commissioners (Ms. Dowell and Mr. Lahendro) to work to nominate two new officers. It would be very helpful in our meeting (with the consultants) later this month that we look at the data behind some of the assumptions you have made. There is some debate as to what methods were used to get data. A little feedback on that would be of great value. D. DEPARTMENT OF NDS Ms. Creasy – We have a new director, James Freas, who will be joining us September 13th. We will welcome him. That is the week of your meeting. Chair Mitchell noted the annual meeting. We will have some activities that occur based on that. Tomorrow evening at 6:00, there’s a meeting on the Belmont Bridge. It’s a meeting to provide background on the construction project to come. There’s been quite a bit of activity over there. There will be more to come. The meeting is going to touch on that. If you go to belmontbridge.org, you can register for that meeting. It looks to be very informative, especially for people who spend any amount of time in downtown Charlottesville. You have a work session later this month on the 24th, which we will have preliminary discussions on Park Street and MACAA sites. They’re preparing some rezoning applications. This is an opportunity for you to weigh in on their proposal at this point. They have outlined a number of questions in their report, which will be helpful for a robust conversation with them. They will take that feedback and move to the next step of the process. They are also currently having a community meeting right now on that project. We’ll have some feedback on that. This will give the public the opportunity as we move forward. Those are two pretty big developments. On the 31st is the meeting with the consultants where we will review changes that have been proposed to the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map based on the comments that we’ve received in the last comment period. We expect that meeting will probably take a little bit of time. We’ll have materials to you for both of those work sessions a week in advance. The consultants are working very hard to get things moving along. We’re going to be right up to the line putting those materials together. We will have some opportunity for you to review in advance. They’ll be open to the public in time for the discussion at that August 31st meeting. We will see where things stand at that point. E. MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE FORMAL AGENDA James Groves – I teach climate change and sustainability at UVA. The United Nations issued a new comprehensive science report on climate change yesterday. The report states that our lifestyles are eroding the natural world around us setting the stage for increasingly difficult living conditions for everyone and everything. I find myself reflecting upon what our community should be doing to contribute to climate solutions. That reflection has me thinking about the city’s draft comprehensive plan. The current draft lacks important, specific recommendations that should certainly be included in the city’s approach to addressing climate change. The current draft does not recommend the use of 4 commercial, property assessed clean energy financing to upgrade the energy efficiency, renewable energy, and water management systems of commercial and multi-family buildings of 5 or more units. It does not recommend creation of a city green bank that could finance similar climate friendly upgrades to smaller residential structures. The draft plan does not consider the critical role that city financed micro- mobility could play in addressing climate change and delivering social justice inequity. Investments in sustainability solutions like sea-pace financing, a green bank, and micro-mobility solutions could put critical money in the pockets of our needy neighbors (year after year) while stabilizing the climate for all of us. The current comprehensive plan draft plans to invest millions in one-time tax relief, temporary operating subsidies for housing, and large, expensive transit buses. Such proposed investments won’t contribute to lasting wealth accumulation and housing availability in our low-income community. They won’t address climate change. While the current draft plan envisions the investment of millions towards equity and housing affordability, it fails to propose investments that could address equity, housing affordability, and climate change. Let’s not miss the opportunity to address housing affordability, equity, and climate change. F. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes – March 9, 2021 – Pre-Meeting and Regular Meeting (Items removed from the consent agenda will be considered at the end of the regular agenda) Commissioner Solla-Yates moved to approve the Consent Agenda with small changes. (Second by Commissioner Lahendro) Motion passes 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 Presentation (iii) Hearing, (iv) Commission Discussion and Recommendation No Hearings This Month IV. COMMISSION’S ACTION ITEMS 1. Cville Plans Together – Schedule Review Jennifer Koch, Cville Plans Together – I am here to give you a brief update as far as what we’re thinking with the next steps in the schedule. What we have heard from you is that you would like to see us have a comprehensive plan to Council this year. We have worked backward from that. That’s the schedule you now see here. We have been finalizing the summary of what we heard during the engagement period, starting with revisions to the land use map and the chapters; specifically the land use and urban form, historic, cultural, and preservation chapter. We will be sharing with you that engagement summary, which will provide a bit more detail than we did when we met with you last time. On August 31st, we will come to you with what we’re proposing and some adjustments to the Future Land Use Map and the Land Use, Urban Form, Historic, Cultural Preservation Chapter to respond to what we heard. We will get feedback from you and the community on that. We plan to make it known that we will be sharing information with you about the next steps following our meeting tonight. Following the meeting on the 31st, the next time we will meet with you is a couple of weeks after that. We will share with you the rest of the chapters and revisions to the chapters at that meeting. One thing you will not have seen before that point is the Implementation Chapter, which is key to making the plan happen. We know with the September 14th meeting that we will share those chapters with you. In mid- 5 September, we will be meeting with the steering committee. I will be following up with them tomorrow. Following those meetings, we will be working toward a joint hearing with the Planning Commission and Council on October 12th and the first Council hearing on November 15th and the second reading on December 6th. Chairman Mitchell – With the second reading, is that when Council actually votes up or down on whatever recommendation we make? Ms. Creasy – That is typically what occurs. It is a little tight with the new Council. We will see where things go. Commissioner Lahendro – I see where the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission has adopted a regional affordable housing plan. Are the consultants aware of this? Have they been studying it to see what impact it has on the city’s comprehensive plan? Ms. Koch – We have begun to review it. We have not had a discussion about how it may impact the plan. That’s something we will do and talk about when we meet with you on the 31st. Ms. Creasy – The city’s portion of the regional plan is based on the housing study that was just recently completed. That is very clearly linked into that. Looking at it from a regional perspective on the comp plan as a whole will make sense to do. Commissioner Lahendro – Would there be any benefit for the Planning Commission to get a presentation by the District Commission on their housing affordability plan to see how we fit in? We’re part of the region. I am unaware of it. I was surprised to read the article in the paper. Commissioner Stolzenberg – The regional plan is a super-set of Albemarle County’s and Charlottesville’s individual plans plus extra recommendations for outlying counties. It makes locality by locality recommendations. In Charlottesville’s case, it all comes straight from the affordable housing plan that we passed. I think it would be useful to hear from them and to hear what the recommendations are for other counties. I wouldn’t say it is a blocking item or super-relevant for this comp plan process. Albemarle has its unique housing plan. That’s worth a review. It’s pretty close to being passed. The really new piece of this regional plan is for Nelson, Fluvanna, Greene, and Louisa Counties. We’re all part of the same metro area and the same overall housing market. It’s important for us to keep appraised of what is going on out there. I don’t think it necessarily changes anything with regards to this timeline. Commissioner Lahendro – I was just hoping that there was something addressing mass transit routes and how they’re connected between counties regionally so they can be taken advantage of for locating affordable housing. Commissioner Stolzenberg – There’s a bit about transportation in that plan, particularly transportation costs from commutes. I think the big thing that will happen with regional transportation is that TJPDC just awarded a contract to a consortium of firms for a transit vision plan. The goal of that process is to create a real overarching vision of what we want to see out of our transit system from frequency to coverage. That will be starting in earnest in the next quarter. Commissioner Lahendro – I don’t see affordable housing and mass transit routes to be independent of each other. I think they’re closely tied together. 6 Ms. Koch – In terms of the discussion you had with the Rugby/Meadowbrook representatives, we have been compiling responses to FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions). Those types of questions are certainly within there. We are working with the rest of the consultant team to make sure we have responses for those Frequently Asked Questions. Commissioner Stolzenberg – My question is about the August 31st work session and what our goal is coming out of that. Are you planning on giving us an updated draft going into that? Are we planning on coming out of the work session with all of the feedback to get to a final draft? Ms. Koch – Ideally that will be what we hope for given the accelerated schedule we are working under. If coming out of that meeting, we need to revisit the schedule or milestones after that, we will. That will be what we hope to come out with. We will be giving you that map and the land use chapter ahead of that meeting. Commissioner Stolzenberg – Is there any consideration for a September work session? Or is that because the Communications Department can’t run the webinar? Ms. Koch – I can speak with Missy about that to see about having that during your September 14th meeting. Is that what you’re referring to? Commissioner Stolzenberg – I would suggest to have it tentatively on the calendar in case there are additional discussion items ahead of going to our joint hearing in October. The overall timeline makes a lot of sense. A December final vote is after the six month delay that was requested by the Slow the Vote people in May. That seems reasonable. My concern is just the number of meetings and amount of work to be done with the timeline. In 2018, we were meeting every week to get the things done. We have offloaded a lot of the work onto you. I would imagine that we would be willing to put in a second meeting in a month to make sure we get this done. Ms. Koch – I am seeing a lot of. “thumbs ups and nods.” Missy will coordinate with you on that. Ms. Creasy – I am looking at the calendar, the advertising, and all of those things that have to happen. There is a lot of ‘balls that have to be tossed up in the air.’ We have some guidance from Council. We’re going to need to do the best we can at this point in time to move that forward. If we find that there is something that needs to change along the way, we have to make sure that our governing body is aware of that. Chairman Mitchell – The only comment I will make is that slippage is not an option. We do not want to have to educate a new Council. If it slips, we could be looking at another couple of years. 2. Presentation – Rivanna River Corridor Plan Nick Morrison – This is a joint effort between Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville. The goal of this phase of this planning project was to develop a vision and action plan for that urban section of the corridor. It is a phased approach. The first phase was existing conditions and an inventory that was completed in 2018. This current phase/visioning phase is occurring right now. Should there be a third phase, that would be getting into more of an in depth implementation and the development of a master plan. When we’re talking about this urban section of the river, we’re looking at Penn Park (northern terminus) down to I-64 (southern terminus). This was defined by the technical committee (made up of staff from 7 the city and county) as a more concentrated effort than what was done in that first phase. That first phase was a very simple, generic study area. It was a half-mile buffer up to the South Fork Reservoir down to Free Bridge near Shadwell to the south. It is a much more concentrated effort in this phase. This project kicked off in the summer of 2019. We brought the technical committee back. We reviewed the existing maps from Phase I and are working on refining that study area. In September of 2019, we did our first public engagement push. It was a tabling at the Flow River Fest. Throughout the winter of 2020, we started developing a business outreach strategy. We had targeted outreach efforts. COVID threw a wrench in all of those discussions. We had to regroup and think through a different approach. Working through that, we came up with these virtual webinars, which occurred in the fall of 2020. We concurrently did some plan drafting. This year, we are working on the final documentation and drafting the final plan. Shirese Franklin – The steering committee held public meetings via Zoom in September and April. Signs were also placed along the river corridor to direct users to the Urban River Corridor website to offer feedback. In October 2022, webinars were held on Zoom. Notifications for those webinars were sent via mailings and email notifications to the property owners within the project area and to stakeholder groups. A webinar was also held on the Rivanna River Bridge pedestrian crossing feasibility study in November of 2020. There were 70 unique comments gathered on the website. Most centered on protecting and preserving the environment and recreational amenities. Within the public webinars, 44 people attended. We did a participant poll within the webinars. Eighty-eight percent of the participants agreed with the vision statement. Some of the feedback included the need to communicate more active stewardship role protecting the natural environment and ways to encourage more recreation uses. Most participants were overwhelmingly OK with the guiding principles. Public safety measures, protecting historic places and cultural features were very favorable. Environmental protection also scored highly. Nothing scored low among the people who participated. We also had stakeholder discussions with technical committee members and subject matter experts in the following fields: environmental protection, recreational activities, public health, safety, and welfare, development and redevelopment, historic places and cultural features, and multi-purpose trails and bridges. We also did a benchmarking. The technical committee helped identify benchmarking communities. We cannot locate a nearly identical community. We did find four with similar themes. They’re the ones you see. The common themes were trail networks and access, rich local history, and wanting to foster connections to the water. Some other considerations are accessibility, wayfinding & navigation, environmental considerations, and zoning. Mr. Morrison – Through all of those various touchpoints, this vision statement was crafted. The Rivanna River, flowing through Charlottesville and Albemarle County, is one of the community’s greatest assets. In and near Free Bridge, Woolen Mills, and the Pantops area, the river corridor is and will be a dynamic place where people can experience a natural environment, healthy outdoor activities and venues, peaceful and serene opportunities, and important historic and cultural points of interest. Based on feedback we got from that steering committee meeting in April of this year, there were a couple of tweaks. That was vetted through the steering committee made up of planning commissioners, elected officials, and citizen appointed people and through the technical committee as well. To help achieve that overall vision statement are these guiding principles that were developed with looking at environment protection and stewardship, recreational activities, public safety & wellness 8 measures, new development & redevelopment, historic places & cultural features, and multi-purpose trails and bridges. Those tie back into the higher level recommendation categories. When we get into the recommendations, this is the implementation matrix. It is separate from the current draft plan. We still have to incorporate that into the template draft. This is a high-level overview of what the implementation matrix would like to help us with those recommendations. In terms of timeframe, there are these information buckets next to the recommendation to provide more context to each recommendation. The timeframe, with ongoing projects and anything that was identified as short-term, was less than five years. Anything that was long-term was more than five years. There is a fiscal impact category in terms of what that cost would be; zero being no fiscal impact beyond just staff time with small, moderate, and large impacts based on those expectations. I am not going to read all of these recommendations. In terms of environmental protection (high level), we’re looking for approaches to protect any sort of sensitive ecological areas, any approved ongoing coordination between the city and the county, particularly in water quality and conservation, and stormwater management principles. In terms of recreational activities, we’re looking at improving connectivity, especially with the trails, not only within the corridor, but to the corridor. We’re also looking at improving and expanding the park system within the corridor, and looking at access to the river. That’s one thing we heard over and over again. Continuing to support bicycle and pedestrian connections, promoting the use of trails (not only for recreation), but also for commuting traffic. We’re looking at ways to incorporate that trail section into the larger network of greenways and blueways and continued support for the regional Three Notched Trail. Ms. Franklin – With this recommendation, the common theme seems to be educating river users on the appropriate response to potential emergency situations, while promoting safe and healthy behavior. Enhancing and preserving the natural beauty and ecological functions of the corridor was an overwhelming theme. The theme of business to scale: small scaled oriented businesses that offer recreational enjoyment of the area was one of the major factors, while still promoting and preserving nature. Educating the public about historic and cultural activities that shape the river corridor, preserving those sensitive areas, and engaging with local parties with significant ties to the area, such as the Monacan Tribe or participating with The Monticello Local Cultural Department was a prominent theme. Sandy Shackelford – One of the things I want to emphasize that one of the major things with this planning effort is that there is not necessarily one predominant goal for the development of the corridor area. You look at other communities and there’s an economic development plan or preservation plan or recreational plan. It was very important to the stakeholders that we discussed this with. It was a confluence of all of these plans together and finding the right balance. The other thing I want to emphasize is that we really relied on the existing land use that was already in place to guide that process. Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville have made it clear that they felt really confident with the land use that have been identified in the river corridor. This was really an effort to support the other activities and development efforts and really define that without going back and reviewing the land use. Chairman Mitchell – When we met back in April/May, there was a wonderful graphic you guys used that showed environmental protection encircling all of the guidelines. I liked that a lot because that is the most important thing we have to worry about. We can talk about this other development stuff. We have to do protection of that river first and foremost. It sounds to me like there was an equalization process 9 where environmental protection was made equal to all of the other things like development and recreation. Is that what happened? Ms. Shackelford – No. We changed the graphic. It was not our intention to change the priority. Chairman Mitchell – Is environmental protection still the prime directive? Ms. Shackelford – Yes it is. We changed the graphic so there is not that circle. The graphic still indicates that. The discussion that we had was that environmental protection was going to be a goal and had to be the first and most important goal we considered. All other efforts had to relate back to what are going to be the environmental impacts. That is still referenced in the plan. We just didn’t use that same graphic. Chairman Mitchell – As long as environmental protection is the prime directive, I am comfortable with what you have. Commissioner Lahendro – You have about 100 action items. Where do you go from here? I am worried about creating another report that is so overwhelming, so many action items that are so disconnected that it goes back on a shelf. What is the implementation for this? What’s the prioritization of the action items within each category? Are there action items that can be logically bundled to create less expense and better significance? Ms. Shackelford – We talked about this with the technical committee. One of the things we’re really going to be refining before we present a final draft for your consideration is identifying a few really short-term goals that will be our priority items. Those are what we’re going to focus on. My thought was that we focus on the foundational action items that are going to be needed to build off many of these other ones. We’re focusing on things like inventorying existing infrastructure, conditions, systems, or things like that. We’re looking at where there is already a lot of public support, low cost, and focus on what those things are that we can do relatively simply with the existing resources and trying to prioritize the easy things that can be implemented. Mr. Morrison – That’s my understanding. I will add that several of those recommendations were identified through the other planning efforts that the county and the city had undertaken. There was some cross-referencing that county and city staff wanted to be done within this plan. Some examples are from the Pantops Master Area Plan. Some of those are underway. Attaching some sort of status on those would be helpful within the implementation framework. Ms. Creasy – Some of the things that led to the volume had to do with a number of parks and rec requests for clarity and potential for grant opportunities. The goal was to try and be as comprehensive as possible to allow for potential grant opportunities to support the plan. We have to find the early ‘wins’ to keep the plan moving forward. Commissioner Lahendro – If you’re trying to be comprehensive, you end with everyone ‘throwing up their hands’ and never get this done. There really needs to be a clear roadmap. If it’s more than one locality working together, how do they work together? Call that out and call out how you’re prioritizing these things. I focused on the cultural and historic sections. I find it pretty weak. I don’t see the historic organizations in the county and the city involved with this. I don’t see where the staff people from both places were involved. I don’t see where the Department of Historic Resources was involved. That would have helped with some of the assumptions. You just assumed that everyone wants to be able to visit all of these cultural sites. I expect there’s some pretty historic sites along this river that we don’t want to 10 have people going with metal detectors ravaging and destroying. That may not be the case. It takes more than just surveying and listing all of the known cultural sites. It takes an analysis of how they’re connected together and the history of the whole area through time. I really find them to be piecemeal and disconnected with no overall clear vision. I also couldn’t find the acronym for NPR. It’s not listed. Commissioner Solla-Yates – I found it useful to refocus on topics that I have some confidence in. I was focusing on racial and economic equity as well as affordable housing. If you search for “affordable” in this plan, you get zero hits. That’s disappointing. The affordable housing crisis is big in this region and only getting worse. I would love to see that acknowledged in the text of this plan with goals and measurements listed. Would love specific smart growth strategies; talking about ways to prioritize affordable housing with advantages in terms of private land use. I would have liked to have seen ways to increase height and decrease disturbance and smart growth principles listed specifically. There was discussion earlier about an idea of incorporating equity into the text. I do see it discussed a little bit. Transportation is an equity thing. That’s admirable. I would like more clarity about what we mean by that. Are we talking about racial equity? Are we talking about economic equity? How are we following through? Just not in the provision of services but in the way we’re providing it. I urge you to work with city staff. We have excellent resources on this topic. Chairman Mitchell – You were talking the work that we’re doing on River Road. You were talking about protecting the river with buffers and moving development back a little bit. Can you talk about that? Commissioner Solla-Yates – I was thinking about a “green fingers” idea; establishing priority areas, not just along the river, but waterways feeding into the river that are prioritized for conservation value and prioritizing areas that are not there more for housing and other land uses. Chairman Mitchell – You’re suggesting that moving things back from the river is important. You’re thinking about increasing the density and moving that development away from the river so the river would not be impacted by that increased density. Is that correct? Commissioner Solla-Yates – That’s correct. Commissioner Habbab – I appreciate that the goal of this process has been the protection and restoration enhancement of the river. That’s very important. I had a question about the development/redevelopment portion. It said in ongoing “promote high quality design and positive individual impact on all new development and redevelopment projects that are visible from within the river corridor.” That’s not visible from within the river pathway/park themselves? That’s just the overall developed part? Ms. Shackelford – The corridor refers to the entire buffer, which is basically the river and the immediate adjacent properties. When we say corridor, that’s what we’re referring to. We’re really talking about the impacts on people who are using or recreating on or near the river. Commissioner Habbab – I wanted to make sure I understood that. We want to keep that natural aspect of those trails and not promote visible developments. I want to echo Commissioner Solla-Yates’ point on equitable spaces and making sure we have that somewhere written down. Commissioner Stolzenberg – Are we saying we don’t want any development visible at all? Or do we want anything that is visible to adhere to aesthetic standards? I have two categories of comments. 11 I will start with the transportation. There seems to be a tension in this plan behind the primacy of environmental protection and a very significant focus on adding parking directly next to the river. There are a couple of points that loosely say “let’s get shared parking if we can otherwise we’ll do new parking.” The only thing that talks about transit is signage from transit stops. That’s good. It would make sense to have stuff about connections to the river area – both transit and pedestrian/bicyclists. I am also confused about this idea that adding pedestrian facilities means we must add more parking as well. One suggestion is that if we’re going to add any parking that it should be environmentally friendly. Ms. Shackelford – That’s a very fair comment. I think we felt that tension as we were developing the plan. If we are able to move forward with a new crossing across the river, that would actually reduce the demand on parking. There’s also some experience that might indicate that it become an attraction. Our goal was really to focus less on “let’s assume that we need parking. Let’s just continue to assess whether or not we actually need parking.” We’re not necessarily planning it. We’re going to be aware of what those opportunities are. If we need it, we know where we can prioritize it. That’s how we were trying to resolve the tension. I agree with those points on the trail connections. Some of those actually are addressing the recreation activities section as well. There was a little bit of overlap there. If we can come up with a better way to make that connection, that’s helpful to hear. Commissioner Stolzenberg – I definitely noticed the need to assess before doing it. I appreciated that. It can be a little bit stronger. The other category of comments is about public health, safety, and wellness measures group of recommendations. I find it a little jarring that the first recommendation(s) is about clearing out a group of people experiencing homelessness to take shelter under the bridge on the Albemarle side. That’s not to say the recommendations are unreasonable. I think they are fairly measured. Is the primacy of that driven by significant outcry you have heard? Ms. Shackelford – That one was actually softened significantly from the original language based on our conversations with the public, chief of police, and other public safety officials. What we really wanted to emphasize is that it wasn’t really about driving people who are homeless out of their sheltering locations. It was more about “let’s find them safer alternatives.” That’s what we’re really trying to communicate. If that’s not what is being communicated, that’s really important for us to know. Commissioner Stolzenberg – I don’t find the individual recommendations to be too harsh. They’re pretty measured and reasonable. One point three could be to use some specificity about what those public health impacts are that we’re mitigating. It would help to move it down the list unless it really is the most important thing which brings me to the public health and safety thing I think when I go to the river. I am thinking about the dog who went into the river and died two years ago. Every time I go floating down the river, we get a report in the newspaper that bacteria levels are elevated and nobody should go into the river. Every time I go, it comes up in conversation. I was surprised there wasn’t something about water quality and safety of the water. Chairman Mitchell – I am looking at the recommendations regarding recreational activities. There’s a recommendation that we consider installing rapids. Does that make sense? Ms. Shackelford – That was an initiative Albemarle Parks and Rec had been considering. That’s why it was included. It was something they had been investigating. 12 Commissioner Stolzenberg – I didn’t know you could install rapids. I was a little surprised to not see anything about the River Road Industrial Corridor and the effect of that on the river and what might be good for it moving forward. There’s a lot of industrial development and impervious surface in the floodplain. It’s a really good place and opportunity for development. It is one of the few remaining places where you can have light industrial in the city. It would have been helpful if we had thought about that and adopted in this plan. That could have guided our comp plan discussion of that. The paragraph about the Free Bridge was confusing. It could use a quick rewrite. Commissioner Russell – I also felt the historic section was a little disjointed. I do appreciate that you all incorporated a lot of the things that I had added in terms of additional historic resources. We could do a better job. It seems that “here’s the history” and then goes into other elements of the plan. The Richmond case study really says beautifully “helping visitors develop a fuller understanding of the different aspects of different peoples’ lives throughout history of the region will help them establish stronger connections and understanding.” I think that we’re not quite making that point. Why are we talking about the history? What could that mean in experiencing any of these opportunities within the corridor? Since a previous edit, you synthesized the recommendations to not have sub-bullets and consolidated those. I did feel that the recommendation around partnering with the Monacan Tribe seemed a little presumptuous. There was text under that said “Continue to foster a stronger relationship with tribe elders to support their initiatives.” I am eager to jump into the hows of everything. Could you tell me a little more about Phase III? What would that look like? What would that potentially cost? Ms. Shackelford – Phase III would be more of a design plan. The Richmond plan ended up with a master plan where they put things on paper. They identified where they were going to do preservation efforts and the historical sites they were going to renovate. They put it on paper. They put cost estimates down and created an implementation plan. As far as the cost, I have no ‘ballpark’ to provide for that. Commissioner Russell – In response to that, we talk about encouraging high quality design. I would really like to see more innovation and above and beyond state required stormwater management. We don’t have any ‘teeth’ to do that. Wouldn’t we need to have some sort of overlay come from this plan in order to implement these things? When would be the time to do that? Ms. Shackelford – Without an overlay to schedule out when exactly all of these initiatives could occur, one of the things we’re going to be putting together as a ‘next steps’ section at the end of this based on your feedback, that might be where we can reflect some of these if we want to move this towards being prepared to go into a master planning opportunity. We can talk about what needs to be in place to do that. Commissioner Russell – Maybe it is through the master plan work that a recommendation comes out of that and leads to an ordinance overlay or revised design standards. Chairman Mitchell – I will reiterate my interest in protecting the river as it relates to the environment. I have been to those cities that we used to benchmark. None of them are like Charlottesville. These riverfronts are very developed; more developed than what we’re envisioning. When you’re thinking 13 about what we want the Rivanna Corridor to look like, none of those five sites we ‘visited’ are what we want to be. We don’t want to be that developed based on the emphasis on protecting the environment and the river. Commissioner Stolzenberg – In the plan there are two things that we’re saying for environmental protection. It is not so much in the recommendations but in the text of the plan. One of them is the physical and measurable environmental quality. The other is this more vague sense of being out in secluded wilderness. The prime importance is to protect the actual water quality and environmental quality of the river. It is also important to make it a more accessible place. The idea of reorienting nearby development towards the river rather than the whole city ‘turning its back’ on it to the point it is this industrial backwater, which ends up being really bad for the environment, is a really good idea. If you have apartments or restaurants that front the river and have access to it that would create a positive feedback loop where we could care more about the quality of the river and more people would be able to use the river. That might detract from this current sense of being out in the wilderness. It is important more city residents be able to use the river. Chairman Mitchell – I agree to some degree. I agree more with what Lyle was proposing. We do have development on the river. We have buffer, some green space, and then things away. I would not like to see that development right against the river like in Lynchburg and Richmond. Commissioner Stolzenberg – Having development nearby and front on the river area open up to it and provide access to it would be productive. Commissioner Solla-Yates – It might be useful to talk about parking strategies of parking under and prioritizing storage for more sustainable methods like bicycles. I would like your thoughts on affordable housing, racial, and economic equity. I didn’t get that feedback. Ms. Shackelford – We’re trying to be mindful of the other efforts that are happening. There were some other housing plan efforts. It really wasn’t in the scope of what we were discussing at that point. We’ll need to discuss with staff after this point to see where those opportunities might be to pull some references into this plan. As far as racial equity, I don’t think that we specifically defined what we were trying to do when we were looking at equity other than looking at what are the opportunities and the lack of service or under service that is overlooked. Those people are not participating as regularly in the process. That’s an indicator of equity. Mr. Morrison – I will touch on some of the work that the MPO is doing, specifically an equity in transportation study. That is overlapping of these things. They don’t happen in a vacuum. That’s one component looking at access. There is some ongoing work to be able to build an assessment tool of certain trip generators or trackers. That could be defined as that river corridor. There is ongoing work that could possibly tie into that more specific realm. Ms. Creasy – We have a number of comments. We’ll work with the group to work on how best to integrate. A lot of the comment areas that you noted were things the steering committee spent a lot of time discussing and trying to sort through. We’re working to try and make sure we’re representing both the city and county in some of the things you all came up with were things that one or the other may have been focused on. We’re trying to balance those things out and make this as valuable for both partners as part of this. You had some really good thoughts to add. Some of the things might be beyond the scope. There might be some things that can be considered as recommendations or next steps. 14 Chairman Mitchell – There would be value for us if you catalog things that might be beyond the scope. We know that so we don’t keep pushing those issues. When does the county look at this? Ms. Shackelford – They’re still trying to determine their process for how they’re going to ‘walk’ it through their process. There was some debate over whether they would be adopting it as an amendment or a ‘stand-alone’ plan. V. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 PM