Agenda PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DOCKET TUESDAY, October 11, 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 – September 14, 2021 – Regular Meeting ii. Major Subdivision – Preston Commons (Robinson Place) iii. Site Plan – Lyndhall Apartments - 64 University Way iv. Entrance Corridor – 1113 5th Street SW – Conformance with SUP 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. SP 22-00007 1113 5th Street SW – On October 11, 2022, the Planning Commission and City Council will conduct a joint public hearing for an application for a Special Use Permit (“SUP”) for the property located at 1113 5th St. SW and identified in the City’s land records as Tax Map and Parcel (“TMP”) 21B004400 (the “Subject Property”). The public hearing will be conducted both in-person and via virtual (electronic) means; individuals who wish to participate electronically may register on the City’s website. Following the public hearing, it is the intention of the Planning Commission to vote on whether to recommend approval of the SUP. The Law Firm of Williams Mullen, on behalf of the contract purchaser of the Subject Property, Green Clean Albemarle LLC, has submitted a SUP Application for, the Subject Property, which is currently owned by Patriot Bank. Pursuant to City Code Sec. 34-796 and Sec. 34-158, the contract purchaser has applied for a SUP to build a Car Wash on the Subject Property. The Subject Property is approximately 0.81 acres with road frontage on 5th Street SW and Harris Road. The Comprehensive Land Use Map for this area calls for Urban Mixed Use Corridor and the Subject Property is located within the Highway Corridor mixed use zoning district classification. The City’s zoning matrix allows car washes in Highway Corridor districts with the approval of a SUP. The property is adjacent to other properties currently used for commercial uses, and is located across from residential housing on the opposite side of Harris Road. Additional information pertaining to this application (SP 22-00007) may be viewed online at www.charlottesville.gov/agenda. Persons interested in the Special Use Permit application may also contact NDS Planner Matt Alfele by e-mail (alfelem@charlottesville.gov) or by telephone (434-970-3636). IV. COMMISSION’S ACTION ITEMS Continuing: until all action items are concluded. 1. Critical Slope Waiver – Belmont Condominiums V. FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE/ADJOURN Saturday October 22, 2022 – 1:30PM Retreat Tuesday November 8, 2022 – 5:00 PM Pre- Meeting Tuesday November 8, 2022 – 5:30 PM Regular Minutes - October 11, 2021, October Meeting 12, 2021, October 21, 2021, November 9, 2021 Presentations: Transportation Prioritization, Climate Action Plan Special Use Permit –901 Seminole Trail, 211 Albemarle Street – Pilgrim Baptist Daycare Site Plan - 1223 Harris Road 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, 1120 Avon Street Critical Slopes Waiver – Azalea Springs, Fire Station on 250 Bypass Site Plan –Flint Hill PUD, 240 Stribling Ave. Special Use Permit – Fire Station on 250 Bypass Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Manufactured Housing Future Entrance Corridor • 1801 Hydraulic Road – revised Comp Sign Plan, revised design review (Hillsdale Place, Riverbend) • 1113 5th Street SW – Car Wash • 2005 JPA Capital Improvement Program – Work Session – November 22, 2022, Hearing – December 13, 2022 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 9/1/2022 TO 9/30/2022 1. Preliminary Site Plans 2. Final Site Plans 3. Site Plan Amendments a. Friendship Court Phase 1 – Amendment #1 – September 2, 2022 b. Crescent Hall (500 1st Street S) – September 12, 2022 c. 900 River Road – September 27, 2022 4. Subdivision September 14, 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 SUBDIVISION APPLICATION NUMBER: P21‐0157 DATE OF MEETING: October 11, 2022 Project Planner: Carrie Rainey Date of Staff Report: October 3, 2022 Applicant: Preston Commons, LLC Applicant’s Representative(s): Bob Hauser, Preston Commons, LLC Current Property Owner: Preston Commons, LLC Property Street Address: 1132 Preston Avenue, 1138 Preston Avenue, 101 Barbour Drive, 103 Barbour Drive, and 105 Barbour Drive (“Subject Properties”) Tax Map & Parcels: 030068000, 030069000, 030070000, 030071000, and 030072000 Current Zoning Classification: R‐2 Two‐Family Residential Overlay District: None Vicinity Map Applicant Properties Page 1 of 4 P21‐0157 Preston Commons/Robinson Place Major Subdivision Standard of Review Subdivisions are reviewed for compliance with City codes and standards, in accordance with procedures prescribed by Virginia Code 15.2‐2259 and standards and design requirements specified within the City’s subdivision, zoning, and water protection ordinances and the City’s Standards and Design Manual. The Planning Commission is the “subdivision agent” for the purpose of reviewing and approving a proposed final subdivision plat for a major subdivision. As “subdivision agent” the Planning Commission is performing an administrative function, and there are only two possible actions: (1) Approval‐‐if the proposed subdivision meets all applicable requirements, the Planning Commission must approve it, or (2) if the Planning Commission determines that the proposed subdivision does not meet all applicable requirements, then the Planning Commission must disapprove the plat, and must articulate specific reasons why the subdivision does not meet the requirements—with reference to specific laws, ordinances and regulations. Summary Bob Hauser of Preston Commons, LLC is requesting approval of a major subdivision to construct a new residential development with eight (8) single‐family attached dwellings and a two‐family dwelling. Per Section 29‐3, this subdivision is considered major because it involves extension of public utilities and the creation of more than six (6) lots. The land within the proposed major subdivision is identified on City Real Estate Tax Map 03, Parcels 68, 69, 70, 71, and 72 and it has frontage on Preston Avenue, Cabell Avenue, and Barbour Drive. The site contains approximately 0.85 acres. The applicant has submitted five (5) prior versions of the proposed plat; with each submission, staff has made a good faith effort to identify all deficiencies (if any) so that the applicant could be in a position to submit an approvable final plat to you for consideration and approval. Subdivision Requirements A. Section 29‐140 requires all subdivision plats and supporting materials to be in accordance with: 1. Applicable provisions of the Virginia Code 2. The Water Protection Ordinance, Chapter 10 City Code 3. The Fire Prevention Code, Chapter 12 City Code 4. Utilities Ordinance, Chapter 31 City Code Page 2 of 4 P21‐0157 Preston Commons/Robinson Place Major Subdivision 5. Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 34 City Code 6. Charlottesville’s Standards and Design Manual 7. Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter 29 City Code, and other applicable City ordinances B. Compliance with design standards and improvements (per Sections 29‐160 ‐ 29‐163) 1. Blocks: No new blocks will be created as a result of this subdivision. 2. Lots: The applicant is proposing to create eight (8) new lots. 3. Parks, Schools, and other Public Land: No new parks or schools will be created with this subdivision. 4. Preservation of natural features and amenities: No critical slopes as defined by Section 34‐1120(b)(2) exist on the site. No natural streams as defined by Section 29‐ 3 exist on the site. 5. Items Listed in Section 29‐111(b): The applicant has submitted a proposed final site plan for staff’s administrative review. The documents and information referenced in Section 29‐111(b) are included in the site plan that is under review, therefore they do not need to be addressed in this subdivision plat. 6. Monuments: The subdivision plat demonstrates that the following requirements of Section 29‐160 have been satisfied: a. All boundaries (exterior and interior) of the original survey for the subdivision have monuments in accordance with the Standards & Design Manual (see Sheet P2). b. The applicant has verified that these monuments will be set prior to recordation of the subdivision plat, or prior to conveyance of lots with reference to this plat. C. Compliance with the Street Standards for Subdivisions (Section 29‐180 – 29‐183) The proposed subdivision does not include any new public street. Land along Preston Avenue (wherein sidewalk improvements are proposed) is dedicated to public use through this subdivision plat, and is anticipated to be accepted by City Council at a later date. D. Compliance with Utility Standards for Subdivisions (Sections 29‐200 – 29‐204) The specific utility configurations and design details are under review by the Utilities Department as a part of the site plan review process and will be approved administratively by staff as part of final site plan approval. The utility easements as shown on this final subdivision plat have been approved by the Utilities Department. Public easements are required to be shown on a final subdivision plat; once the approved final plat is recorded in the land records, the plat will establish as a matter of record the physical boundaries of the easement areas. Page 3 of 4 P21‐0157 Preston Commons/Robinson Place Major Subdivision E. Compliance with applicable zoning district regulations (Sections 34‐350 – 34‐420) The dimensions (area, frontage, building site, etc.) of the proposed lots will, in staff’s assessment, comply with the requirements of the R‐2 Two‐Family residential zoning district. See Section 34‐1123 and Section 29‐161. F. Compliance with the Water Protection Ordinance (City Code Chapter 10). Per Section 29‐202 every development must be designed to achieve state and local requirements for post‐development stormwater management, including measures addressing both the quantity and quality of stormwater, as set forth within Chapter 10 of the City Code (Water Protection). 1. Stormwater Management Plan: a stormwater management plan has been submitted in the final site plan for consideration by the City’s VESMP Agent, as required by Section 29‐111(a)(2). Such improvements, facilities and treatments are identified within the final site plan, which has undergone review by City staff and has resolved all remaining comments. 2. Erosion & Sediment Control: an erosion and sediment control plan has been submitted in the final site plan for consideration by the City’s VESMP Agent, as required by Section 29‐111(b). Such improvements, facilities and treatments are identified within the final site plan, which has undergone review by City staff and has resolved all remaining comments. Public Comments Received No comments received. Suggested Motions Motion to Approve: I move to approve the final subdivision plat dated September 19, 2022 for City Real Estate Tax Map 03, Parcels 68, 69, 70, 71, and 72. Motion to Deny Approval: I move to deny approval of the final subdivision plat dated September 19, 2022 for City Real Estate Tax Map 03, Parcels 68, 69, 70, 71, and 72, based on the following deficiencies: Attachments A. Final Subdivision Plat dated September 19, 2022 B. Final Site Plan dated February 1, 2022 Page 4 of 4 SITE PLAT SHOWING VACATION, SUBDIVISION, MERIDIAN RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION AND EASEMENTS FOR TAX MAP 3, PARCELS 68 THRU 72 PLANNING GROUP, LLC 440 Premier Circle, Suite 200 Charlottesville, VA 22901 (P) 434.882.0121 PLAT SHOWING VACATION, SUBDIVISION, MERIDIAN RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION AND EASEMENTS FOR TAX MAP 3, PARCELS 68 THRU 72 PLANNING GROUP, LLC 440 Premier Circle, Suite 200 Charlottesville, VA 22901 (P) 434.882.0121 PLAT SHOWING VACATION, SUBDIVISION, MERIDIAN RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION AND EASEMENTS FOR TAX MAP 3, PARCELS 68 THRU 72 PLANNING GROUP, LLC 440 Premier Circle, Suite 200 Charlottesville, VA 22901 (P) 434.882.0121 PLAT SHOWING VACATION, SUBDIVISION, MERIDIAN RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION AND EASEMENTS FOR TAX MAP 3, PARCELS 68 THRU 72 PLANNING GROUP, LLC 440 Premier Circle, Suite 200 Charlottesville, VA 22901 (P) 434.882.0121 PLAT SHOWING VACATION, SUBDIVISION, MERIDIAN RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION AND EASEMENTS FOR TAX MAP 3, PARCELS 68 THRU 72 PLANNING GROUP, LLC 440 Premier Circle, Suite 200 Charlottesville, VA 22901 (P) 434.882.0121 PLAT SHOWING VACATION, SUBDIVISION, MERIDIAN RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION AND EASEMENTS FOR TAX MAP 3, PARCELS 68 THRU 72 PLANNING GROUP, LLC 440 Premier Circle, Suite 200 Charlottesville, VA 22901 (P) 434.882.0121 ©2021 - 30SCALE, LLC ROBINSON PLACE 30 SCALE ENGINEERING FINAL SITE PLAN owner: PRESTON COMMONS, LLC TMP(S): 3-68, 3-69, 3-70, 3-71 AND 3-72 1701 ALLIED ST, SUITE B4 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA engineer: 30 SCALE, LLC 871 JUSTIN DRIVE PALMYRA, VA 22963 p: 434.242.2866 ABBREVIATIONS SYMBOLS N 9 Y N BA e: mike@30scale.com E2 KWA RR web: www.30scale.com RT A AC ACRE PAR EXISTING PROPOSED CK ADA AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT RUGBY A S VE GRASS DITCH LINING PER VESCH 3.32 RD ARV AIR RELEASE VALVE JWW 250 BF BASEMENT FLOOR ROUTE BM BENCH MARK VDOT STD. EC-3 DITCH LINING BW BOTTOM OF WALL (AT GROUND LEVEL) CFS CUBIC FEET PER SECOND 498 12 CONTOUR LINE WITH ELEVATION RD G BY CG-12 ADA ACCESSIBLE CURB RAMP (VDOT STANDARD) CHS RU CL CLASS 27 12 STORM SEWER STRUCTURE IDENTIFIER BARRACKS RD CMP CORRUGATED METAL PIPE SHOPPING CENTER CO SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT 5 5 SANITARY SEWER STRUCTURE IDENTIFIER McINTIRE CONC CONCRETE CY CUBIC YARDS BENCHMARK, TEST PIT PARK AVE LL DB/PG DEED BOOK/PAGE RUGBY AVE CA BE SITE T DEQ VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MANHOLE WITH FRAME AND COVER D ET S PRE YR ST DIP DUCTILE IRON PIPE G B SPOT ELEVATION RU AVE S EMM DOM DOMESTIC IV LL PARK SITE TON E&S EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Y RD CABE ADA PARKING SYMBOL TMP 3-68,3-69,3-70,3-71 & 3-72 EL, ELEV ELEVATION AVE ROBINSON PLACE EP, EOP EDGE OF PAVEMENT GR MADISON AVE AD WASHINGTON ROU ESMT EASEMENT WATER CROCK/METER YA TE 2 VE PARK 50 EW END WALL PR WASHINGTON EX EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT ES TO PARK BURLEY ES T FF FIRST FLOOR N HS FINAL SITE PLAN FH FIRE HYDRANT WATER VALVE AV CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA E 10T FM FORCE MAIN FPS FEET PER SECOND WATERMAIN JPA GSF GROSS SQUARE FEET WM AIN T GW GUY WIRE SANITARY SEWER MAIN UVA ST E HIGH S DO GR HDPE HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE PIPE HOSPITAL WN AD T YA HP HIGH POINT STORM SEWER MA OWN EM GO VE LL HT HEIGHT AR RD KE ON INV INVERT PROPERTY LINE/RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE TS AVE E T AV IRF IRON ROD FOUND Y CENTER LINE RR IRS IRON ROD SET E L LENGTH CH LAT LATERAL FENCE LINE LF LP LINEAR FEET LOW POINT EASEMENT LINE VICINITY MAP PARCEL MAP SCALE: 1"=2000' SCALE: 1"=500' LT LEFT MAX MAXIMUM MH MIN MANHOLE MINIMUM SHEET INDEX NSF NET SQUARE FEET # SHEET TITLE NTS NOT TO SCALE 1 COVER SHEET OHE OVERHEAD ELECTRIC PC POINT OF CURVATURE 2 NOTES AND TABULATIONS PERF PERFORATED OWNER: PL PROPERTY LINE 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS, DEMO PLAN AND TREE SURVEY PROP PROPOSED WATERSHED DATA: PRESTON COMMONS, LLC 4 LAYOUT PLAN PSI POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH PT POINT OF TANGENCY 1701 ALLIED ST, SUITE B4 5 UTILITY PLAN LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE (LOD) = 49,477 SF (1.14 AC.) PVC POINT OF VERTICAL CURVATURE TOTAL INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS AREA = 19,206 SF (0.44 AC.) 6 GRADING PLAN PVC PVI POLYVINYL CHLORIDE PIPE POINT OF VERTICAL INTERSECTION HUC CODE = JR-14 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 RECEIVING WATERS = MEADOW CREEK AND RIVANNA RIVER 7 ADA RAMP CONSTRUCTION DETAILS PVT POINT OF VERTICAL TANGENCY REFER TO SHEET 3 FOR ONSITE SOIL TYPES 434-981-2034 8 LANDSCAPE PLAN R RADIUS R/W RIGHT-OF-WAY ATTN: BOB HAUSER 9 ALLEY PLAN AND PROFILE AND ROADWAY DETAILS RCP REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE RED REDUCER ATTN: MATTHEW CRANE 10 EXISTING ROAD PROFILES RPA RESOURCE PROTECTION AREA RT RIGHT 11 SANITARY SEWER, WATERMAIN AND DUCT BANK PROFILES RTE ROUTE 12 STORM SEWER PROFILES AND COMPUTATIONS SAN SANITARY SEWER ENGINEER: SD SIGHT DISTANCE 13 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CONSTRUCTION DETAILS SDR STANDARD DIMENSION RATIO STA STATION 30 SCALE, LLC 14 DRAINAGE DIVIDES SVC SERVICE 15 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NARRATIVE SW SIDEWALK 871 JUSTIN DRIVE 16 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN - PHASE 1 SWM T STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TRANSFORMER PALMYRA, VA 22963 17 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN - PHASE 2 TBR TC TO BE REMOVED TOP OF CURB 434-242-2866 18 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN - PHASE 3 TP TW TELEPHONE PEDESTAL TOP OF WALL ATTN: MICHAEL MYERS, PE, CFM 19 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS UG UNDERGROUND 20 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN - NARRATIVE UGE UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC UGT UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE/FIBER LINE 21 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN sheet title: .dwg NAME: 20.003 ROBINSON SP.dwg UGU UNDERGROUND UTILITY 22 SWM COMPUTATIONS - OFFSITE DRAINAGE MAP VDOT VESCH VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION VIRGINIA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK 23 SWM COMPUTATIONS - STORM SEWER OUTFALL PROFILE COVER SHEET VSMP VIRGINIA STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM WM WATER METER 24 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS WTR WATER 25 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS WV WATER VALVE REVISIONS DESCRIPTION DATE SIGNATURE BLOCK scale: CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #2 4/16/2021 1"=20' CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #3 8/25/2021 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE NDS DIRECTOR date: CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #4 11/16/2021 6/27/2020 30 SCALE CHIT# 20.001 CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #5 02/01/2022 . . CITY ENGINEER sheet # 1 OF 25 ©2021 - 30SCALE, LLC SITE PLAN NOTES FIRE FLOW TEST ORDINANCE TABULATIONS PROPERTY INFORMATION 1. ALL PAVING, DRAINAGE RELATED MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION METHODS SHALL CONFORM TO CURRENT SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. TAX MAP AND PARCEL: 3-68 THRU 3-72 SCALE 2. EROSION AND SILTATION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED EROSION 30 OWNER/DEVELOPER: PRESTON COMMONS, LLC CONTROL PLAN AND SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY CLEARING, GRADING OR OTHER CONSTRUCTION. 3. ALL SLOPES AND DISTURBED AREAS ARE TO BE FERTILIZED, SEEDED AND MULCHED. SITE AREA: 0.854 AC ENGINEERING 4. THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SLOPE IS 2:1 (HORIZONTAL: VERTICAL). WHERE REASONABLY OBTAINABLE, LESSER SLOPES SOURCE OF TITLE: DB 2019 PG 4617 OF 3:1 OR BETTER ARE TO BE ACHIEVED. 5. PAVED, RIP-RAP OR STABILIZATION MAT LINED DITCH MAY BE REQUIRED WHEN IN THE OPINION OF THE CITY OF BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY MERIDIAN PLANNING GROUP, LLC , DATED 2-7-2020 CHARLOTTESVILLE ENGINEER, IT IS DEEMED NECESSARY IN ORDER TO STABILIZE A DRAINAGE CHANNEL. DATUM: HORIZONTAL DATUM: NAD 1983, VERTICAL DATUM: NVAD 1988 6. ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS SHALL CONFORM TO THE LATEST EDITION OF THE MANUAL FOR UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (MUTCD). THE CURRENT EDITIONS AS OF THE DATE OF THIS PLAN SET ARE MUTCD, 2009 EDITION, CITY/STATE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA owner: INCORPORATING REVISIONS 1 AND 2, DATED MAY 2012, AND THE VIRGINIA SUPPLEMENT TO THE MUTCD, 2011 EDITION, PRESTON COMMONS, LLC ZONING: R-2 INCLUDING REVISION 1 DATED 30 SEPTEMBER 2013. 1701 ALLIED ST, SUITE B4 7. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ALL CONCRETE PIPE SHALL BE REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE - CLASS III AND CONFORM TO THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN ZONE "X", AN AREA DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE THE 0.2% CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 ASTM C-76. FLOODPLAIN NOTE: ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD PLAIN AS SHOWN ON FEMA MAP NO 51003C0286D, EFFECTIVE 8. ALL EXCAVATION FOR UNDERGROUND PIPE INSTALLATION MUST COMPLY WITH OSHA STANDARDS FOR THE DATE FEBRUARY 4, 2005. engineer: CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY (29 CFR PART 1926). 30 SCALE, LLC UTILITIES NOTE: THE SITE IS CURRENTLY SERVED BY PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER 871 JUSTIN DRIVE 9. ALL PIPES SHOWN AS HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE PIPE (HDPE) SHALL CONFORM TO AASHTO M294 (TYPE S) SMOOTH WALL INTERIOR PIPE. MATERIALS AND INSTALLATION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH VDOT ROAD AND BRIDGE PALMYRA, VA 22963 SITE CONDITIONS p: 434.242.2866 STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS. EXISTING USE: e: mike@30scale.com CONTRACTOR COORDINATION VACANT web: www.30scale.com PROPOSED USE: RESIDENTIAL - SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLING 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL NECESSARY PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION. THERE WILL BE 2-4 BEDROOMS PER UNIT, REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS 2. PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL PLAN DIMENSIONS, EXISTING THE OWNER INTENDS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS TO BE RENTAL UNITS UTILITY SIZES AND LOCATION, EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AND OTHER SITE CONDITIONS ARE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PLANS. IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE OWNER AND ENGINEER TO DETERMINE THE COURSE OF ACTION TO ADDRESS THE DISCREPANCY. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE CONSIDERED TO PROPOSED DENSITY: 10 UNITS - 11.71 DU/AC HAVE PROCEEDED AT THEIR OWN RISK AND EXPENSE IF THEY DO NOT NOTIFY THE OWNER AND ENGINEER TO SECURE GUIDANCE ON A CORRECTIVE ACTION. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL WORK WITHIN EXISTING EASEMENTS WITH THE OWNING UTILITY COMPANY A LAND COVER (WITHIN LOD) EXISTING PROPOSED MINIMUM OF 30 DAYS PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK IN THE EASEMENT, AND 30 DAYS PRIOR TO BEGINNING OF SITEWORK IF ADDITIONAL LEAD TIME WILL BE REQUIRED. CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE THAT THE GUIDELINES AND CONSTRUCTION IMPERVIOUS 1,869 SF 19,206 SF STANDARDS OF THE OWNING UTILITY COMPANY HAVE BEEN MET. PERVIOUS 39,235 SF 21,898 SF 4. CONTRACTOR IS TO ENSURE THAT ALL UTILITIES, INCLUDING WATER, SEWER, STORM, UNDERDRAINS, GAS, ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE, CABLE, AND ANY OTHER QUASI-PUBLIC UTILITIES ARE IN PLACE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF SUBBASE TOTAL 41,104 SF 41,104 SF NEEDED FIRE FLOW: AND/OR PAVING. PERCENT IMPERVIOUS 4.55% 46.7% 5. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM 5-FOOT HORIZONTAL SEPARATION FROM WATERMAINS AND SANITARY SEWER 1,000 GPM @ 20 PSI RESIDUAL PRESSURE FOR ONE AND TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS MAINS WHEN INSTALLING PROPOSED UNDERGROUND DRY UTILITIES, INCLUDING ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE, CABLE AND GAS. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE AWARE AND IN POSSESSION OF ANY LETTERS OF PERMISSION FOR OFFSITE CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC GENERATION: (PER ITE TRIP GENERATION MANUAL 9TH EDITION) TMP 3-68,3-69,3-70,3-71 & 3-72 ASSOCIATED WITH THE PLAN. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING THE MEANS AND METHODS ROBINSON PLACE Q20 CALCULATIONS MULTI-FAMILY (USE CODE 221) 7 TRIPS PER DAY PER UNIT OF CONSTRUCTION WORK WITH THE OWNER AND THE OFFSITE PROPERTY OWNER. 7. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RELOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES THAT ARE IN CONFLICT WITH THE Q20 = 543 x [(70-20)/(70-20)]^0.54 = 543 GPM < 1,000 GPM TOTAL NUMBER OF TRIPS 70 VPD WORK, INCLUDING EXISTING UTILITY POLES AND GUY WIRES. IN ORDER TO MEET FIRE FLOW REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SITE, THE FIRE HYDRANT ON CABELL 8. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE CERTIFIED SHOP DRAWINGS FOR ENGINEER REVIEW AND APPROVAL FOR SITE AVENUE AND ON BARBOUR DRIVE MAY NEED TO BE UTILIZED. ALSO, A NEW FIRE HYDRANT IS INFRASTRUCTURE PRIOR TO ORDERING STRUCTURES. ORDERING STRUCTURES PRIOR TO ENGINEER REVIEW AND PROPOSED AT THE WEST INTERSECTION OF CABELL AVENUE AND BARBOUR DRIVE. OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL SHALL BE DONE AT THE RISK OF THE CONTRACTOR. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 9. CONTRACTOR SHALL VISUALLY INSPECT CONCRETE FORMS PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF CONCRETE. IN THE EVENT THAT SINGLE-FAMILY AND TFD 10 SPACES (1 SPACE/DWELLING UNIT REQUIRED) ADJUSTMENTS ARE NEEDED, CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY ENGINEER PRIOR TO PLACING OF CONCRETE FOR FIELD REVIEW PROVIDED PARKING 10 SPACES AND AGREEMENT ON ANY FIELD REVISION THAT MAY BE REQUIRED. ENGINEER TO PROVIDE REASONABLE AND TIMELY RESPONSE TO ALL INQUIRIES MADE BY THE CONTRACTOR. GIS MAP SHOWING FIRE HYDRANTS FROM TESTING 10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL DURING CONSTRUCTION. MINIMUM YARDS PRESTON AVE BARBOUR DRIVE 11. ALL DAMAGED EXISTING CURB, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK SHALL BE REPAIRED PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLETED IMPROVEMENTS. FRONT 25 FEET * 30' 20.5' 12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR NOTIFYING THE ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF UNKNOWN UTILITIES THAT SIDE 10 FEET IMPACT THE CONSTRUCTION ARE DISCOVERED. 13. CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH FENCING AND TREE PRESERVATION SIGNAGE REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF CORNER STREET SIDE 20 FEET CHARLOTTESVILLE CODE. REAR 25 FEET 14. CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL WETLAND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AS SPECIFIED BY THE ARMY CORPS OF 15. ENGINEERS AND/OR THE VIRGINIA DEQ. CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO AN EQUAL OR BETTER CONDITION THAN EXISTED BEFORE FH * ON A LOT WHERE FORTY PERCENT OR MORE OF THE LOTS LOCATED WITHIN FIVE HUNDRED FEET IN EITHER DIRECTION, FRONTING CONSTRUCTION. ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE STREET, HAVE GREATER OR LESS THAN THE MINIMUM FRONT YARD SPECIFIED, THE REQUIRED FRONT 16. CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE ALL CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION AND IMMEDIATELY FH YARD FOR THAT LOT SHALL BE THE AVERAGE DEPTH OF THE EXISTING FRONT YARDS WITHIN FIVE HUNDRED FEET. REMOVE CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS AND MUD THAT HAS BEEN TRACKED ON TO THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. 17. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE LIABLE FOR REPAIR OF ANY DAMAGES ON PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY CAUSED BY HIS CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY, INCLUDING CURBS, GUTTER PAN, ASPHALT AND CONCRETE PAVEMENT. MINIMUM FRONTAGE 18. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STORAGE OF LANDSCAPE MATERIALS PRIOR TO PLANTING AND PROVIDE SINGLE-FAMILY-ATTACHED UNITS 20 FEET A ONE-YEAR GUARANTEE ON ALL VEGETATION. SITE MINIMUM LOT AREA REQUIRED PROVIDED SINGLE-FAMILY-ATTACHED UNITS (LOTS 2,000 SF MINIMUM 2,876 SF MIN OK 1-8) FIRE MARSHAL NOTES FH 3,600 SF AVERAGE 3,803 SF AVG OK TWO-FAMILY UNITS (9-10) 7,200 SF 6,102 SF OK 1. VSFPC 505.1 - THE BUILDING STREET NUMBER TO BE PLAINLY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET FOR EMERGENCY RESPONDERS. OR 6,000 SF IF LOT WAS LOT WAS PLATTED ON OK PLEASE PROVIDE, AND POST ONSITE, A 911 ADDRESS FOR EMERGENCY RESPONDERS ONCE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS. PLATTED PRIOR TO 8/3/1964 8/25/51 BUILDING HEIGHT 2. VSFPC 507.5.4 AND 912.3 - FIRE HYDRANTS, FIRE PUMP TEST HEADER, FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONS OR FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM CONTROL VALVES SHALL REMAIN CLEAR AND UNOBSTRUCTED BY LANDSCAPING, PARKING OR MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 35 FEET OTHER OBJECTS. PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT NOT HIGHER THAN 35 FEET 3. ON STREET PARKING WILL NOT BE ALLOWED IN THE BARBOUR DRIVE CUL-DE-SAC. NO PARKING - TOW AWAY SIGNS SHALL BE INSTALLED AS SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN. CALCULATION OF FRONT SETBACK ON PRESTON AVENUE AREA TABULATIONS 4. LANDSCAPING IN THE AREA OF FIRE HYDRANTS, FIRE PUMP TEST HEADER, FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONS OR THE FIRE LOT# AREA (SF) AREA (AC) SUPPRESSION SYSTEM CONTROL VALVES SHALL BE OF THE TYPE THAT WILL NOT ENCROACH ON THE REQUIRED FIVE (5) FOOT RADIUS ON MATURITY OF THE LANDSCAPING. # PARCEL ID ADDRESS SETBACK (FT) LOT 1 4,343 0.100 1 30067100 1605 CABELL AVE 30 LOT 2 3,116 0.072 5. VSFPC 503.2.1 - OVERHEAD WIRING OR OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE HIGHER THAN 13 FEET 6 INCHES. 2 30067000 1202 PRESTON AVE 45 LOT 3 3,165 0.073 6. VSFPC - AN APPROVED WATER SUPPLY FOR FIRE PROTECTION SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE PRIOR TO COMBUSTIBLE 3 30066000 1204 PRESTON AVE 50 MATERIAL ARRIVING ON THE SITE. LOT 4 5,038 0.116 4 30065000 1206 PRESTON AVE 41 CONSTRUCTION & DEMOLITION COMMENTS: LOT 5 4,424 0.102 5 30058000 1212 PRESTON AVE 26 LOT 6 2,805 0.064 7. VSFPC 310.3; 310.5 - SMOKING TO BE ALLOWED IN ONLY DESIGNATED SPACES WITH PROPER RECEPTACLES. "NO 6 30056000 1218 PRESTON AVE 21 SMOKING" SIGNS SHALL BE POSTED AT EACH BUILDING SITE AND WITHIN EACH BUILDING DURING CONSTRUCTION. LOT 7 2,847 0.065 7 300730000 1124 PRESTON AVE 18 SPECIALLY, SMOKING WILL ONLY BE ALLOWED OUTSIDE THE CONSTRUCTION SITE'S SAFETY FENCE. 8 030073A00 1122 PRESTON AVE 23 LOT 8 4,822 0.111 8. VSFPC 3304.2 - WASTE DISPOSAL OF COMBUSTIBLE DEBRIS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE BUILDING AT THE END OF EACH sheet title: 9 3009200 1118 PRESTON AVE 15 TMP 3-72 6,102 0.140 .dwg NAME: 20.003 ROBINSON SP.dwg WORKDAY. 9. VSFPC 3304.6 - CUTTING AND WELDING. OPERATIONS INVOLVING THE USE OF CUTTING AND WELDING SHALL BE DONE IN 10 11 30093200 30093100 1102 PRESTON AVE 1100 PRESTON AVE 29 28 R/W DED PRESTON 533 0.012 NOTES AND ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 35, OF THE VIRGINIA STATEWIDE FIRE PREVENTION CODE, ADDRESSING WELDING AND HOTWORK OPERATIONS. SUM OF SETBACKS 326 TOTAL 37,195 SF 0.854 AC TABULATIONS AVERAGE SETBACK 30 FT 10. VSFPC 3315.1 - FIRE EXTINGUISHERS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH NOT LESS THAN ONE APPROVED PORTABLE FIRE EXTINGUISHER AT EACH STAIRWAY ON ALL FLOOR LEVELS WHERE COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS HAVE ACCUMULATED. SETBACK DIMENSION IS BASED ON CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE GIS 11. VSFPC 3310.1 - REQUIRED VEHICLE ACCESS FOR FIREFIGHTING SHALL BE PROVIDED TO ALL CONSTRUCTION OR CALCULATION OF FRONT SETBACK ON BARBOUR DRIVE DEMOLITION SITES. VEHICLE ACCESS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO WITHIN 100 FEET OF TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONS. VEHICLE ACCESS SHALL BE PROVIDED BY EITHER TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT ROADS, REVISIONS CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING VEHICLE LOADING UNDER ALL WEATHER CONDITIONS. VEHICLE ACCESS SHALL BE MAINTAINED scale: UNTIL PERMANENT FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS ARE AVAILABLE. DESCRIPTION CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #2 DATE 4/16/2021 # PARCEL ID ADDRESS SETBACK (FT) 1"=20' 1 30074000 107 BARBOUR DRIVE 20.5 date: CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #3 8/25/2021 AVERAGE SETBACK 20.5 FT 6/27/2020 30 SCALE CHIT# 18.003 CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #4 11/16/2021 CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #5 02/01/2022 SETBACK DIMENSION IS BASED ON A FIELD SURVEY . . sheet # 2 OF 25 ©2021 - 30SCALE, LLC GENERAL NOTES BENCHMARK #2 NAIL SET N 3903618.84 1. INVERTS FOR PIPES AND STRUCTURES SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON FIELD MEASUREMENTS, E 11485212.25 30 SCALE HOWEVER THEY SHOULD BE VERIFIED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. ELEV = 495.54' SAW CUT LOCATION FOR NEW 2. PIPE SIZES. MATERIAL TYPE AND INVERT ELEVATIONS AS INDICATED ARE BASED UPON CURB AND GUTTER CABELL AVENUE ENGINEERING OBSERVATIONS MADE ABOVE GROUND. NO MEASUREMENTS HAVE BEEN PERFORMED BY BENCHMARK #1 NAIL SET INSTALLATION LOCATED 2.0' PERSONNEL IN A CONFINED SPACE SITUATION. FROM PROPOSED EDGE OF 25.8' N 3903602.85 60.0' 3. EXISTING GROUND SURFACE LOCATION PERFORMED BY CONVENTIONAL INSTRUMENT SURVEY. GUTTER PAN (SEE MOD PP-1 E 11484925.69 2.0' 4. CONTOURS SHOWN AT 2' INTERVALS. ELEV = 508.06' 2. DETAIL ON SHEET 4) EX. EDGE OF PAVEMENT PROPOSED EDGE 0' OF GUTTER PAN SAW CUT LOCATION FOR NEW CURB 5. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WERE DESIGNATED (PAINTED) BY MISS UTILITY, TICKET #B001001782-00B . TO BE DEMO'ED owner: AND GUTTER INSTALLATION LOCATED MERIDIAN PLANNING GROUP HAS FIELD LOCATED THE DESIGNATED LINES AS PAINTED AND IS NOT 2.0' FROM PROPOSED EDGE OF PRESTON COMMONS, LLC ' 2.0 RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCURACY OF THE PAINT DESIGNATION WITH RESPECT TO THE EXISTING PROPOSED EDGE GUTTER PAN OR FACE OF CURB (SEE 1701 ALLIED ST, SUITE B4 UTILITY. UTILITY INFORMATION ON THIS DRAWING WILL NEED TO BE FIELD VERIFIED PRIOR TO OF GUTTER PAN MOD PP-1 DETAIL ON SHEET 4) CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 CONSTRUCTION. INDIVIDUALS ARE REQUIRED BY VIRGINIA LAW TO CONTACT MISS UTILITY OF VIRGINIA AT I-8OO-552-7001 (OR 811) 2 BUSINESS DAYS (48 HOURS) PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OR engineer: EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES. 30 SCALE, LLC 6. HORIZONTAL (NAD'83) AND VERTICAL (NAVD'88) DATUM ESTABLISHED THROUGH REAL TIME 871 JUSTIN DRIVE EX. CONCRETE SIDEWALK PALMYRA, VA 22963 KINEMATIC (RTK) GPS OBSERVATIONS ON 01/29/2020. DIFFERENTIAL CORRECTIONS WERE DERIVED TO BE DEMO'ED p: 434.242.2866 FROM NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY (NGS) CONTINUALLY OPERATING REFERENCE STATION (CORS). COORDINATE VALUES, IF SHOWN HEREON, ARE BASED ON VIRGINIA STATE GRID, SOUTH ZONE. e: mike@30scale.com SAW CUT LINE - MINIMUM 6" ON TO web: www.30scale.com 3. THESE PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED IN ZONE "X", AS SHOWN ON FEMA MAP NO 51003C0286D, EXISTING PAVEMENT (SEE MOD COORDINATE 6" EFFECTIVE DATE FEBRUARY 4, 2005. THIS DETERMINATION HAS BEEN MADE BY GRAPHIC METHODS, PP-1 DETAIL ON SHEET 4) NO ELEVATION STUDY HAS BEEN PERFORMED AS A PORTION OF THIS PROJECT. THIS SURVEYOR WITH CITY 4. DOES NOT CERTIFY TO ACCURACY OF THE F.E.M.A. MAP. PROPERTY LINES SHOWN HEREON ARE TAKEN FROM COURT HOUSE RECORDS, EVIDENCE OF PLANNER AND CITY ARBORIST BARBOUR DRIVE REGARDING THE MONUMENTATION AND OCCUPATION FOUND IN THE FIELD. THIS SURVEY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A BOUNDARY SURVEY AND WAS PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE COMMITMENT, REMOVAL OF THEREFORE ALL EASEMENTS MAY NOT BE SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY. PINE TREE AND "X-ING" AND "PED" TO BE 2 ASH TREES 5. THIS SURVEY WAS COMPLETED UNDER THE DIRECT AND RESPONSIBLE CHARGE OF TIMOTHY R. RESTRIPED TO CENTER OF WITHIN THE MILLER, LS FROM AN ACTUAL GROUND SURVEY MADE UNDER HIS SUPERVISION. THE IMAGERY LANE AS PART OF FINAL EXISTING CITY AND/OR ORIGINAL DATA WAS OBTAINED ON 01/29/2020, 01/30/2020 AND 02/07/2020. THIS PLAT, MAP, OR STRIPING WORK RIGHT-OF-WAY DIGITAL GEOSPATIAL DATA INCLUDING METADATA MEETS MINIMUM ACCURACY STANDARDS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. EX. INTERNAL PROPERTY LINES TO BE VACATED TMP 3-68,3-69,3-70,3-71 & 3-72 ROBINSON PLACE ALL EXISTING TREES ON PROPERTY 27.1' TO BE REMOVED SAW CUT LOCATION FOR NEW ' 14.3 SANITARY SEWER MAIN INSTALLATION LOCATED 5.0' FROM EDGE OF SEWER PIPE (SEE MOD PP-1 DETAIL ON FINAL SITE PLAN CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA SHEET 4) 3-68, 69, 70, 71 AND 72 NO ADDRESS ASSIGNED YET EX. UTILITY POLE TO BE INTX BARBOUR DRIVE, CABELL AVENUE, PRESTON REMOVED - COORDINATE AVE WITH POWER COMPANY x x x EX. ASPHALT TO BE x x REMOVED x x x LEGEND PRE x N STO x x NA x VEN EX. PROPERTY x LINE TO REMAIN x PROPOSED EDGE UE OF GUTTER PAN x EX. EDGE OF PAVEMENT x TO BE DEMO'ED x x EX CONC TO BE REMOVED SAW CUT LINE - MINIMUM 6" 6" ON TO EXISTING x PAVEMENT (SEE MOD PP-1 DETAIL ON SHEET 4) x PROPOSED EDGE x OF GUTTER PAN 0' x 2. x x x x 121D sheet title: .dwg NAME: 20.003 ROBINSON SP.dwg EXISTING 127C CONDITIONS THERE IS NO TREE SAVE AREA ON THE SITE CP@ 4 .07% DEMO PLAN AND " R EX1 44 L F- 24 TREE SURVEY REVISIONS scale: SOILS KEY DESCRIPTION DATE 1"=20' BOUNDARY CURVE TABLE CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #2 4/16/2021 date: 121D 6/27/2020 30 SCALE CHIT# 18.003 = SOILS BOUNDARY = CULPEPER SOILS CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #3 8/25/2021 Curve Length Radius Delta Tangent Chord Chord Bearing C1 12.46' 10.00' 71°23'26" 7.18' 11.67' S 51°25'21" E # = NRCS MAP UNIT SYMBOL 127C = ELIOAK CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #4 CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #5 11/16/2021 02/01/2022 sheet # C2 5.40' 50.00' 6°11'17" 2.70' 5.40' S 18°50'42" E . . 3 OF 25 ©2021 - 30SCALE, LLC PROVIDE (4) "NO PARK ING - TOW AWAY ZONE" SIGNS ON SOUT H SIDE OF CABELL - BUILDING SETBACK ABBREVIATIONS SEE SHEET 9 FOR SIG SEE DETAILS ON SHEE N DETAILS T7 APPROX. LOCATION DUCT BANK (CITY STD DB-1) 11+31.27 @ 15.00 ' R = FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITY CROSSING N 14.4' SCALE STA 0+15.00 ALLEY CL 30 FSL FRONT SETBACK LINE PC: 12+04.20 PROVIDE 8'W PAINTED 0.18 RSL REAR SETBACK LINE CROSSWALK RELOCATE EX. ENGINEERING PT: 12+3 SSL SIDE SETBACK LINE 4.0' 6.85 STOP/STREET SIGN 10+00 CABELL AVENUE PT: 13+03.12 SCSL STREET CORNER SETBACK LINE PROVIDE NEW STOP BAR PC: 12+7 10+00 11+00 27.0' 10+38.66 @ 0+00 12+52.51 = UGE 60.0' 15.00' R = PCTC CITY STD. 12+00 SAW CUT LINE CITY STD. RE-2 10+00 CG-6 SIGN #7 325'R SIGN #5 TYPE "L" 2.0' HATCH LEGEND (MOD PP-1) CITY STD. CG-12 ENTRANCE 12+08.13 @ owner: SIGN #6-TYPE "L-R" TYPE "L-R" 2.0' 14.98' R = PCTC PRESTON COMMONS, LLC 'R SIGN #8 TYPE "L-R" SAW CUT LINE BP: 10+0 240'R 13+00 1701 ALLIED ST, SUITE B4 15 PROPOSED ASPHALT IN R/W (SEE CITY STD. PR-1) 0.00 8.5' 5.0'4.5' PC: 10+26.28 10+39.43 @ -16.74' L = PCTC (MOD PP-1) 14+00 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 2.0' 25 PROP. STOP SIGN (SEE SHT. 9) UGE PC: 0+19.91 'R PC: 10+0 engineer: PROPOSED ASPHALT FOR PRIVATE ALLEY CONSTRUCTION - (SEE SHEET 9 FH 8.26 5.0' PROPOSED R/W PROP. CITY STD. SW CITY STD. CG-12 FOR TYPICAL SECTION) -1 CITY STD. CG-12 30 SCALE, LLC DEDICATION (533 SF) 871 JUSTIN DRIVE FUTURE 5' SIGHT TRIANGLE BICYCLE LANE 5.0' (SEE NOTE) 10+27.89 @ PALMYRA, VA 22963 PROPOSED CONCRETE (REF. CITY STD CG-12, SW-1 AND EWA-1 FOR 10+51.85 @ -17.24' L = PCTC p: 434.242.2866 120'R 300'R (BY OTHERS) 20.11' R = PCTC UG 90'R CONCRETE WORK IN RIGHT-OF-WAY) 10+52.32 @ -17.36' L = PCTC 14'-WIDE PRIVATE e: mike@30scale.com E 8'R 25.0' 10+62.79 @ -22.28' L = PCTC ACCESS EASEMENT web: www.30scale.com 20.0' UGE PROPOSED CG-12 DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE (REF CITY STD. CG-12) UGE UGE .13 ACCESS EASEMENT 0 +55 PT: ' 10+42.00 @ 19.34' R = CENTER STM STRUCT EXISTING CONCRETE 25' FSL 18.0 ' 20' SCSL 20.5 25' R 10+76.88 @ -26.42' L = EDGE ADA CONC PAD 8.0' BARBOUR DRIVE 18.0 6.0' ' 19 16.2 +55. 6.0' SL 25' PT: 10+75.77 0 ' PT: 1 ' NOTE: SEE SHEET 24 FOR CITY STANDARD CONSTRUCTION DETAILS 36.0 R 3.4' #1132 UGE SL LOT 4 #101 24.0' ' CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE A 6'-WIDE X 3.4' 20.0 5,036 SF LOT 5 L* 18.0 5.0' FS 24.0 DEEP CONCRETE EXTENSION TO EXISTING 2 4,424 SF 20.5' 20' S LIST OF PROPOSED EASEMENTS ' 18.0 ' ' SIDEWALK TO UPDATE THE EXISTING ' 36.0 CSL TYPE SEE SHEET# PUBLIC/PRIVATE DEDICATED TO: TRANSIT STOP TO MEET ADA STANDARDS #1134 UGE FOR A 60" CLEAR WIDTH X 96" CLEAR LENGTH ' ACCESS EASEMENT (ALLEY) 4 PRIVATE PMA LOT 3 18.0 11+ FOR BUS STOP BOARDING AND ALIGHTING - STOOP #103 18.0 3,165 SF (TYP.) LOT 6 5.0' SAW CUT LINE (MOD. PP-1) 00 30' ACCESS EASEMENT (TRANSIT STOP) 4 PUBLIC CITY DPW ' 2,805 SF ' 20.0 1+0 24.0 ' FSL ACCESS EASEMENT (PARKING) 4 PRIVATE LOT 8 OWNER 10+82.87 @ -25.99' L = EDGE ADA CONC PAD 36.0 4.8' 24.0 STOOP 10+93.34 @ 18.51' R = CENTER STM STRUCT 0 ' * SWM/BMP MAINTENANCE 6 PRIVATE PMA (TYP.) UGE ' 11+0 SL EEL STORM DRAINAGE 6 PRIVATE PMA 36.5 ' 7.0' 10' S C. WH YP) TMP 3-68,3-69,3-70,3-71 & 3-72 SL ROBINSON PLACE CON TOP (T 10' S 0 ' ' 15.2 18.0 18.0' PUBLIC UTILITY 5 PUBLIC CITY UTILITIES S 5.0' 30.0 ' 20.0' 20.0 ' 10.0' 14.2 ' 18.0 18.0 PRIVATE UTILITY 5 PRIVATE DOM ENERGY SL ' 10' S CITY STD. CG-6 ' UGE SL 10.0 KEY: #1140 10' S FINAL SITE PLAN LOT 2 ' CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA PMA = PROPERTY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION 18.0 ' 34.0 LOT 7 24.0 ' DPW = DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS NO PARKING 3,116 SF 2,847 SF SIGN - TYPE "L" 33.0' ' DOM ENERGY = DOMINION ENERGY ' 24.0 34.0 18.0' (SEE SHEET 9 ' 8'X18' PRIVATE 18.0 9.0' 7.7' UGE FOR DETAIL) 16.5' ' PARKING FUTURE 5' ' SIGHT TRIANGLE NOTE: 20.5 PRO EASEMENT FOR BICYCLE LANE 7.0' 25' THE NORTHERN SIDE OF THE SIGHT TRIANGLE IS ONE FOOT BEHIND THE PROPOSED SIDEWALK #1142 LOT 8 DUE TO THE LOCATION OF THE EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE BEING 8.5' BEHIND THE PROPOSED (BY OTHERS) 30.0 ' #107 P. CI LOT 1 ' RSL 18.0 ' 31.5 SIDEWALK. THIS PROVIDES A MORE REALISTIC SIGHT TRIANGLE. 4,343 SF #109 7' PARKING TY S UG LOT 8 EX. SSMH 08-197E L* 18.0 LANE 5'X18' PRIVATE 17.0 E .5' FS 36.0 PARKING EASEMENT 4,822 SF TD. S 30 18.0 ' 18.0 ' ' ' 24.0 'F FOR LOT 1 .2' ' UG 5 20 SL 8.3' ' 52.0 W-1 4.0' E * ' 18.0 ' 12" GRASS 1+9 12+ ' STRIP 31.0 UGE 12.0 1 10' SSL 10.0' 00 5.0' PRE ' .28 25' R C : 1 1+91 P 9 96.5 120'R 11+ SL UGE P T : S 12+ ' 11+97.61 @ 18.46' R = CENTER STM STRUCT 25.0 TON 10' SSL 00 T 20.0' AVE (2) CITY STD. RE-2 EX. LOT LINE TO ' 10' SSL 16.5 ' ENTRANCES. USE CITY STD 33.0 UGE REMAIN 10.0' EWA-1 FOR ENTRANCE WALK ADJUSTMENTS NU 18.9' 12+ ILY FAM G 50 TW ELLIN DW x52 #113 SIGN #4 E ' 25.0 ' 20.5 20 TYPE "R" UGE - 18.9' O NEW ASPHALT IN R/W 3-72 10.0 EX TM 02 S F 6,1 ' SIGN #3 20.5' UGE #115 TYPE "L-R" CITY STD. 12+79.93 @ 28.68' R = CG-6 SL* CENTER STM STRUCT F 12+89.70 @ 16.47' R = 20.5' CURB ANGLE POINT UGE 13+06.70 @ 5.47' RT = TIE IN PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER TO EXISTING ASPHALT CURB 10.0' UGE 13+ 10' SSL UGE UGE 00 EXTEND SIDEWALK TO #107 LEAD WALK SIGN #2 MODIFIED PP-1 DETAIL " TYPE "L-R" sheet title: "L UGE PE .dwg NAME: 20.003 ROBINSON SP.dwg Y #1 -T LAYOUT GN UG PROVIDE (4) "NO PARKING SI E E PLAN - TOW AWAY ZONE" UGE UG % SIGNS IN CUL-DE-SAC - @ 4.07 SEE SHEET 9 FOR DETAIL RCP 24" LF- REVISIONS X 144 E DESCRIPTION DATE scale: CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #2 4/16/2021 1"=20' CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #3 8/25/2021 date: CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #4 11/16/2021 6/27/2020 30 SCALE CHIT# 18.003 CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #5 02/01/2022 . . sheet # 4 OF 25 ©2021 - 30SCALE, LLC EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT APPROX. LOCATION DUCT BANK FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITY CROSSING N 10+00 10+00 11+00 CABELL AVENUE 30 SCALE ENGINEERING 0+00 12+00 PROP. 8X6 TS&V owner: PRESTON COMMONS, LLC PROP. FH 13+00 1701 ALLIED ST, SUITE B4 14+00 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 engineer: PROPOSED R/W 30 SCALE, LLC DEDICATION (533 SF) 871 JUSTIN DRIVE PALMYRA, VA 22963 p: 434.242.2866 e: mike@30scale.com web: www.30scale.com BARBOUR DRIVE #1132 LOT 4 #101 5,036 SF LOT 5 5 4,424 SF CO# 6 5' x 5' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT CO# (TYPICAL AT ALL WATER METERS EXCEPT FOR LOT 1 #1134 LOT 3 11+ WATER METER) #103 4 3,165 SF LOT 6 CO# 00 2,805 SF 1+0 113 LF - 8" PVC SDR 26 SAN SEW @ 1.00% 0 SAN SEW 11+0 CLEANOUT TMP 3-68,3-69,3-70,3-71 & 3-72 ROBINSON PLACE (TYPICAL OF 9) 0 3 4" SANITARY SEWER LATERAL - CO# PIPE SHALL BE SDR-26 PVC (TYPICAL OF 9) #1140 FINAL SITE PLAN CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 3/4" DOMESTIC WATER LOT 2 3,116 SF LOT 7 TYPE K COPPER SERVICE 2,847 SF LINE WITH 3/4" TAP AT 7 MAIN (TYPICAL OF 9) CO# 5/8" WATER METER #1142 36 LF - 8" PVC SDR 26 SAN SEW @ 0.50% (TYPICAL OF 9) LOT 1 #107 4,343 SF #109 2 CO# LOT 8 4,822 SF 1+9 21 LF - 8" PVC SDR 26 SAN SEW @ 1.00% 12+ 1 00 1 CO# PRE CO# 8 STO 12+ 00 T 20'-WIDE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT N AVE CO# 9 EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT NU 12+ 50 #113 E 3-72 EX TM 02 S F 6,1 #115 24.0' 13+ 00 sheet title: .dwg NAME: 20.003 ROBINSON SP.dwg PROP. 15'-WIDE DOMINION POWER UTILITY PLAN EASEMENT EASEMENT NOTE: 4 .07% P@ REFER TO SHEET 4 FOR LIST OF PROPOSED EASEMENTS 24" RC LF- 144 EX REVISIONS scale: DESCRIPTION DATE 1"=20' CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #2 4/16/2021 NOTE: ALL NEW HOUSES SHALL HAVE A date: CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #3 8/25/2021 PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE (PRV) INSTALLED. 6/27/2020 30 SCALE CHIT# 18.003 CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #4 11/16/2021 CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #5 02/01/2022 . . sheet # 5 OF 25 ©2021 - 30SCALE, LLC NOTE: SEE SHEET 7 FOR DETAILED GRADING BENCHMARK PLANS AND DETAILS FOR CURB RAMPS 1-4. LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE = NAIL SET 49,477 SF (1.14 AC.) N 3903618.84 CURB RAMP #2 E 11485212.25 ELEV = 495.54' N 10+00 10+00 PROP. PRIVATE SWM/BMP 11+00 CABELL AVENUE 30 SCALE ENGINEERING 0+00 MAINTENANCE EASEMENT 4 04 81 12+00 05TC 5 05TC + EX 01 69 EX + 97 13 92 owner: 05 38 + + 1 + EX 7 95TC + 94EX 13+00 PRESTON COMMONS, LLC BENCHMARK #1 EX HP 05TC 14+00 NAIL SET 3 + 1701 ALLIED ST, SUITE B4 + 81 N 3903602.85 05TC + + 94EX CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 E 11484925.69 050 PROPOSED R/W + 1 95TC CURB RAMP #3 engineer: ELEV = 508.06' + + DEDICATION (533 SF) 30 SCALE, LLC 871 JUSTIN DRIVE PALMYRA, VA 22963 04 CURB RAMP #1 2 047 05TC + p: 434.242.2866 + 02 74 + e: mike@30scale.com 04 EX 98 96 5 96 0 web: www.30scale.com + + CURB RAMP #4 + 1 3 00 + 97 0 5 5 7 02 0 03TC 03 06 99 7 + + 97 5 97 RD 998 97 + BARBOUR DRIVE + + 6.0 + + 6R RD % + 96 8 + 8 D 5 098 RD 97 5+ R 97 + 98 8 96 5 000 97 + + 06 #1132 1R + 8 + + RD LOT 4 994 97 5 #101 + 02 % + + 5,036 SF 000 LOT 5 2.0 + FF=510.5 97 5 + 06 4,424 SF BF=500.5 RD RD 975 5 + RD 04 97 2 FF=498.0 990 + + + 975 97 RD 49-LF15" RCP @ 1.38% + + #1134 990 + 0 LOT 3 + 98 11+ #103 3,165 SF 990 9.1 % RD 5 LOT 6 5 96 8 00 + 0 R D 97 7 + 06 FF=509.5 2,805 SF 9 1+0 RD + 0 + BF=499.5 97 + + 975 FF=498.0 1R 7 + + 0 02 7 6R 0 8 0 + 04 990 + 99 + RD 94 5 +5 11+0 96 + 97 97 8 + 8 3 9% % 9 4 96 . 5 00 0 TMP 3-68,3-69,3-70,3-71 & 3-72 0+ RD @ 4.5 96 ROBINSON PLACE 05 + 0 " RC P 02 RD -LF15 04 97 3.6 8 6 + 0 % 3 5 97 3 96 5 97 + 96 5 + 5 RD 96 + + 97 5 04 + 962 5 + 97 0 #1140 96 5 97 R D 2 05 + RD + + 5 96 + LOT 2 965 + 97 + + FINAL SITE PLAN 0 2 + 2 + 3,116 SF 96 + LOT 7 PROP. 20' PRIVATE STORM CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 4 0 + + 96 FF=507.0 RD 2,847 SF 6.3% 2 2R DRAINAGE EASEMENT 5 . 4% 4R + 3 BF=497.0 96 D FF=498.0 06 R + 5 975 96 D 96 0 R 0 5 9 6 + + 96 + 97 RD + 0 95 + #1142 5 + + 963+R + #107 5 90 9 98 0 + 96 05 LOT 1 955 RD D9 95 1R EX 0 4,343 SF 5 + 6 955 #R10 0 95 + 96 95 + 5 05+ 04 95 + + LOT 8 % FF=507.0 02 + 1.0 + 963 3 00 BF=497.0 4,822 SF 94 2R + .6% 3 955 + FF=496.0 06 953 955+ + RD + RD 963 94 3 95 4 + 0 + 9 0 5 + TC 02 1+9 + 12+ 3 + R D 96 94 1 95TC 00+5 98 00 92 PRE 00 9 + + 00 93 + TC 00 0 00 0 3 + + 93 5 + EX EX 00 99 0 0 RD TEST PIT NOTE: EX EX 93 + STO 12+ CONTRACTOR TO DIG TEST PITS RD TO DETERMINE EXACT DEPTH 00 OF CONFLICTING UTILITY AND T 92 186-LF 12'-WIDE x 7'-DEEP 90 5 NA 90 NOTIFY ENGINEER WITH ANY + GRAVEL TRENCH SIGNIFICANT DISCREPANCIES 90 + FROM WHAT IS SHOWN ON THE 96 8 910 PROP. 20' PRIVATE STORM EX VEN CONSTRUCTION PROFILES ON RD + DRAINAGE EASEMENT + SHEETS 11 AND 12. 908 ER 10.0% 9 + UNG SEW 8 + 87 12+ RD H 89 FF=4 83.0 UE 3 93.0 50 + 88 #113 BF=4 + 6R 88 55-LF15" RCP @ 1.10% 3 92 95 6 + 910 3-72 EX 1 0.0% + EX TM F 88 1 2 92 RD+ 6,102 S + 86 186-LF 72" PERF CAP @ 0.50% + FF=4 83.0 93.0 94 5 + #115 + 3 BF=4 EX 8 6 9 R 3 94 1 + 92 EX + 87 0 PROP. PRIVATE SWM/BMP 0 91 0 MAINTENANCE EASEMENT 89 + RD 86 + + 89 5 9 83TC 88 49-LF18" (CL IV) RCP @ 0.50% 59-LF18" (CL IV) RCP @ 0.50% 13+ + 00 87 3 SEE SHEET 14 FOR OVERLAND RELIEF EX COMPUTATIONS PROP. 20'-WIDE PRIVATE STORM sheet title: 5-LF18" RCP @ 1.00% .dwg NAME: 20.003 ROBINSON SP.dwg DRAINAGE EASEMENT GRADING PLAN 4 .07% RCP@ 4" L F- 2 144 EX scale: REVISIONS 1"=20' DESCRIPTION DATE date: CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #2 4/16/2021 ROOF DOWNSPOUT KEY 6/27/2020 30 SCALE CHIT# 18.003 CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #3 8/25/2021 RD ROOF DOWNSPOUT CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #4 11/16/2021 0 20 40 60 RD ROOF DOWNSPOUT WITH ELBOW SCALE: 1"=20' sheet # CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #5 . 02/01/2022 . 6 OF 25 ©2021 - 30SCALE, LLC 506.80 CITY STD. SW-1 SCALE + N 507.13 + 0670 + 06 20 + 30 ENGINEERING 506.70 + 5.0' ' 4.0 EX TC 0650 + + TC + 0600 owner: 507.17 10 + 32 + + 9530 06 06 0619 PRESTON COMMONS, LLC 2.0' 12:1 M + EX 1701 ALLIED ST, SUITE B4 AX 4.0' GRASS CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 RA 15 2.0' 95 40 M .1 engineer: ' P ' 5.0 EXISTING + LE + STRIPING + 30 SCALE, LLC 0610 + 79+ + NG 506.68 + 0592 05 506.10 505.91 505.72 871 JUSTIN DRIVE TH + 9450 5.0' EX TC EX TC PALMYRA, VA 22963 12 EX TC = TC 9455 :1 p: 434.242.2866 15 TC PROPOSED ' e: mike@30scale.com 9410 + STRIPING web: www.30scale.com 00 2' 9456 ++94 + 8. 10 TC .9 CURB RAMP #4 CURB RAMP #2 STOP + ' + 0:1 SIGN 9466 5.0 94 06 2.0' 2 9466 + +9416 ' MAX :1 + TC 9390 12 AX 4.0' 48:1 9405 + 5.0' 9380+ M 9386 + + + 9396 + 94 46 9430 + TC ++ TC 9416 + 94 49 0' 5.0' 9401 6. ' 3.0' 5.0 48 TC + :1 4.4' 12:1 9412 MAX 5.0' 6.0' ++ 1 + X 12: 94 45 MA + 41 94 30 + CURB RAMP #3 9406 TC 3.0' 94 TC + 9415 TMP 3-68,3-69,3-70,3-71 & 3-72 ROBINSON PLACE CURB RAMP #1 CURB RAMPS #3 AND #4 DETAIL FINAL SITE PLAN SCALE: 1"=5' CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 0501 + 05 41 + (HP) TC 91 04 0550 20 ++ TC :1 MA 0500 + X 0490 5.5' 2. + 48:1 0' 0550 + TC 48:1 03 05 + 47 + + 97 05 40 + 05TC 04 5.0' TC 6.0' RAMP 12:1 12:1 53 47 04 04 + 04 97 + + TC 1.0% 1.0% 5.0' 48 0530 42 04 TC 04 + + 0492 + + TC % 6.0' NOSE N 1.0 DOWN CURB 04 40 +0440 504.51 TC + + 504.37 5.0' EX TC 5.0% 05 20 TC + CURB RAMPS #1 AND #2 DETAIL SCALE: 1"=5' REVISIONS DESCRIPTION DATE sheet title: .dwg NAME: 20.003 ROBINSON SP.dwg CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #2 4/16/2021 CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #3 8/25/2021 ADA RAMP CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #4 11/16/2021 CONSTRUCTION CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #5 02/01/2022 . . DETAILS 0 20 40 60 scale: SCALE: 1"=20' 1"=5' date: 6/27/2020 30 SCALE CHIT# 18.003 sheet # 7 OF 25 ©2021 - 30SCALE, LLC LANDSCAPE COMPUTATIONS REQUIRED TREE COVER N SITE AREA 37,193 SF 30 SCALE 15% TREE COVER REQUIRED 5,579 SF PROVIDED TREE COVER 5,986 SF OK REQUIRED STREET TREES CABELL AVENUE ENGINEERING STREET FRONTAGE ON PRESTON AVENUE 177 FT REQUIREMENT: owner: PRESTON COMMONS, LLC 1 LARGE TREE PER 40 FEET OF ROAD FRONTAGE, 4 TREES 1701 ALLIED ST, SUITE B4 OR PORTION THEREOF, IF TWENTY (25) FEET OR MORE CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 PROVIDED: 4 TREES OK engineer: STREET FRONTAGE ON CABELL AVENUE 187 FT 30 SCALE, LLC QF CO 871 JUSTIN DRIVE REQUIREMENT: QC QC PALMYRA, VA 22963 1 LARGE TREE PER 40 FEET OF ROAD FRONTAGE, 5 TREES CO p: 434.242.2866 04 e: mike@30scale.com OR PORTION THEREOF, IF TWENTY (25) FEET OR MORE web: www.30scale.com 02 PROVIDED: 5 TREES OK 98 STREET FRONTAGE ON BARBOUR DRIVE 282 FT 00 REQUIREMENT: CO QF 1 LARGE TREE PER 40 FEET OF ROAD FRONTAGE, 7 TREES BARBOUR DRIVE 96 OR PORTION THEREOF, IF TWENTY (25) FEET OR MORE #1132 PROVIDED: 7 TREES OK LOT 4 #101 5,036 SF LOT 5 06 4,424 SF 04 LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE #1134 COMMON NAME/ UNIT CANOPY TOTAL CANOPY QC LOT 3 3,165 SF #103 LOT 6 CO SYMBOL TOTAL BOTANICAL NAME CAL ROOT (10-YR) (10-YR) 2,805 SF SOUTHERN RED OAK / QF 4 2" B&B 346 SF 1,384 SF 02 QUERCUS FALCATA 94 TMP 3-68,3-69,3-70,3-71 & 3-72 96 HACKBERRY/ ROBINSON PLACE CO 6 2" B&B 397 SF 2,382 SF CELTIS OCCIDENTALIS 98 00 SCARLET OAK/ 02 04 QC 6 2" B&B 370 SF 2,220 SF QUERCUS COCCINEA TOTAL CANOPY COVERAGE 5,986 SF QC FINAL SITE PLAN CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA #1140 LOT 2 3,116 SF LOT 7 PLANTING NOTES QF 2,847 SF 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL PLANTS, LABOR, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES, MATERIAL, TRANSPORTATION, HANDLING AND STORAGE, AND 96 PERFORMING ALL OPERATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. 2. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE TRUE TO SPECIES AND VARIETY, AND SIZE AS INDICATED ON THE LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE, AND SHALL BE NURSERY #1142 96 #107 98 GROWN IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOOD HORTICULTURAL PRACTICES. LOT 1 3. PLANTS SHALL HAVE A STANDARD BALANCE BETWEEN HEIGHT, CROWN SPREAD, DIAMETER AND ROOT BALL SIZE ACCORDING TO THE ANSI 4,343 SF #109 CO 04 Z60.1. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE TYPICAL OF THEIR SPECIES OR VARIETY. LOT 8 02 4. PLANTS SHALL BE SO TRAINED IN DEVELOPMENT AND APPEARANCE AS TO BE COMPACT AND SYMMETRICAL. THEY SHALL BE SOUND, HEALTHY, 00 4,822 SF 94 VIGOROUS, WELL-BRANCHED, AND DENSELY FOLIATED WHEN IN LEAF. PLANTS SHALL BE FREE OF DISEASE AND INSECT ADULTS, EGGS, PUPATE, OR LARVAE. THEY SHALL HAVE HEALTHY, WELL DEVELOPED ROOT SYSTEMS AND SHALL BE FREE FROM PHYSICAL DAMAGE OR OTHER CONDITIONS THAT WOULD PREVENT THRIVING GROWTH. CO 5. MULCH SHALL CONSIST OF SHREDDED BARK MULCH, WOOD CHIPS OR ROCK MULCH AS SPECIFIED ON THE DRAWINGS. MATERIAL SHALL BE UNIFORM IN SIZE, COLOR, QUALITY AND OVERALL APPEARANCE. MULCH SHALL BE FREE OF MATERIAL INJURIOUS TO PLANT GROWTH. SOURCES OF MULCH SHOULD BE FREE OF WEEDS AND INVASIVE PLANT PARTS OR SEEDS. SAWDUST, DIRT, GARBAGE, OR OTHER DEBRIS MIXED IN THE 96 94 MULCH IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. 98 92 PRE 6. PLANTING SHALL BE DONE WHEN TEMPERATURES ARE ABOVE FREEZING, THE GROUND IS FROST FREE, AND THE SOIL IS IN A WORKABLE 00 CONDITION. UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED IN WRITING BY THE ENGINEER, PLANTING OF TREES SHALL BE DONE BETWEEN MAY 1 AND OCTOBER 1. 00 QC 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH ALL LABOR, MATERIALS, SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH, MAINTAIN, AND PROTECT THE STO PLANTED AND SEEDED AREAS, FOR A ONE-YEAR PLANT ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD FROM DATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE INITIAL PLANTING OPERATIONS. HOWEVER, MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES SHALL COMMENCE IMMEDIATELY AFTER EACH ITEM IS PLANTED OR WHEN AREAS HAVE 92 BEEN SEEDED. NA 90 8. NO SUBSTITUTES SHALL BE ACCEPTED, EXCEPT WITH THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT ALL SUBSTITUTION REQUESTS, NOTING THE SOURCE OF PLANTS, LOCATION, SIZE, AND CONDITION, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF RECEIVING THE 90 NOTICE TO PROCEED. 9. ALL AREAS THAT ARE STEEPER THAN 3H:1V ARE TO BE PLANTED WITH LOW MAINTENANCE GROUND COVER THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE MOWING. VEN UE QC #113 88 3-72 EX TM F 92 6,102 S #115 QF 86 88 sheet title: .dwg NAME: 20.003 ROBINSON SP.dwg LANDSCAPE PLAN scale: REVISIONS 1"=20' DESCRIPTION DATE date: 6/27/2020 30 SCALE CHIT# 18.003 CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #2 4/16/2021 CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #3 8/25/2021 PLANTING DETAIL CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #4 11/16/2021 sheet # TAKEN FROM CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE TREE PACKET CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #5 02/01/2022 8 OF 25 . . ©2021 - 30SCALE, LLC 0.5' 1.1' SECURE WITH (2) 2'-6" REBAR 0.5' 3/4" DIA. 30 SCALE 0.8' 2 EA #3 REBAR 2.3' SECTION ENGINEERING 10-3/4" owner: PRESTON COMMONS, LLC 1701 ALLIED ST, SUITE B4 9" CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 14'-WIDE PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT engineer: 6.0' 1.0' 12.0' 1.0' 30 SCALE, LLC 871 JUSTIN DRIVE PLAN PALMYRA, VA 22963 p: 434.242.2866 e: mike@30scale.com CONCRETE WHEEL STOP DETAIL 2.0% 2.0% web: www.30scale.com NTS 4"-DEEP GRAVEL SHOULDER 1.5" SM-9.5A ASPHALT SURFACE COURSE COMPACTED SUBGRADE 2-1/2" BM-25.0A BASE COURSE 6" VDOT #21A AGGREGATE SUBBASE ALLEY TYPICAL SECTION TMP 3-68,3-69,3-70,3-71 & 3-72 ROBINSON PLACE 27. 0' /W 11+31.27 @ 15.00 ' R = R/W LINE C. S STA 0+15.00 ALLEY CL LOT 5 LOT 6 LOT 7 LOT 8 PROPERTY STOP ON LINE (TYP) SIGN 5' C PT: 0+55.13 FINAL SITE PLAN CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 0+0 0 14'-WIDE PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT 4.5'R EX. CONC. SIDEWALK ALLEY PROP.8'-WIDE RE-2 1+00 3.5'R PRIVATE ACCESS CENTERLINE 1+91 EASEMENT FOR LOT 8 EX. FACE PC: 0+19.91 4'R OF CURB AV ELL 4.5 UE ' 0 PROP. EP 0 4.5'R 11+ PROPERTY EN 5.0 B ' 8 LINE (TYP) CA .5 ' FACE OF CURB PROP.8'-WIDE R/W LINE PRIVATE ACCESS LOT 4 LOT 3 LOT 2 LOT 1 EASEMENT FOR LOT 1 TYP. 2.0' NOTE: PROPOSED EDGE OF PAVEMENT RADIUS IS 5' FOR STOP SIGN ALL ALLEY RETURNS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. PLAN VIEW CONC. WHEEL STOP (TYP) 515 515 PROPERTY LINE NO NO NO STA 0+33.21 RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE 8 7 6 PVI STA = 0+82.02 TOP = 496.25 MH-1 (6' ID) (H=14.27') TOP = 496.00 GRATE TOP (H=8.08') 54.15° BEND 36"-DIA CMP RISER PVI ELEV = 496.94 K = 8.1 PVI STA = 0+35.59 L = 50 PVI ELEV = 500.65 510 510 PARKING PARKING PARKING PVC=0+57.02 PVT=1+07.02 PVC EL=498.94 PVT EL=496.48 L=5 STA 1+88=END ALLEY PVC EL=500.60 PVT EL=500.45 PVC=0+33.09 PVT=0+38.09 CONSTRUCTION ANYTIME ANYTIME ANYTIME 505 PROP TOP OF CURB EX GRADE 505 TOW-AWAY ZONE TOW-AWAY ZONE TOW-AWAY ZONE GRADE 2.04% -8.00 500 % 500 PROP GRADE -1.82% PROP GRADE 495 @ CL ALLEY 495 CABELL AVENUE INTX TYPE "L" TYPE "L-R" TYPE "R" STA 0+00=11+31.27 PROPOSED STORMWATER HP STA = 0+34.09 MANAGEMENT DETENTION HP EL = 500.61 SYSTEM (SEE SHEET 12 FOR "NO PARKING - TOW-AWAY ZONE" SIGN 490 DETAILS) 490 sheet title: STA 0+55.13 = PT STA 0+19.91 = PC .dwg NAME: 20.003 ROBINSON SP.dwg ALLEY PLAN SIGN DETAILS 485 485 AND PROFILE NTS AND ROADWAY DETAILS REVISIONS 0+00 + 1+00 + 2+00 2+25 DESCRIPTION DATE scale: HORIZ. 1"=20' CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #2 4/16/2021 ALLEY PROFILE VERT. 1"=5' CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #3 8/25/2021 date: CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #4 11/16/2021 6/27/2020 30 SCALE CHIT# 18.003 CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #5 02/01/2022 . . sheet # 9 OF 25 ©2021 - 30SCALE, LLC 505 505 7B 7A 4A 2 TOP = 488.83 DI-3B L=6' (H=5.58') TOP = 493.92 DI-3B L=6' TOP = 493.17 DI-3B L=6' (H=4.56') (H=4.47') PROP. MH TOP = 484.20 (H=3.75') 500 STA 10+42.00 = STORM STRUCTURE 7B 500 30 SCALE ENGINEERING 19.34' R STA 10+93.35 = STORM STRUCTURE 7A 18.51' R 495 495 owner: EX GRADE @ ROAD PRESTON COMMONS, LLC CENTERLINE 1701 ALLIED ST, SUITE B4 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 engineer: 490 STA 12+79.90 = STORM STRUCTURE 2 490 30 SCALE, LLC 26.68' R 871 JUSTIN DRIVE STA 10+27.89 = PALMYRA, VA 22963 PC TC (20.48'R) STA 11+97.63 = STORM STRUCTURE 4A p: 434.242.2866 TC EL = 494.50 18.46' R STA 12+95.70 = e: mike@30scale.com PC TC (9.67'R) web: www.30scale.com 15" INV IN = 488.71 (FROM 7B) 485 485 15" INV OUT = 489.45 (TO 7A) TC EL = 483.80 15" INV OUT = 488.61 (TO 7) END CURB CONSTRUCTION CABELL AVE STA 12+52.51 STA 10+00.00 = INTX WITH STA 12+89.70 = PC TC (16.47'R) STA 10+08.28 = PC STA 12+21.46 = PC STA 10+55.19 = PT STA 12+36.90 = PT TC EL = 483.90 480 480 15" INV OUT = 483.35 (TO 4) STA = 1+18 STA = 0+90 STA = 0+76 STA = 0+70 18" INV IN = 480.55 (FROM 3) 18" INV OUT = 480.45 (TO 1) 10+00 + 11+00 + 12+00 + 13+00 13+50 BARBOUR DRIVE PROFILE TMP 3-68,3-69,3-70,3-71 & 3-72 ROBINSON PLACE 510 510 FINAL SITE PLAN CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 3.5'=HEIGHT 132' S OF OBJECT IGHT D ISTAN CE TO P RESTO N AVEN UE INT ERSE CTION 505 505 280' SIGHT DISTAN CE TO INTX WITH 3.5'=HEIGHT ROBINSON WOODS STA 10+29.17 = CL ADA RAMP 19.04'R STA 10+20.73 = CL ADA RAMP 12.21'L OF EYE 500 500 STA 10+38.66 = PCTC (15.0'R) PROPOSED GRADE STA 12+08.13 = STA 10+00.00 = INTX WITH STA 11+31.27 = CL INTX RT PRESTON AVE STA 10+00 ALONG LINE OF SIGHT PC TC (14.98'R) PRIVATE ALLEY STA 0+00 TOP CURB ELEV = 505.50 3.5'=HEIGHT TC EL = 495.70 OF OBJECT STA 12+76.85 = PC STA 12+30.18 = PC STA 13+03.12 = PT STA 12+04.50 = PC 495 495 EX GRADE @ ROAD CENTERLINE 10+00 + 11+00 + 12+00 + 13+00 + 14+00 14+25 CABELL AVENUE PROFILE 515 515 NO ON-STREET PARKING LEFT SIDE ON-STREET PARKING STA 10+51.85 = PROP. TOP OF ALLOWED LEFT-SIDE PC TC (17.24'L) CURB GRADE AT TC EL = 505.20 NEW CURB ISLAND 510 510 PROP. GRADE AT FRONT EDGE OF ADA CONCRETE PAD 505 EX GRADE @ ROAD 505 STA 10+39.43 = CENTERLINE PC TC (16.74'L) TC EL = 505.30 STA 10+62.79 = PC TC (22.28'L) TC EL = 503.70 500 STA 10+82.87 = 500 sheet title: FRONT EDGE OF ADA .dwg NAME: 20.003 ROBINSON SP.dwg CABELL AVE STA 10+00 STA 10+00.00 = CL INTX CONC PAD (25.99'L) EXISTING ROAD STA 11+62.61 = BEGIN ON-STREET PARKING ON-STREET PARKING FIN GRADE EL = 502.80 STA 12+16.13 = END STA 10+26.28 = PC STA 10+75.77 = PC 495 495 PROFILES STA 10+76.88 = FRONT EDGE OF ADA CONC PAD (26.69'L) FIN GRADE EL = 503.09 10+00 + 11+00 + 12+00 + 13+00 REVISIONS scale: HORIZ. 1"=20' DESCRIPTION DATE PRESTON AVENUE PROFILE VERT. 1"=5' CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #2 4/16/2021 date: CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #3 8/25/2021 6/27/2020 30 SCALE CHIT# 18.003 CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #4 11/16/2021 CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #5 02/01/2022 sheet # . . 10 OF 25 ©2021 - 30SCALE, LLC 510 510 510 510 SANITARY LATERAL SCHEDULE 08-197E 08-197F 08-197G 08-197F 08-197H MH-1 MH-1 MH-1 TOP = 493.20 (H=6.51') TOP = 489.90 (H=4.54') EX. MH TOP = 490.30 TOP = 489.90 (H=4.54') MH-1 TOP = 490.00 (H=4.23') 8" INV. @ 4" INV. @ INV. @ MIN PROP TEST PIT NOTE: LOT FROM MH TO MH STA MAIN MAIN CLEANOUT FLOOR BF COMMENTS CONTRACTOR TO DIG TEST PIT TO 30 SCALE 1 EX 08-200 EX 08-201 1+17 488.24 489.82 490.19 494.19 497.00 DETERMINE EXACT DEPTH OF 8" 505 WATERMAIN AND GAS LINE AND NOTIFY 505 505 505 1+18=4" SAN LAT LOT 5 (AT MH) 1+13=4" SAN LAT LOT 6 (AT MH) 2 EX 08-200 EX 08-201 1+48 490.15 491.73 492.04 496.04 497.00 ENGINEER WITH ANY DISCREPANCIES 3 4 EX 08-200 EX 08-200 EX 08-201 EX 08-201 1+93 2+17 493.00 494.49 494.58 496.07 494.89 496.38 498.89 500.38 499.50 500.50 ENGINEERING 0+50=4" SAN LAT LOT 7 5 08-197F 08-197G 1+13 486.69 487.02 487.29 491.29 498.00 2 500 500 500 500 owner: 6 08-197F 08-197G 1+13 486.69 487.02 487.27 491.27 498.00 2 0+21=(2) 4" SAN LAT FOR EX TM 3-72 AND LOT 8 7 08-197F 08-197G 0+50 486.06 487.64 487.91 491.91 498.00 PRESTON COMMONS, LLC 1701 ALLIED ST, SUITE B4 8 08-197F 08-197H 0+21 485.77 486.10 486.31 490.31 496.00 2 PROP CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 EX LOT 08-197F 08-197H 0+21 485.77 486.10 486.45 490.45 483.00 1, 2 EX GRADE GRADE engineer: 495 495 495 495 30 SCALE, LLC EX GRADE 871 JUSTIN DRIVE COMMENTS: PALMYRA, VA 22963 1) HUNG SEWER p: 434.242.2866 e: mike@30scale.com 2) SEWER LATERAL CONNECTION IS TO SEWER MANHOLE 490 36" MIN. 1' MIN 490 490 490 web: www.30scale.com COVER CLR MIN 1' CLR 1' CLR 1' CLR MIN 1' CLR WATER DEMAND CALCULATIONS N SEW @ 1.00% 113 LF - 8" PVC SDR 26 SA 485 485 485 485 METRIC DEMAND COMMENTS EX. 8" AVERAGE WATER DEMAND (AWD) 3,500 GPD 350 GPD PER UNIT PVC 36 LF - 8" PVC SDR 26 SAN SEW @ 0.50% 21 LF - 8" PVC SDR 26 SAN SEW @ 1.00% PEAK HOUR DEMAND (PHD) 9.7 GPM 4 x (AWD) / 1,440 STA 0+26=EX. GAS MAIN X-ING MAXIMUM DAILY DEMAND (MDD) 7,000 GPD 2 x (AWD) 480 480 480 480 STA 0+09=EX. 8" WM X-ING MAXIMUM HOURLY DEMAND (MHD) 4.9 GPM 2 x (AWD) / 1,440 4" INV. IN = 486.10 (FROM EX. TM 3-72) WAT LAT X-ING (LOT 7) WAT LAT X-ING (LOT 6) 8" INV IN = 485.56 (FROM 08-197G) 8" INV IN = 485.56 (FROM 08-197H) 8" INV IN = 485.18 (FROM 08-197F) 8" INV IN = 485.56 (FROM 08-197G) 8" INV IN = 485.56 (FROM 08-197H) 8" INV OUT = 485.36 (TO 08-197E) 8" INV OUT = 485.36 (TO 08-197E) 8" INV OUT = 485.77 (TO 08-197F) 8" INV OUT = 486.69 (TO 08-197F) 4" INV IN = 486.10 (FROM LOT 8) 475 475 WAT LAT X-ING 475 475 SEWER FLOW CALCULATIONS TMP 3-68,3-69,3-70,3-71 & 3-72 ROBINSON PLACE STA 0+53 STA 0+91 STA 1+44 METRIC FLOW COMMENTS AVERAGE SEWER FLOW 3,500 GPD 350 GPD PER UNIT 470 470 470 470 STA = 0+00 STA = 0+36 STA = 0+36 STA = 0+21 STA = 1+49 FINAL SITE PLAN CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA UTILITY NOTES 0+00 + 1+00 + 1+85 0+00 + 1+00 a. PER THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WATERWORKS REGULATIONS (PART II, ARTICLE 3, SAN 08-197E (EX) TO 08-197F TO 08-179G PROFILE SAN 08-197F TO 08-179H PROFILE SECTION 12 VAC 5-590 THROUGH 630), ALL BUILDINGS THAT HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF CONTAMINATING THE POTABLE WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (HOSPITALS, INDUSTRIAL SITES, BREWERIES, ETC.) SHALL HAVE A BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE INSTALLED WITHIN THE FACILITY. THIS DEVICE SHALL MEET SPECIFICATIONS OF THE VIRGINIA UNIFORM STATEWIDE 11.8" VALVE COVER BUILDING CODE, SHALL BE TESTED IN REGULAR INTERVALS AS REQUIRED, AND TEST RESULTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE REGULATORY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR IN THE DEPARTMENT OF UTILITIES. EXISTING FACE OF CURB b. ALL BUILDINGS THAT MAY PRODUCE WASTES CONTAINING MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED (100) NOTE: DIMENSIONS TO APPROX. CENTERLINE OF WATER APPURTENANCES PARTS PER MILLION OF FATS, OIL, OR GREASE SHALL INSTALL A GREASE TRAP. THE GREASE EX. 8" WATERMAIN EVEN ARE BASED ON MUELLER TRAP SHALL MEET SPECIFICATIONS OF THE VIRGINIA UNIFORM STATEWIDE BUILDING CODE, WITH FACE OF CURB WATER DISTRIBUTION MAINTAIN RECORDS OF CLEANING AND MAINTENANCE, AND BE INSPECTED ON REGULAR 14.8" INTERVALS BY THE REGULATORY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR IN THE DEPARTMENT OF PRODUCTS 2" SM-9.5A ASPHALT EX. 8" WATERMAIN UTILITIES. SURFACE COURSE TACK TACK c. PLEASE CONTACT THE REGULATORY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR AT 970-3032 WITH ANY 4" BM-25.0A AND SEAL AND SEAL 8X6 TAPPING SLEEVE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE GREASE TRAP OR BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICES. BASE COURSE 9.3" 11" AND VALVE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE 515 TEST PIT NOTE: 515 EX. ASPHALT CONTRACTOR TO DIG TEST PIT TO DETERMINE EXACT DEPTH OF 8" TS&V DETAIL WATERMAIN AND NOTIFY ENGINEER DUCT BANK WITH ANY DISCREPANCIES 36" MINIMUM COVER 6" COMPACTED 6" 510 510 510 510 INSTALLATION NOTES EXISTING VDOT #21A TEST PIT NOTE: CONTRACTOR TO DIG TEST PIT TO DETERMINE STONE EXACT DEPTH OF 8" WATERMAIN AND GAS LINE AND 1. SECURE DUCT SEPARATORS/SPACERS TO THE EARTH AND THE SUB-BASE NOTIFY ENGINEER WITH ANY DISCREPANCIES DUCTS TO PREVENT FLOATING DURING CONCRETING. 2. PROVIDE NO LESS THAN 5 SPACERS PER 20 FEET OF DUCT. 505 505 505 505 3. ARRANGE RE-BAR RODS AND TIES WITHOUT FORMING DUCT BANK CONDUCTIVE OR MAGNETIC LOOPS AROUND THE DUCTS. MARKING TAPE 4. PERFORM ONE POUR AND INSTALL EXPANSION FITTINGS PER 31" MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. PROP GRADE 6" 4" 3.5" 4" 3.5" 4" 6" 5. SPADE CONCRETE DURING POURS TO PREVENT VOIDS UNDER AND BETWEEN CONDUITS AND AT EXTERIOR SURFACE OF 500 500 500 PROP GRADE 500 EX GRADE 6" ENVELOPE 3,000 PSI 6. USE WALLS OF TRENCH TO FORM SIDE WALLS OF DUCT BANK CONCRETE EX GRADE WHERE SOIL IS SELF-SUPPORTING AND CONCRETE ENVELOPE ENCASEMENT #4 REBAR 18" OCEW 4" CAN BE POURED WITHOUT SOIL INCLUSIONS; OTHERWISE, USE FORMS. 2.0' (6)-4" PVC CONDUITS 495 495 495 495 4" 7. DO NOT ALLOW A HEAVY MASS OF CONCRETE TO FALL DIRECTLY SIDE-BY-SIDE AND 36" MIN. ON DUCTS. COVER CENTER OF VALVE 4" OVER-UNDER WITH IS 14.8" FROM CURB 1' CLR 8. USE A PLANK TO DIRECT CONCRETE DOWN SIDES OF BANK SEPARATORS/SPACERS - SEE ASSEMBLY TO TRENCH BOTTOM. ALLOW CONCRETE TO FLOW TO 1' CLR (SEE TS&V DETAIL) STA 0+03=EX. GAS MAIN X-ING INSTALLATION NOTES 6" CENTER OF BANK AND RUSE UP IN MIDDLE, UNIFORMLY FILLING 6" #57 GRAVEL BEDDING sheet title: ALL OPEN SPACES. 490 490 490 490 .dwg NAME: 20.003 ROBINSON SP.dwg 9. DO NOT USE POWER-DRIVEN AGITATING EQUIPMENT. 7.5" 7.5" CONCRETE DUCT EX. 8" WATERMAIN SANITARY SEWER BANK (SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET) 6" CL 52 DIP WATERMAIN WATERMAIN AND COMPACTED SUBGRADE DUCT BANK EX. 8" WATERMAIN CROSSING END CONCRETE DUCT BANK 485 485 485 485 PROFILES CONCRETE DUCT BANK DUCT BANK TYPICAL SECTION STA 0+03.34 = BEGIN STA 0+29 = FHA REVISIONS 480 480 480 480 STA 0+56.95 = scale: HORIZ. 1"=20' STA 0+9.50 = DESCRIPTION DATE STA 0+00 = 8X6 TS&V CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #2 4/16/2021 date: VERT. 1"=5' CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #3 8/25/2021 6/27/2020 30 SCALE CHIT# 18.003 CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #4 11/16/2021 0+00 + 0+75 0+00 + 0+60 CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #5 02/01/2022 sheet # . . DUCT BANK PROFILE 6-IN MAIN TO FH PROFILE 11OF 25 ©2021 - 30SCALE, LLC 510 510 STORM SEWER PIPE TABLE X16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 DI-1 MOD. JB-1 TOP = 496.00 GRATE TOP TOP = 491.00 SOLID TOP (H=3.65') (H=8.08') 36"-DIA CMP RISER 36"-DIA CMP RISER TOP = 483.36 (H=3.28') 50.37° BEND TOP = 490.00 (H=9.19') 54.15° BEND TOP = 496.25 (H=14.27') MH-1 (6' ID) PROP. MH TOP = 484.20 (H=3.75') FROM TO LENGTH DIA INV DOWN INV UP SLOPE MATERIAL (H=3.35') TOP = 483.25 EX. INLET X16 1 5' 18 480.00 480.08 1.00% REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE (CL IV) 505 505 7A 7 7B 7A 49' 86' 15 15 488.71 485.40 489.45 488.61 1.38% 3.59% REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE 30 SCALE ENGINEERING 7 8 8' 72 481.92 481.98 0.50% * 500 500 6 7 31' 72 481.75 481.92 0.50% TEST PIT NOTE: * CONTRACTOR TO DIG TEST PIT owner: 5 6 38' 72 481.53 481.75 0.50% TO DETERMINE EXACT DEPTH * OF GAS LINE AND CONTACT THE EX GRADE PRESTON COMMONS, LLC 4 5 32' 72 481.35 481.53 0.50% GAS COMPANY FOR GAS LINE 1701 ALLIED ST, SUITE B4 * RELOCATION IF REQUIRED. CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 4 4A 55' 15 482.71 483.36 1.10% REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE 495 495 engineer: 3 4 66' 72 481.00 481.35 0.50% 30 SCALE, LLC * NOTE:PIPE FROM X16 TO 2 SHALL BE CL IV REINFORCED PROP GRADE 871 JUSTIN DRIVE 2 3 49' 18 480.55 480.81 0.50% REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE TOP = 489.00 PALMYRA, VA 22963 CONCRETE PIPE SINCE THE 2' REFER TO SHEET 13 FOR GRAVEL MINIMUM COVER CAN NOT BE TRENCH CONSTRUCTION DETAILS p: 434.242.2866 1 2 59' 18 480.14 480.45 0.50% REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE (CL IV) 490 MAINTAINED 490 e: mike@30scale.com web: www.30scale.com * USE 72"-DIA CORRUGATED TYPE 2 ALUMINUM PIPE (PERFORATED) (16 GA) NOTE: REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE SHALL BE CL III UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. APPROX. GAS X-ING 485 485 186-LF 72" PERF CAP (TYPE 2) @ 0.50% STORM SEWER STRUCTURE TABLE STR# TYPE TOP ELEV HEIGHT (FT) CONNECTING PIPES INLET SHAPING ? STEPS ? 49' - PROP 18" RCP @ 0.50% 18" INV IN = 480.00 X16 EX. DI 483.25 3.35 NO (EX STR) NO (EX STR) 24" INV OUT = 479.90 480 NOTE: STORMWATER DETENTION SYSTEM TO 480 18" INV IN = 480.14 1 DI-1 483.36 3.28 YES YES BE PRIVATELY OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY 18" INV OUT = 480.04 59' - PROP 18" (CL IV) RCP @ 0.50% 186-LF 12'-WIDE BY 7' DEEP GRAVEL TRENCH THE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY - EX. 24" EX. 24" INV OUT = 479.90 (TO X15) 18" INV IN = 480.55 5' - PROP 18" (CL IV) RCP @ 1.00% REFER TO INSTALLATION AND INSPECTION 2 MH-1 484.20 3.75 18" INV OUT = 480.45 YES YES OUT SCHEDULE ON SHEET ## 6" ROOF DRAIN INV. IN =485.15 15" INV IN = 482.71 (FROM 4A) 15" INV IN = 485.40 (FROM 7A) 18" INV IN = 480.00 (FROM 1) 18" INV IN = 480.14 (FROM 3) 18" INV IN = 480.55 (FROM 3) 475 475 72" INV IN = 481.35 (FROM 5) 72" INV IN = 481.53 (FROM 6) 72" INV IN = 481.92 (FROM 8) 72" INV IN = 481.00 (FROM 4) 72" INV IN = 481.75 (FROM 7) 72" INV IN = 481.00 18" INV OUT = 480.04 (TO 1) 18" INV OUT = 480.45 (TO 1) 72" INV OUT = 481.98 (TO 7) 72" INV OUT = 481.35 (TO 3) 72" INV OUT = 481.53 (TO 4) 3 MOD JB-1 490.00 9.19 YES YES 72" INV OUT = 481.92 (TO 6) 72" INV OUT = 481.75 (TO 5) 18" INV OUT = 480.81 (TO 2) 18" INV OUT = 480.81 15" INV IN = 482.71 TMP 3-68,3-69,3-70,3-71 & 3-72 36" RISER ROBINSON PLACE 4 491.00 9.66 72" INV IN = 481.35 N/A YES SOLID TOP 72" INV OUT = 481.35 4A D-3B L=6' 488.63 5.58 15" INV. OUT = 483.36 YES YES 470 470 STA = 15+24 STA = 15+24 STA = 0+00 STA = 0+08 STA = 0+70 STA = 1+93 STA = 2+30 STA = 1+23 STA = 2+73 5 50.37° BEND N/A N/A 72" INV IN = 481.53 N/A YES FINAL SITE PLAN 6 54.15° BEND N/A N/A 72" INV IN = 481.75 N/A YES CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 15" INV IN = 485.40 36" RISER 7 496.00 8.08 72" INV IN = 481.92 N/A YES GRATE TOP 72" INV OUT = 481.92 0+00 + 1+00 + 2+00 + 3+00 + 3+75 15" INV IN = 488.71 7A D-3B L=6' 493.17 4.56 YES YES 15" INV OUT = 488.61 7B D-3B L=6' 493.92 4.47 15" INV. OUT = 489.45 YES YES STORM SEWER X16-8 PROFILE 8 MH-1 496.25 14.27 72" INV OUT = 481.98 YES YES RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE 510 510 505 505 PROPERTY LINE 7 7A 7B 4 4A TOP = 488.83 DI-3B L=6' (H=5.58') TOP = 491.00 SOLID TOP (H=3.65') TOP = 496.00 GRATE TOP 36"-DIA CMP RISER (H=8.08') 36"-DIA CMP RISER TOP = 493.17 DI-3B L=6' (H=4.56') TOP = 493.92 DI-3B L=6' (H=4.47') STORM SEWER DESIGN COMPUTATIONS NOTE: RUNOFF CALCULATIONS ARE BASED ON THE RATIONAL METHOD, VELOCITY AND CAPACITY CALC'S ARE BASED ON THE MANNING'S FORMULA. 505 505 500 500 PROP GRADE AC FROM TO A (INC) C AC (INC) Q (INC) Q (ACC) DIA L INV UP INV DN S n Tc V2 Qcap (ACC) EX GRADE EX GRADE (AC) (AC) (CFS) (AC) (CFS) (IN) (FT) (FT) (FT) (%) (MIN) (FPS) (CFS) 500 500 495 495 PROP 7B 7A 0.46 0.80 0.37 2.69 0.37 2.70 15 57 489.45 488.71 1.20 0.013 5 5.3 7 GRADE 7A 7 0.12 0.66 0.08 0.60 0.45 3.28 15 92 488.61 485.40 3.35 0.013 5 5.6 7 7 6 0.00 0.45 3.28 72 31 481.92 481.75 0.50 0.013 5 495 495 490 490 6 5 0.00 0.45 3.28 72 38 481.75 481.53 0.50 0.013 5 5 4 0.00 0.45 3.28 72 32 481.53 481.35 0.50 0.013 5 SWM FACILITY SWM FACILITY 4 3 0.00 0.56 4.08 72 66 481.35 481.00 0.50 0.013 5 1' CLR 490 49' - PROP 15" RCP @ 1.38% 490 485 485 8 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 72 8 481.98 481.92 0.50 0.013 5 55' - PROP 15" RCP @ 1.10% @ 3.59% 5" RCP 1' CLR 86' - PROP 1 4A 4 0.14 0.79 0.11 0.80 0.80 0.66 15 61 483.36 482.71 1.00 0.013 5 7.6 9 485 485 480 480 STA 1+21= 4" SAN LAT X-ING (LOT 6) STA 1+25= 4" SAN LAT X-ING (LOT 5) STA 1+15= DOM WTR X-ING (LOT 6) STA 1+32= DOM WTR X-ING (LOT 5) ROOF 3 0.02 0.90 0.02 0.13 0.02 0.15 OVERLAND 3 0.32 0.47 0.15 1.10 0.15 1.10 CALCULATION OF RUNOFF TO STRUCTURE 3 DROP INLET OFFSITE 3 0.10 0.90 0.09 0.66 0.09 0.66 15" INV IN = 482.71 (FROM 4A) 15" INV IN = 488.71 (FROM 7B) 15" INV IN = 485.40 (FROM 7A) 480 480 475 475 72" INV IN = 481.35 (FROM 5) 72" INV IN = 481.92 (FROM 8) 15" INV OUT = 489.45 (TO 7A) 15" INV OUT = 483.36 (TO 4) 72" INV OUT = 481.35 (TO 3) 15" INV OUT = 488.61 (TO 7) 72" INV OUT = 481.92 (TO 6) TOTAL 3 0.26 1.90 SEE SWM ROUTINGS FOR PEAK 3 2 0.00 4.85 18 49 480.81 480.55 0.50 0.013 5 4.3 7 FLOW CALCS 2 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.85 18 59 480.45 480.15 0.50 0.013 5 4.3 7 475 475 470 470 STA = 15+24 STA = 0+76 STA = 1+93 STA = 0+90 STA = 1+18 1 X16 0.32 0.80 0.26 1.89 6.74 18 5 480.05 480.00 1.00 0.013 5 6.4 11 X16 X15 0.15 0.70 0.11 0.77 7.51 24 144 479.90 479.90 4.07 0.013 5 10.6 46 sheet title: .dwg NAME: 20.003 ROBINSON SP.dwg 0+00 + 1+00 + 1+75 0+00 + 1+00 STORM SEWER PROFILES AND STORM SEWER INLET COMPUTATIONS NOTE: Q10 WAS USED FOR STRUCTURE 3 STORM SEWER 7-7A-7B PROFILE STORM SEWER 4-4A PROFILE COMPUTATIONS THROAT GRADE/ GUTTER LOCAL MAX STR # TYPE PCs GLs n GCs Q2 CAPTURE SPREAD LENGTH SUMP WIDTH DEPRESSION SPREAD REVISIONS (FT) % % % (FT) (IN) (CFS) (%) (FT) DESCRIPTION DATE CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #2 4/16/2021 scale: HORIZ. 1"=20' 7B DI-3B 6 GRADE 2.08 1.50 0.013 8.33 2.00 2.0 2.02 79% 8.00 6.35 CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #3 8/25/2021 VERT. 1"=5' 7A DI-3B 6 GRADE 2.08 1.87 0.013 8.33 2.00 2.0 0.44 98% 8.00 3.16 date: CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #4 11/16/2021 6/27/2020 30 SCALE CHIT# 18.003 4A DI-3B 6 GRADE 2.08 6.90 0.013 8.33 2.00 2.0 0.61 88% 8.00 1.60 CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #5 02/01/2022 3 DI-1 SUMP -- -- -- -- -- -- 1.90 100% -- 5.40 . . 1 DI-1 GRADE 2.08 3.80 0.013 8.33 0.75 0.0 1.42 46% -- 12.00 sheet # X16 EX YI 3 SUMP 2.08 0.00 0.013 8.33 1.00 0.0 0.60 100% -- 10.43 12 OF 25 ©2021 - 30SCALE, LLC TRENCH CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA CALCULATIONS MH TOP ELEV = 490.00 GRAVEL PORTION = 61.13 SF AVAILABLE FOR STORAGE = 24.45 SF (40% VOIDS) PROPOSED DI-1 TOP PIPE PORTION = 26.27 SF PROPOSED GRADE GRADE ELEV = 489.00 SEE TOP TREATMENT PROPOSED TOTAL CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA = 50.72 SF DETAIL THIS SHEET FOR GRADE TOP MH=490.00 36" CMP RISERS 72"-DIAMETER CORRUGATED TYPE 2 ALUMINUM PIPE (16 GA) W/ 3"X1" CORRUGATIONS TOP DI-1=489.00 TOP=488.3 TOP=488.3 72"-DIAMETER CORRUGATED TYPE 2 ALUMINUM PIPE (16 GA) W/ 3"X1" CORRUGATIONS (3/8"-DIA PERFORATIONS) BACKFILL MATERIAL TO MEET AASHTO A-1, A-2 30 SCALE ENGINEERING (3/8" -DIA PERFORATIONS) OR A-3 CLASSIFICATION OR APPROVED 0.67' 0.67' EQUAL. COMPACTED TO 90% STANDARD 36"-DIA CMP RISER PROCTOR (T-99). MAXIMUM PARTICLE SIZE owner: 6' L WEIR INV = 486.5 NOT TO EXCEED 3", PLACE IN MAX 8" PRESTON COMMONS, LLC 1.17' 6' L WEIR UNCOMPACTED LIFTS TO MAINTAIN LESS 1701 ALLIED ST, SUITE B4 INV = 486.5 GRAVEL TRENCH THAN A 24" DIFFERENTIAL OF STONE BACKFILL CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 STEP ON SIDES OF PIPE. MIN 12" DEPTH OF STONE 12" OVERLAP BEYOND (SEE SECTION 10-YR WSE=486.03 ABOVE TOP OF PIPE. engineer: 0.5' C-C THIS SHEET) 0.67' 4.0' 0.67' 4.0' 0.67' 30 SCALE, LLC STEP 871 JUSTIN DRIVE 6" L WEIR 2.5' MIRAFI 140N FILTER FABRIC INV=484.0 PALMYRA, VA 22963 12" MIN. OR EQUIVALENT (ALL SIDES p: 434.242.2866 OF TRENCH WITH 12" 6.67' 6" L WEIR 8.0' 8.0' e: mike@30scale.com INV=484.0 OVERLAP AT TOP) EB WSE=483.86 web: www.30scale.com 5.50' 5.5' 36"H X 18"W (2)TRASH 18" INV 0.67' TRASH RACK 6.00' 0.67' RACKS OUT = 18"H X 8"W 7.45' 72" INV IN = 481.00 (2)1/2" DIA. 480.81 TRASH 3.0' 72"-DIA 3.0' ORIFICES (2) - 1/2" DIA. RACK CORRUGATED ALUMINUM INV(1)=481.00 ORIFICES 0.5% INV(2)=482.00 PIPE (TYPE 2) 16 GA INV(1)=481.00 HAUNCH ZONE 0.67' 0.67' 8" INV(2)=482.00 6" 3.6' 6" MIN. 18" INV OUT = 10.0' 480.81 INV = 481.00 7.34' GRAVEL TRENCH BEYOND COMPACTED SUBGRADE (SEE C-C THIS SHEET) COMPACTED SUBGRADE 12.00' TMP 3-68,3-69,3-70,3-71 & 3-72 COMPACTED SUBGRADE ROBINSON PLACE HAUNCH ZONE MATERIAL TO BE SECTION A-A SECTION B-B MIN. 6" #57 STONE BEDDING HAND SHOVELED OR SHOVEL SCALE: 1"=2' SCALE: 1"=2' (UNCOMPACTED) SLICED INTO PLACE TO ALLOW FOR PROPER COMPACTION STRUCTURE 3 CROSS-SECTIONS FINAL SITE PLAN CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA SECTION C-C SCALE: 1"=2' STRUCTURE 3 NOTES: 1. CONSTRUCTION OF STRUCTURE 3 TO CONFORM TO VDOT STD. JB-1 EXCEPT AS DIMENSIONALLY MODIFIED AS SHOWN. GRAVEL SWM TRENCH CROSS-SECTION 2. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE SHOP DRAWING FOR ENGINEER APPROVAL PRIOR TO ORDERING STRUCTURE 3 FOR FABRICATION. C PROVIDE HS-25 RATED 5'X5' OR 5'-DIAMETER MANHOLE OR GRATE FRAME CONCRETE COLLAR - MAY BE AND COVER AS SPECIFIED PRECAST OR CAST-IN PLACE. ON PLANS. MAY BE FLUSH FOR CAST-IN PLACE, PROVIDE WITH TOP OF CONCRETE #5 REBAR @ 9"OCEW TOP AND TOP DI-1 = 489.00 COLLAR OR RECESSED. BOTTOM PROP. GRADE B 5.0' STEP 0.67' 18" INV OUT 8" =480.85 1.0' 0.67' 0.67' 6' L WEIR 0.67' INV = 486.5 24" OPENING 6" L WEIR 6.00' 1" GAP (ALL SIDES) INV=484.0 7.34' TOP MH= GASKET MATERIAL SUFFICIENT (2) TRASH 490.00 TO PREVENT SLAB FROM 36"-DIA CMP RISER, A RACKS A BEARING ON RISER PROVIDE STEPS AS STEP NEEDED (2) - 1/2" DIA. ORIFICES H-12 HUGGER BAND DETAIL INV(1)=481.00 NOT TO SCALE INV(2)=482.00 TOP TREATMENT OF 36" CMP RISERS SCALE: 1"=1' 0.67' 4.00' 4.00' B GRAVEL TRENCH BEYOND (SEE 10.0' C-C THIS SHEET) N C sheet title: .dwg NAME: 20.003 ROBINSON SP.dwg STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE 3 PLAN VIEW SCALE: 1"=2' CONSTRUCTION DETAILS REVISIONS scale: DESCRIPTION DATE AS SHOWN CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #2 4/16/2021 date: CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #3 8/25/2021 6/27/2020 30 SCALE CHIT# 18.003 CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #4 11/16/2021 CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #5 02/01/2022 sheet # RISER BAND DETAIL . . 13 OF 25 NOT TO SCALE ©2021 - 30SCALE, LLC OVERLAND RELIEF SECTION A-A Q100 = 16 CFS (MAX TO DETENTION) TO STR 7B DA=0.46 AC 30 SCALE ENGINEERING USING MANNING'S FORMULA: S=0.5% n=0.03 C=0.80 N owner: d100=0.81 FT PRESTON COMMONS, LLC WSE100=484.81 1701 ALLIED ST, SUITE B4 FLOW AREA=7.35 SF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 WETTED PERIMETER=14.8 FT TOP WIDTH = 14.4' engineer: 30 SCALE, LLC FREEBOARD=1.7' CABELL AVENUE 871 JUSTIN DRIVE PALMYRA, VA 22963 TM 3-72 p: 434.242.2866 30' FF=493.0 e: mike@30scale.com web: www.30scale.com 10' 11' 9' #107 FF=486.5 100-YR WSE= 87. 0+ 484.81 6.0 +8 9:1 . 5+ +8 5.5:1 84 04 20:1 4.0 02 98 00 TO STR 7A RD RD DA=0.12 AC BARBOUR DRIVE RD TO STR 3 RD C=0.66 96 #1132 OVERLAND RELIEF SECTION B-B RD LOT 4 DA=0.32 AC #101 5,036 SF LOT 5 TMP 3-68,3-69,3-70,3-71 & 3-72 C=0.47 ROBINSON PLACE 06 4,424 SF RD RD RD 04 Q100 = 16 CFS (MAX TO DETENTION) RD USING MANNING'S FORMULA: #1134 S=0.5% LOT 3 #103 3,165 SF RD LOT 6 n=0.03 FINAL SITE PLAN RD 2,805 SF CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA d100=0.83 FT RD WSE100=490.33 TO STR 1 02 FLOW AREA=7.0 SF RD 94 DA=0.32 AC 96 WETTED PERIMETER=13.0 FT TOP WIDTH = 12.9' 98 C=0.80 00 FREEBOARD=2.7' RD 02 RD 04 RD 20' TM 3-72 RD #1140 RD FF=493.0 LOT 2 10' 4' 6' 3,116 SF LOT 7 100-YR WSE= RD 2,847 SF 91 1.0 490.33 .0 +9 + RD 96 6.7:1 4:1 RD .5 + .5 + RD 89 89 #1142 96 #107 98 LOT 1 RD D9 4,343 SF #R10 04 LOT 8 02 00 4,822 SF 94 RD RD RD 96 98 94 TO STR 4A 92 PRE 00 00 DA=0.14 AC RD C=0.79 STO RD 92 NA 90 90 VEN RD RD UE TO STR 3 #113 (OFFSITE) 88 UNDETAINED "A" DA=0.10 AC EX TM 3-72 F 92 02 S (VIA SHEET FLOW) C=0.90 RD 6,1 DA=0.15 AC #115 C=0.42 A B RD 86 sheet title: TO STR 3 .dwg NAME: 20.003 ROBINSON SP.dwg (VIA ROOF DRAIN) DRAINAGE 88 DA=0.02 AC UNDETAINED "B" DIVIDES B C=0.90 (VIA SHEET FLOW) DA=0.10 AC A C=0.54 REVISIONS scale: DESCRIPTION DATE 1"=20' CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #2 4/16/2021 TO STR X16 date: CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #3 8/25/2021 DA=0.15 AC % 6/27/2020 30 SCALE CHIT# 18.003 .07 @4 CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #4 11/16/2021 C=0.70 - 24 " RC P CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #5 02/01/2022 14 4 LF sheet # EX . . 14 OF 25 ©2021 - 30SCALE, LLC EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NARRATIVE NOTE: NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DIVISION 48 HOURS PRIOR CLEANUP TO MAINTAIN THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE EROSION CONTROL DEVICES SHALL B. SURFACE RUNOFF FROM DISTURBED AREAS THAT IS COMPRISED OF FLOW FROM 4. EXCAVATE FOR AND BEGIN INSTALLATION OF 72” CMP PIPE AND GRAVEL TRENCH TO ANY LAND DISTURBANCE IN ORDER TO SCHEDULE A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING. BE MADE IMMEDIATELY. DRAINAGE AREAS GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THREE ACRES SHALL BE CONTROLLED BY DETENTION SYSTEM. SCALE 11. ALL FILL MATERIAL TO BE TAKEN FROM AN APPROVED, DESIGNATED BORROW AREA. A SEDIMENT BASIN. THE MINIMUM STORAGE CAPACITY OF A SEDIMENT BASIN SHALL BE 134 5. INSTALL 15” STORM SEWER PIPE FROM STRUCTURE 4 TO 4A AND 7 TO 7A TO 7B AS 72” PIPE 30 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 12. ALL WASTE MATERIALS SHALL BE TAKEN TO AN APPROVED WASTE AREA. EARTH FILL CUBIC YARDS PER ACRE OF DRAINAGE AREA. THE OUTFALL SYSTEM SHALL, AT A MINIMUM, AND GRAVEL TRENCH ARE INSTALLED. THE PURPOSE OF THIS PLAN IS TO CONSTRUCT FOUR DUPLEX UNITS AND ONE TWO-FAMILY SHALL BE INERT MATERIALS ONLY, FREE OF ROOTS, STUMPS, WOOD, RUBBISH, AND OTHER MAINTAIN THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE BASIN DURING A 25-YEAR STORM OF 6. BEGIN CONSTRUCTION OF MODEL HOME ON LOTS 3 AND 4. ENGINEERING DWELLING ON ON THE 0.854-ACRE PARCEL OF LAND, CURRENTLY ZONED R-2. ALSO INCLUDED DEBRIS. 24-HOUR DURATION. RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS USED IN RUNOFF CALCULATIONS SHALL 7. STABILIZE THE REMAINDER OF THE SITE NOT TO BE BUILT OR PAVED UPON WITH WILL BE THE INSTALLATION OF CURB AND GUTTER AND SIDEWALK ALONG THE SITE FRONTAGE 13. BORROW, FILL OR WASTE ACTIVITY SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN A SAFE MANNER THAT CORRESPOND TO A BARE EARTH CONDITION OR THOSE CONDITIONS EXPECTED TO EXIST PERMANENT SEEDING AND MULCH. WITH CABELL AVENUE AND BARBOUR DRIVE. THE DEVELOPER WILL ALSO NEED TO EXTEND MAINTAINS LATERAL SUPPORT, OR ORDER TO MINIMIZE ANY HAZARD TO PERSONS, WHILE THE SEDIMENT BASIN IS UTILIZED. 8. PROVIDE TEMPORARY SEEDING AND MULCH ON THE REMAINING PAD SITES. PUBLIC SEWER TO SERVE THE UNITS THAT FRONT ON BARBOUR DRIVE. PHYSICAL DAMAGE TO ADJACENT LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS, AND DAMAGE TO ANY PUBLIC 7. CUT AND FILL SLOPES SHALL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED IN A MANNER THAT WILL 9. PROVIDE INLET PROTECTION FOR INLETS 3, 4A, 7A AND 7B ONLY AFTER SITE IS STABILIZED. STREET BECAUSE OF SLIDES, SINKING, OR COLLAPSE. MINIMIZE EROSION. SLOPES THAT ARE FOUND TO BE ERODING EXCESSIVELY WITHIN ONE 10. REMOVE SEDIMENT TRAP #1 AFTER PERMISSION FROM THE CITY E&S INSPECTOR IS EXISTING CONDITIONS YEAR OF PERMANENT STABILIZATION SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH ADDITIONAL SLOPE GRANTED, AND GRADE PAD SITE ON TO EXISTING TMP 3-72. THE SEDIMENT TRAP SHALL owner: THE SITE IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED WITH TREES AND LAWN AREA COVERING THE SITE. STANDARD CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE E&S NOTES STABILIZING MEASURES UNTIL THE PROBLEM IS CORRECTED. NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL PERMISSION FROM THE CITY E&S INSPECTOR IS GRANTED. PRESTON COMMONS, LLC THE SITE SLOPES GENTLY FROM NORTHWEST TO SOUTHEAST ACROSS THE PROPERTY AT 8. CONCENTRATED RUNOFF SHALL NOT FLOW DOWN CUT OR FILL SLOPES UNLESS 11. PROVIDE TEMPORARY SEEDING ON EXISTING TMP 3-72. 1701 ALLIED ST, SUITE B4 SLOPES RANGING FROM 5% TO 8%. THERE IS A SIX-FOOT HIGH BANK THAT FRONTS ON A. CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE (CE) SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO THE INITIATION OF CONTAINED WITHIN AN ADEQUATE TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT CHANNEL, FLUME OR 12. WORK MAY BEGIN ON EACH PAD SITE AS MARKET CONDITIONS DICTATE. CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 PRESTON AVENUE. OVERALL SITE CLEARING AND GRUBBING OPERATIONS. SLOPE DRAIN STRUCTURE. 13. PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK ON EACH PAD SITE, PERIMETER SILT FENCE, DUMPSTER, B. SEDIMENT BASINS AND TRAPS, PERIMETER DIKES, SEDIMENT BARRIERS, AND OTHER 9. WHENEVER WATER SEEPS FROM A SLOPE FACE, ADEQUATE DRAINAGE OR OTHER LAVATORY, PAINT AND CONCRETE WASHOUT AREAS ARE TO BE PROVIDED IN CONVENIENT engineer: ADJACENT AREAS MEASURES INTENDED TO TRAP SEDIMENT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AS A FIRST STEP IN PROTECTION SHALL BE PROVIDED. LOCATION AS COORDINATED BETWEEN THE BUILDER AND THE CITY E&S INSPECTOR. 30 SCALE, LLC THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES ARE RESIDENTIALLY ZONED. THE SITE IS BOUNDED BY PRESTON ANY LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITY AND SHALL BE MADE FUNCTIONAL BEFORE UPSLOPE LAND 10. ALL STORM SEWER INLETS THAT ARE MADE OPERABLE DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE 14. ONCE ALL BUILDING LOTS ARE COMPLETED AND PERMISSION IS GRANTED FROM CITY E&S 871 JUSTIN DRIVE AVENUE, CABELL AVENUE EXTENDED AND BARBOUR DRIVE. DISTURBANCE TAKES PLACE. THE BASIN(S) ARE TO BE KEPT CLEAR OF DEBRIS AND PROTECTED SO THAT SEDIMENT-LADEN WATER CANNOT ENTER THE CONVEYANCE INSPECTOR, REMOVE ALL E&S MEASURES TO INCLUDE DIVERSION DIKES, SILT FENCE, PALMYRA, VA 22963 SEDIMENTS SHALL BE CLEANED OUT PERIODICALLY DURING AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION SYSTEM WITHOUT FIRST BEING FILTERED OR OTHERWISE TREATED TO REMOVE SEDIMENT. STONE, TRASH, DEBRIS, AND CLEANUP STATIONS. p: 434.242.2866 SOIL DESCRIPTIONS ACTIVITIES. CARE SHALL BE TAKEN NOT TO PUMP SEDIMENT OUT WHEN DEWATERING 11. BEFORE NEWLY CONSTRUCTED STORMWATER CONVEYANCE CHANNELS OR PIPES ARE e: mike@30scale.com THE SITE IS CHARACTERIZED BY CULPEPER SOILS (121D) SOILS. CULPEPER BELONGS TO TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAPS, BASINS, TRENCHES, OR OTHER LOW-LYING AREAS. ALL MADE OPERATIONAL, ADEQUATE OUTLET PROTECTION AND ANY REQUIRED TEMPORARY web: www.30scale.com HYDROLOGIC GROUP C. PUMPING SHALL BE ROUTED THROUGH AN APPROVED DEWATERING DEVICE PRIOR TO OR PERMANENT CHANNEL LINING SHALL BE INSTALLED IN BOTH THE CONVEYANCE DISCHARGING. CHANNEL AND RECEIVING CHANNEL. CRITICAL AREAS C. ALL TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES 12. WHEN WORK IN A LIVE WATERCOURSE IS PERFORMED, PRECAUTIONS SHALL BE TAKEN TO SWM DETENTION SYSTEM THERE ARE NO CRITICAL AREAS ON THE PROJECT. NECESSARY FOR RETAINING SEDIMENTS ON THE CONSTRUCTION SITE SHALL BE INSTALLED MINIMIZE ENCROACHMENT, CONTROL SEDIMENT TRANSPORT AND STABILIZE THE WORK AND TREE PROTECTION FENCING SHALL BE ERECTED AT THE LOCATIONS AS SPECIFIED ON AREA TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE DURING CONSTRUCTION. NONERODIBLE INSTALLATION NOTES AND EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES THE APPROVED PLANS PRIOR TO ANY LAND CLEARING, GRUBBING, GRADING, OR EARTH MATERIAL SHALL BE USED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF CAUSEWAYS AND COFFERDAMS. MOVING ACTIVITIES. EARTHEN FILL MAY BE USED FOR THESE STRUCTURES IF ARMORED BY NONERODIBLE INSPECTION SCHEDULE ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE D. CLEARING AND GRUBBING DEBRIS SHALL BE PROPERLY DISPOSED OF. COVER MATERIALS. CURRENT CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ORDINANCE, THE E. THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF EROSION CONTROL AND DRAINAGE FACILITIES 13. WHEN A LIVE WATERCOURSE MUST BE CROSSED BY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES MORE CURRENT EDITION OF THE VIRGINIA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK, AND SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER ALL OTHER CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. SITE DRAINAGE THAN TWICE IN ANY SIX-MONTH PERIOD, A TEMPORARY VEHICULAR STREAM CROSSING VIRGINIA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REGULATIONS. THE PERMITTEE OR THEIR AGENT FACILITIES SHALL BE SCHEDULED TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN 30 DAYS FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTED OF NONERODIBLE MATERIAL SHALL BE PROVIDED. SITE PREPARATION AND/OR CONTRACTOR SHALL SECURE A COPY OF EACH PUBLICATION AND THOROUGHLY COMPLETION OF THE ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS AT ANY POINT ON THE PROJECT. 14. ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO WORKING IN FAMILIARIZE THEMSELVES WITH ALL APPLICABLE PRACTICES CONTAINED THEREIN WHICH MAY F. OUTFALL DITCHES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AND STABILIZED PRIOR TO THE INITIATION OF OR CROSSING LIVE WATERCOURSES SHALL BE MET. AFTER SITE CLEARING AND GRADING, PRIOR TO BMP EXCAVATION AND GRADING, ENSURE BE PERTINENT TO THIS PROJECT. ANY UTILITY CONSTRUCTION OR BUILDING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. OUTLET PROTECTION 15. THE BED AND BANKS OF A WATERCOURSE SHALL BE STABILIZED IMMEDIATELY AFTER CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA IS STABILIZED OR DIVERTED AROUND PIPE DETENTION (OP) SHALL ALSO BE INSTALLED WHERE CALLED FOR IMMEDIATELY AFTER CONSTRUCTION WORK IN THE WATERCOURSE IS COMPLETED. LAYOUT AREA. THE PURPOSE OF SUCH PRACTICES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THOSE SHOWN ON THESE OF THE OUTFALL DITCH(ES). 16. UNDERGROUND UTILITY LINES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAN SHEETS, SHALL BE TO PRECLUDE ALL WATERBORNE OR AIRBORNE SEDIMENTS G. ALL TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT EARTHEN STRUCTURES SUCH AS SLOPES, DAMS, FOLLOWING STANDARDS IN ADDITION TO OTHER APPLICABLE CRITERIA: LAYOUT AREA HAS BEEN CLEARED AND IS STAKED/DELINEATED BENCHMARK ELEVATION(S) RESULTING FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES FROM ENTERING ONTO ADJACENT PROPERTIES STORMWATER CONVEYANCE CHANNELS (SCC), AND DIVERSION DIKES SHALL BE STABILIZED A. NO MORE THAN 500 LINEAR FEET OF TRENCH MAY BE OPENED AT ONE TIME. ARE ESTABLISHED. OR INTO STATE WATERS. ALL SEDIMENTS MUST BE CONFINED TO THE PROJECT SITE AT THE (SEEDED) IMMEDIATELY AFTER THEIR CONSTRUCTION. STONE OUTLET(S) SHALL BE B. EXCAVATED MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED ON THE UPHILL SIDE OF TRENCHES. TMP 3-68,3-69,3-70,3-71 & 3-72 ROBINSON PLACE LOCATION(S) SHOWN ON THE PLANS. PROTECTION OF EXISTING NATURAL VEGETATION FROM PROVIDED WHERE SHOWN ON THE PLANS. C. EFFLUENT FROM DEWATERING OPERATIONS SHALL BE FILTERED OR PASSED THROUGH AN NEARBY CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED TO MEET DESIGN NEEDLESS DISTURBANCE IS ESSENTIAL. ALL CONSTRUCTION PERSONNEL SHALL BE CAUTIONED H. TOPSOIL STOCKPILES SHALL BE PLACED IN THE LOCATION(S) SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. APPROVED SEDIMENT TRAPPING DEVICE, OR BOTH, AND DISCHARGED IN A MANNER THAT SPECIFICATIONS. TO AVOID DAMAGE TO EXISTING TREES AND VEGETATION DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. SILT FENCE OR STRAW BALE BARRIERS SHALL BE ERECTED AT THE TOE OF THE DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT FLOWING STREAMS OR OFF-SITE PROPERTY. STOCKPILE(S). SILT FENCE OR STRAW BALE BARRIERS SHALL BE MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT D. MATERIAL USED FOR BACKFILLING TRENCHES SHALL BE PROPERLY COMPACTED IN ORDER PIPE AND TRENCH EXCAVATION AND GRADING VESCH REFERENCE# 3.01 - SAFETY FENCE (SAF) THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT. STOCKPILES SHALL BE SEEDED AND STABILIZED WITH A TO MINIMIZE EROSION AND PROMOTE STABILIZATION. A PROTECTIVE BARRIER INSTALLED TO PREVENT ACCESS TO AN EROSION CONTROL MEASURE. FIRM STAND OF GRASS. E. RESTABILIZATION SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS CHAPTER. PRIOR TO BACKFILLING AND INSTALLATION OF GEOTEXTILE/PIPES EXCAVATION LOCATION, FINAL SITE PLAN CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA SINCE THE SITE IS LOCATED IN A VERY LOW TRAFFIC AREA, THE SILT FENCE ALONG THE SITE I. CONSTRUCTION ROAD STABILIZATION (CRS) SHALL BE APPLIED TO ACCESS ROADS, F. APPLICABLE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLIED WITH. ENSURE FOOTPRINT, DEPTH AND SLOPE ARE ACCEPTABLE AND EXCAVATED SOIL IS PERIMETER WILL SERVE TO ACT AS THE SAFETY FENCE. SUBDIVISION ROADS, PARKING AREAS, AND/OR OTHER VEHICLE TRANSPORTATION ROUTES 17. WHERE CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE ACCESS ROUTES INTERSECT PAVED OR PUBLIC ROADS, STOCKPILED IN SUITABLE LOCATION. IMMEDIATELY AFTER GRADING. PROVISIONS SHALL BE MADE TO MINIMIZE THE TRANSPORT OF SEDIMENT BY VEHICULAR 3.02 - TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE (CE) J. ALL AREAS DESIGNATED FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHALL BE STABILIZED AS SOON AS TRACKING ONTO THE PAVED SURFACE. WHERE SEDIMENT IS TRANSPORTED ONTO A PIPE AND TRENCH INSTALLATION A CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SHALL BE PROVIDED AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE PROJECT SITE TO PRACTICAL BUT NOT EXCEEDING 14 DAYS FOLLOWING THEIR INSTALLATION AND PAVED OR PUBLIC ROAD SURFACE, THE ROAD SURFACE SHALL BE CLEANED THOROUGHLY PROVIDE A MEANS OF REMOVING SEDIMENT FROM THE TIRES OF CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES BACKFILLING. TRENCH LENGTH TO BE OPENED AT ANY ONE TIME IS NOT TO EXCEED 500 AT THE END OF EACH DAY. SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE ROADS BY AFTER INSTALLATION OF GEOTEXTILE/ PIPES/STRUCTURES AND BACKFILLING OF CLEAN LEAVING THE WORK SITE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ANY MUD FROM THE EXISTING FEET. EXCAVATED MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED ON THE UPHILL SIDE OF TRENCHES. SHOVELING OR SWEEPING AND TRANSPORTED TO A SEDIMENT CONTROL DISPOSAL AREA. WASHED GRAVEL AND THE 2” CHOKER STONE LAYER UP TO EVEN WITH THE TOP OF THE ROAD SURFACE BY MEANS OF SWEEPING AND SHOVELING, IN THE EVENT THE WASH AREA IS EFFLUENT FROM DEWATERING OPERATIONS SHALL BE FILTERED OR PASSED THROUGH STREET WASHING SHALL BE ALLOWED ONLY AFTER SEDIMENT IS REMOVED IN THIS JUNCTION BOX STRUCTURE, INSTALL AND BACKFILL FOR STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS (3 NOT ADEQUATE IN SEDIMENT REMOVAL. APPROVED SEDIMENT TRAPPING DEVICE, OR BOTH, AND DISCHARGED IN A MANNER THAT MANNER. THIS PROVISION SHALL APPLY TO INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT LOTS AS WELL AS MANHOLES AND DROP INLET). ENSURE INCOMING PIPE FROM STRUCTURE 4A IS INSTALLED AS DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT FLOWING STREAMS OR OFF-SITE PROPERTY. TO LARGER LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES. GRAVEL BACKFILL COMMENCES. 3.05 - SILT FENCE (SF) K. SEDIMENT TRAPS AND BASINS SHOULD HAVE A CLEANOUT STAKE INSTALLED. ALL 18. ALL TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE REMOVED SILT FENCE IS TYPICALLY INSTALLED AS A FIRST STEP IN CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. LOCATION CLEANOUT MATERIAL SHOULD BE PLACED IN AN UPLAND AREA AND STABILIZED. WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER FINAL SITE STABILIZATION OR AFTER THE TEMPORARY MEASURES INSPECTION SCHEDULE AND DETAILS ARE SHOWN ON THE PLANS. L. PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY SOIL STABILIZATION SHALL BE APPLIED TO DENUDED AREAS ARE NO LONGER NEEDED, UNLESS OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED BY THE VESCP AUTHORITY. WITHIN SEVEN DAYS AFTER FINAL GRADE IS REACHED ON ANY PORTION OF THE SITE. TRAPPED SEDIMENT AND THE DISTURBED SOIL AREAS RESULTING FROM THE DISPOSITION CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA 3.07 - INLET PROTECTION (IP) TEMPORARY SOIL STABILIZATION SHALL BE APPLIED TO DENUDED AREAS THAT MAY NOT BE OF TEMPORARY MEASURES SHALL BE PERMANENTLY STABILIZED TO PREVENT FURTHER A SEDIMENT FILTER OR AN EXCAVATED IMPOUNDMENT AREA AROUND A STORM DRAIN DROP A FINAL GRADE BUT WILL REMAIN DORMANT (UNDISTURBED) FOR LONGER THAN 14 DAYS. EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION. · REMOVE TRASH, NATURAL DEBRIS, CLIPPINGS AND SEDIMENT – TWICE YEARLY INLET OR CURB INLET TO MINIMIZE SEDIMENT FROM ENTERING THE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS PERMANENT STABILIZATION SHALL BE APPLIED TO AREAS THAT ARE TO BE LEFT DORMANT 19. PROPERTIES AND WATERWAYS DOWNSTREAM FROM DEVELOPMENT SITES SHALL BE · RE-PLANT OR SEED BARE SOIL AREAS - ANNUALLY PRIOR TO PERMANENT STABILIZATION OF THE DISTURBED AREA. FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR. TEMPORARY VEGETATIVE COVER MAY BE ELIMINATED IN PROTECTED FROM SEDIMENT DEPOSITION, EROSION AND DAMAGE DUE TO INCREASES IN FAVOR OF THE PERMANENT VEGETATIVE COVER IF SITE CONDITIONS PERMIT AND THE VOLUME, VELOCITY AND PEAK FLOW RATE OF STORMWATER RUNOFF FOR THE STATED INLETS AND OUTLETS 3.09 - DIVERSION DIKE (DD) OWNER AND/OR ENGINEER SO DIRECTS. PERMANENT VEGETATION SHALL NOT BE FREQUENCY STORM OF 24-HOUR DURATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS A RIDGE OF COMPACTED SOIL OR LOOSE ROCK OR GRAVEL CONSTRUCTED ACROSS DISTURBED CONSIDERED ESTABLISHED UNTIL A GROUND COVER IS UNIFORM, MATURE ENOUGH TO PROVIDED IN THE PLANS. STREAM RESTORATION AND RELOCATION PROJECTS THAT · REMOVE TRASH, NATURAL DEBRIS AND CLIPPINGS – TWICE YEARLY RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SIMILAR SLOPING AREAS. THE RIGHT-OF-WAY DIVERSION SHALL ACT SURVIVE, AND ABLE TO INHIBIT EROSION. PERMANENT VEGETATIVE COVER (STABILIZATION) INCORPORATE NATURAL CHANNEL DESIGN CONCEPTS ARE NOT MAN-MADE CHANNELS · REMOVE ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT – ANNUALLY SIMILAR TO A DIVERSION DIKE, BUT IT WILL BE MOUNTABLE SINCE IT WILL CROSS THE SHALL CONSIST OF TOPSOILING, LIMING, FERTILIZING, SEEDING, AND MULCHING TO ASSURE AND SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM ANY FLOW RATE CAPACITY AND VELOCITY REQUIREMENTS CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE. A FIRM STAND OF GRASS. WHEN SOD IS USED AS PERMANENT STABILIZATION, IT SHALL BE FOR NATURAL OR MAN-MADE CHANNELS. THE SITE COMPLIES WITH MS-19 BY MEETING OVERFLOW OUTLETS INSTALLED PERPENDICULAR TO THE SLOPE AND PERPENDICULAR TO ANY WATER FLOW. THE ENERGY BALANCE CRITERIA FOR THE 1-YEAR DESIGN STORM. 3.13 - SEDIMENT TRAP (ST) SOD REQUIRES STAPLES ON SLOPES 3:1 OR STEEPER. · REMOVE TRASH, NATURAL DEBRIS AND CLIPPINGS – TWICE YEARLY A TEMPORARY PONDING AREA FORMED BY CONSTRUCTING AN EARTHEN EMBANKMENT WITH A M. ADDITIONAL E&S MEASURES OR MODIFICATION OF EXISTING E&S MEASURES SHALL BE · REMOVE ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT – ANNUALLY STONE OUTLET. INSTALLED AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY’S E&S INSPECTOR IF AT ANY TIME IT IS FOUND THAT THE PLAN-APPROVED MEASURES ARE INADEQUATE OR THERE IS A POTENTIAL FOR CONSTRUCTION PHASING NARRATIVE: CONTROL STRUCTURE (STR #3) 3.31 - TEMPORARY SEEDING (TS) SEDIMENT DEPOSITION IN STATE WATERS OR BEYOND THE LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE, TEMPORARY SEEDING SHALL BE APPLIED TO DENUDED N. MAINTENANCE OF ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES SHALL BE · REMOVE ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT WHEN OVER 6” DEEP – AS-NEEDED AREAS THAT REMAIN DORMANT FOR 7 DAYS. SEEDED AREAS SHALL BE LIMED WHEN SCHEDULED ON A WEEKLY BASIS AND AFTER EACH RUNOFF PRODUCING RAINFALL EVENT ANTICIPATED START DATE: NOVEMBER 2021 NECESSARY AT A RATE OF 2 TONS/ACRE, AND FERTILIZED AT A RATE OF 600 LBS/ACRE OF PER THE VA E&SC HANDBOOK. ANY SEDIMENT THAT HAS BEEN TRANSPORTED BEYOND THE ANTICIPATED COMPLETION DATE: NOVEMBER 2022 10-20-10 (14 LBS. PER 1,000 SQUARE FEET) OR EQUIVALENT. CONTRACTOR SHALL SELECT PROJECT LIMITS SHALL BE REMOVED. MAINTENANCE AND REPLACEMENT OF E&S TEMPORARY SEEDING PLANT MATERIALS FROM TABLE 3.31-B OR C FROM THE VESCH. MEASURES ARE INCLUDED WITH ANY SCOPE OF WORK ASSOCIATED WITH AN E&S PLAN AND PHASE 1 SHALL BE INCLUDED WHEN BIDDING OR PRICING A JOB. 3.32 - PERMANENT SEEDING (PS) O. SEDIMENT TRAPS, BASINS, AND OTHER TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ARE TO 1. NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DIVISION 48 HOURS PRIOR TO A PERMANENT VEGETATIVE COVERING SHALL BE ESTABLISHED ON DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN 7 BE REMOVED ONLY WHEN STABILIZATION HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. TRAPPED SEDIMENT ANY LAND DISTURBANCE IN ORDER TO SCHEDULE A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING. DAYS OF BEING BROUGHT TO FINAL GRADE AND THAT WILL NOT BE PAVED OR OTHERWISE AND THE DISTURBED SOIL AREAS RESULTING FROM THE DISPOSITION OF TEMPORARY 2. OBTAIN STAKEOUT OF CLEARING LIMITS IN THE FIELD TO ENSURE NO OFFSITE BUILT UPON. CONTRACTOR TO SELECT THE PERMANENT SEEDING MIXTURE IN ACCORDANCE MEASURES SHALL BE PERMANENTLY STABILIZED TO PREVENT FURTHER EROSION AND DISTURBANCE. WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS IN THE VESCH. SEDIMENTATION. ALL TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE 3. INSTALL SAFETY FENCE AROUND PERIMETER OF CONSTRUCTION. INSTALL PERIMETER REMOVED WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER FINAL SITE STABILIZATION OR AFTER THE TEMPORARY SILT FENCE AND CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE. PERFORM MINOR EXCAVATION AS SHOWN 3.35 - MULCHING (MU) MEASURES ARE NO LONGER NEEDED, UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE CITY. SUCH THAT CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE CAN BE INSTALLED ONE TIME AT THE ELEVATIONS ALL SEEDED AREAS SHALL BE MULCHED WITH STRAW IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING SEEDING P. ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO THIS PROJECT SHOWN ON THE PHASE 1 PLAN. OPERATIONS. STRAW MULCH SHALL BE APPLIED AT A RATE OF 1.5 TO 2 TONS/ACRE. OTHER SHALL BE MET. 4. INSTALL SEDIMENT TRAP #1 IN SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SITE. PROVIDE DIVERSION ALTERNATIVES MAY BE SELECTED FORM TABLE 3.35-A OF THE VESCH. Q. THE PERMITTEE SHALL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIONS AND PERFORMANCE OF DIKES AROUND SITE PERIMETER AS SHOWN. INSTALL SUPER SILT FENCE AROUND ANY OTHER PARTIES PERFORMING WORK ON THIS PROJECT. PERIMETER OF SEDIMENT TRAP AS SHOWN. INSTALL BREAK IN SILT FENCE AND STONE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES OUTLET AT SOUTHEAST CORNER (LOW POINT) OF THE SITE. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MINIMUM STANDARDS 5. EXCESS SPOILS TO BE PLACED IN TEMPORARY STOCKPILE LOCATION AND REMOVED TO A 1. THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY OPERATOR OR HIS DESIGNEE, SHALL INSPECT ALL EROSION (PER 9VAC25-840-40) SUITABLE OFFSITE LOCATION. CONTRACTOR MAY ALTER THE LOCATION OF THE AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCHEDULE PROVIDED IN TEMPORARY STOCKPILE AS COORDINATED WITH THE CITY E&S INSPECTOR. THE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT DEVICES BE CHECKED 1. PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY SOIL STABILIZATION SHALL BE APPLIED TO DENUDED AREAS 6. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING PROOF OF PROPER PERMITTING FOR THE EACH DAY AND CERTAINLY AFTER EACH RAIN EVENT, AND THAT REPAIRS ARE MADE WITHIN SEVEN DAYS AFTER FINAL GRADE IS REACHED ON ANY PORTION OF THE SITE. USE OF OFFSITE DISPOSAL SITES. AT THE TIME OF EARTHWORKS OPERATIONS, PROVIDE IMMEDIATELY AND AREAS ARE RE-SEEDED AND MULCHED AS APPROPRIATE. TEMPORARY SOIL STABILIZATION SHALL BE APPLIED WITHIN SEVEN DAYS TO DENUDED LOCATION OF AUTHORIZED OFFSITE DISPOSAL SITES TO CITY E&S INSPECTOR. 2. ALL SEDIMENT-TRAPPING DEVICES AND FENCES SHALL BE CLEANED OUT AT 50 PERCENT AREAS THAT MAY NOT BE AT FINAL GRADE BUT WILL REMAIN DORMANT FOR LONGER THAN 7. UPON PERMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL CAPACITY OR HEIGHT, AND SEDIMENT SHALL BE DISPOSED OF BY PUMPING INTO A 14 DAYS, OR 7 DAYS IF REQUESTED BY THE LOCAL INSPECTOR. PERMANENT INSPECTOR, MOVE TO PHASE 2 CONSTRUCTION. sheet title: SILT-SACK OR OTHER APPROVED MEANS. STABILIZATION SHALL BE APPLIED TO AREAS THAT ARE TO BE LEFT DORMANT FOR MORE .dwg NAME: 20.003 ROBINSON SP.dwg 3. GRAVEL OUTLETS SHALL BE CHECKED REGULARLY FOR SEDIMENT BUILDUP AND BE 4. CLEANED WHEN SEDIMENT IS VISIBLY CLOGGING THE VOID SPACES. DIVERSIONS SHALL BE CHECKED TO ENSURE PROPER RE-ROUTING OF DRAINAGE. 2. THAN ONE YEAR. DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT, SOIL STOCK PILES AND BORROW AREAS SHALL BE STABILIZED OR PROTECTED WITH SEDIMENT TRAPPING MEASURES. THE APPLICANT IS PHASE 2 1. BEGIN MASS GRADING OF THE SITE TO BRING THE BUILDING SITES TO PAD GRADE. EROSION AND DAMAGES THAT INTERRUPT THE EFFECTIVE FUNCTIONING OF THE DIVERSION SHALL BE REPAIRED IMMEDIATELY. RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TEMPORARY PROTECTION AND PERMANENT STABILIZATION OF ALL SOIL STOCKPILES ON SITE AS WELL AS BORROW AREAS AND SOIL INTENTIONALLY 2. 3. MAINTAIN PERIMETER CONTROLS THAT WERE CONSTRUCTED WITH PHASE 1. CONSTRUCT SANITARY SEWER MAIN FROM EXISTING MANHOLE 08-197E ON EAST SIDE OF SEDIMENT 5. ALL SEEDED AREAS SHALL BE INSPECTED REGULARLY TO ENSURE THAT A VEGETATIVE COVER IS BEING ESTABLISHED. IN THE EVENT THAT THE SEEDING DOES NOT TAKE, CONTRACTOR TO TROUBLESHOOT AND TAKE REMEDIAL ACTION UNTIL THE APPROPRIATE 3. TRANSPORTED FROM THE PROJECT SITE. A PERMANENT VEGETATIVE COVER SHALL BE ESTABLISHED ON DENUDED AREAS NOT OTHERWISE PERMANENTLY STABILIZED. PERMANENT VEGETATION SHALL NOT BE 4. BARBOUR DRIVE TO MANHOLES A, A1 AND B. INSTALL LATERALS FOR ALL LOTS TO THE CLEANOUT ELEVATION SHOWN AND MARK WITH A 4X4 POST PAINTED GREEN. INSTALL WATER METER SERVICE CONNECTIONS AND SET METER CROCKS. CONTROL 6. VEGETATIVE COVER IS ESTABLISHED. A COPY OF THE APPROVED EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN SHALL BE MAINTAINED CONSIDERED ESTABLISHED UNTIL A GROUND COVER IS ACHIEVED THAT IS UNIFORM, MATURE ENOUGH TO SURVIVE AND WILL INHIBIT EROSION. 5. PROCEED TO PHASE 3 CONSTRUCTION WITH PERMISSION OF CITY E&S INSPECTOR. NARRATIVE ON THE SITE AT ALL TIMES. 4. SEDIMENT BASINS AND TRAPS, PERIMETER DIKES, SEDIMENT BARRIERS AND OTHER PHASE 3 7. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLATION OF ANY ADDITIONAL EROSION MEASURES INTENDED TO TRAP SEDIMENT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AS A FIRST STEP IN REVISIONS CONTROL MEASURES NECESSARY TO PREVENT EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION AS scale: DETERMINED BY THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE E&S INSPECTOR. ANY LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITY AND SHALL BE MADE FUNCTIONAL BEFORE UPSLOPE LAND DISTURBANCE TAKES PLACE. 1. A BMP PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH THE CITY IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK ON THE BMP. DESCRIPTION DATE 1"=20' 8. ALL DISTURBED AREAS ARE TO DRAIN TO APPROVED SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES AT 5. STABILIZATION MEASURES SHALL BE APPLIED TO EARTHEN STRUCTURES SUCH AS DAMS, 2. PROVIDE DIVERSION DIKE UPSTREAM OF PROPOSED 72” CMP INSTALLATION TO DIVERT CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #2 4/16/2021 ALL TIMES DURING LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES AND DURING SITE DEVELOPMENT UNTIL DIKES AND DIVERSIONS IMMEDIATELY AFTER INSTALLATION. UPSTREAM RUNOFF AROUND PIPE EXCAVATION AND TOWARDS SEDIMENT TRAP. date: FINAL STABILIZATION IS ACHIEVED. 6. SEDIMENT TRAPS AND SEDIMENT BASINS SHALL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED BASED 3. INSTALL STORM DRAIN OUTFALL FROM STRUCTURE X16 UP TO AND INCLUDING STRUCTURE CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #3 8/25/2021 6/27/2020 30 SCALE CHIT# 18.003 9. DURING DEWATERING OPERATIONS, WATER WILL BE PUMPED INTO AN APPROVED UPON THE TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA TO BE SERVED BY THE TRAP OR BASIN. 3 (JUNCTION BOX STRUCTURE). SET STRUCTURES 4A, 7A AND 7B AND KEEP INLETS CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #4 11/16/2021 FILTERING DEVICE. A. THE MINIMUM STORAGE CAPACITY OF A SEDIMENT TRAP SHALL BE 134 CUBIC YARDS PER BLOCKED SO THAT NO RUNOFF WILL ENTER THE DETENTION SYSTEM UNTIL THE SITE IS 10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES PERIODICALLY AND ACRE OF DRAINAGE AREA AND THE TRAP SHALL ONLY CONTROL DRAINAGE AREAS LESS STABILIZED. ALSO SET 6’ ID MANHOLE 8. KEEP DROP INLET AT STRUCTURE 3 BLOCKED SO CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #5 02/01/2022 sheet # AFTER EACH RUNOFF-PRODUCING RAINFALL EVENT. ANY NECESSARY REPAIRS FOR THAT NO RUNOFF CAN ENTER THE DETENTION SYSTEM. THAN THREE ACRES. . . 15 OF 25 ©2021 - 30SCALE, LLC CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE WATER SOURCE TO CLEAN CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES OF MUD BEFORE ENTERING 30 SCALE ENGINEERING BACK ON TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. DIRECT WASH WATER TO SILT SACK OR OTHER APPROVED SILT TRAPPING owner: DEVICE PRESTON COMMONS, LLC 1701 ALLIED ST, SUITE B4 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 engineer: RWD CE CABELL AVENUE 30 SCALE, LLC LOD 871 JUSTIN DRIVE PALMYRA, VA 22963 SAF p: 434.242.2866 SAF N e: mike@30scale.com web: www.30scale.com SF DD SF LAVATORY DUMPSTER 00 SF CONCRETE WASHOUT FUE L DD PAINT WASHOUT BARBOUR DRIVE 98 TS DA TO ST-1 TMP 3-68,3-69,3-70,3-71 & 3-72 ROBINSON PLACE 0.74 AC. SF FINAL SITE PLAN CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA MU 96 TEMPORARY STOCKPILE SF SAF LOD DD LOD SUPER SILT FENCE DETAIL TS SSF CONSTRUCTION PHASE 1 NARRATIVE: 1. NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DIVISION 48 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY LAND DISTURBANCE IN ORDER TO SAF 2. SCHEDULE A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING. OBTAIN STAKEOUT OF CLEARING LIMITS IN THE FIELD TO ENSURE NO OFFSITE DISTURBANCE. DD SF 3. INSTALL SAFETY FENCE AROUND PERIMETER OF CONSTRUCTION. INSTALL PERIMETER SILT FENCE AND CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE. PRE MU PERFORM MINOR EXCAVATION AS SHOWN SUCH THAT CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE CAN BE INSTALLED ONE TIME AT THE ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THE PHASE 1 PLAN. 4. INSTALL SEDIMENT TRAP #1 IN SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SITE. PROVIDE DIVERSION DIKES AROUND SITE PERIMETER AS SHOWN. SF INSTALL SUPER SILT FENCE AROUND PERIMETER OF SEDIMENT TRAP AS SHOWN. INSTALL BREAK IN SILT FENCE AND STONE OUTLET AT STO SOUTHEAST CORNER (LOW POINT) OF THE SITE. SF 5. 6. EXCESS SPOILS TO BE PLACED IN TEMPORARY STOCKPILE LOCATION AND REMOVED TO A SUITABLE OFFSITE LOCATION. CONTRACTOR MAY ALTER THE LOCATION OF THE TEMPORARY STOCKPILE AS COORDINATED WITH THE CITY E&S INSPECTOR. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING PROOF OF PROPER PERMITTING FOR THE USE OF OFFSITE DISPOSAL SITES. AT THE TIME NA SAF SSF OF EARTHWORKS OPERATIONS, PROVIDE LOCATION OF AUTHORIZED OFFSITE DISPOSAL SITES TO CITY E&S INSPECTOR. 7. UPON PERMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL INSPECTOR, MOVE TO PHASE 2 88 SF VEN 90 TS CONSTRUCTION. 92 86 SSF 82 SSF X 82.0 UE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL LEGEND 12.0' WET STORAGE SSF ELEV = 485.0 3'-WIDE 38.0' STD# ABBREV. SYMBOL E&S PRACTICE EMBANKMENT AT CE 20 ELEV=388 3.02 CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE .0 ' 3.05 SF SILT FENCE MU 82 90 SAF .0 3.05 SSF SUPER SILT FENCE X 8586 87.0 0' 3.01 SAF SAFETY FENCE (CHAIN LINK) 8. X 3.07 IP INLET PROTECTION 88 SILT FENCE BREAK 88 (SEE DETAIL SHEET 19) 3.09 DD DIVERSION DIKE ST-1 86 84.0 sheet title: X .dwg NAME: 20.003 ROBINSON SP.dwg 3.13 ST TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAP EROSION AND 3.31 TS TS TEMPORARY SEEDING 3.32 PS PS PERMANENT SEEDING SEDIMENT 3.35 MU MU MULCH CONTROL PLAN - LOD LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE DD SSF PHASE 1 REVISIONS 8' X20' GRAVEL scale: WEIR AND OUTLET 1"=20' DESCRIPTION CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #2 DATE 4/16/2021 (SEE DETAIL SHEET 19) SAF % date: 6/27/2020 4.07 30 SCALE CHIT# 18.003 CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #3 8/25/2021 @ " RCP CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #4 11/16/2021 LF- 24 144 CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #5 02/01/2022 EX sheet # . . 16 OF 25 ©2021 - 30SCALE, LLC 30 SCALE ENGINEERING owner: PRESTON COMMONS, LLC 1701 ALLIED ST, SUITE B4 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 engineer: RWD CE CABELL AVENUE 30 SCALE, LLC LOD 871 JUSTIN DRIVE PALMYRA, VA 22963 SAF N p: 434.242.2866 e: mike@30scale.com SAF web: www.30scale.com SF DD SF LAVATORY DUMPSTER 00 SF CONCRETE WASHOUT FUE L DD + 96 5 + 96 2 PAINT 98 97 0 0 02 0 06 5 WASHOUT 990 + + 97 97+ BARBOUR DRIVE + 5 + 97 + 98 LOT 4 96 BF=500.5 LOT 5 06 990 5 FF=498.0 CO# IP 04 TMP 3-68,3-69,3-70,3-71 & 3-72 + ROBINSON PLACE 6 0 CO# TS TS 97 + MU MU 4 LOT 3 97 0 + CO# LOT 6 SF + 06 0 BF=499.5 FF=498.0 FINAL SITE PLAN + CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 7 + 7 08 + 99 0 04 + 96 970 98 96 5 96 0+ 05 0 + + 3 97 96 6 CO# + 96 5 + 5 04 LOT 2 97 + SAF 96 BF=497.0 970 + LOT 7 DD LOD 04 7 + 8 FF=498.0 CO# LOD 95 TS 02 0+ 94 96 MU 00 96 MU 958+ 98 CONSTRUCTION PHASE 2 NARRATIVE: 2 CO# TS 0 1. BEGIN MASS GRADING OF THE SITE TO BRING THE BUILDING SITES TO PAD GRADE. 95 2. MAINTAIN PERIMETER CONTROLS THAT WERE CONSTRUCTED WITH PHASE 1. LOT 1 + 0 05 + BF=497.0 955 + 3. CONSTRUCT SANITARY SEWER MAIN FROM EXISTING MANHOLE 08-197E ON EAST SIDE OF BARBOUR DRIVE TO PROPOSED MANHOLES 08-197F, 08-197G, AND 08-197H. INSTALL SAF + 8 LOT 8 FF=496.0 4. LATERALS FOR ALL LOTS TO THE CLEANOUT ELEVATION SHOWN AND MARK WITH A 4X4 POST PAINTED GREEN. INSTALL WATER METER SERVICE CONNECTIONS AND SET METER CROCKS. 95 DD 94 3 + SF 5. PROCEED TO PHASE 3 CONSTRUCTION WITH PERMISSION OF CITY E&S INSPECTOR. CO# 1 00+5 96 IP PRE 00 98 94 +C 0O 93 #8 SF STO + SF SAF 93 0 IPSSF 92 90 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL LEGEND NA 9 CO# 88 SF VEN STD# ABBREV. SYMBOL E&S PRACTICE 90 92 86 3.02 CE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SSF 82 SSF UE 3.05 SF SILT FENCE 3.05 SSF SUPER SILT FENCE 12.0' 3.01 SAF SAFETY FENCE (CHAIN LINK) SSF 38.0' 3.07 IP INLET PROTECTION 20 .0 3.09 DD ' DIVERSION DIKE 90 3.13 ST SAF TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAP 3.31 TS TS TEMPORARY SEEDING 8586 0' 8. 3.32 PS PS PERMANENT SEEDING 88 SILT FENCE BREAK 3.35 MU MULCH 88 (SEE DETAIL SHEET 19) MU ST-1 86 sheet title: .dwg NAME: 20.003 ROBINSON SP.dwg LOD LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN - DD SSF PHASE 2 REVISIONS scale: DESCRIPTION DATE 1"=20' CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #2 CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #3 4/16/2021 8/25/2021 SAF % date: 6/27/2020 4.07 30 SCALE CHIT# 18.003 @ CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #4 11/16/2021 " RCP LF- 24 CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #5 02/01/2022 144 EX sheet # . . 17 OF 25 ©2021 - 30SCALE, LLC 30 SCALE ENGINEERING owner: PRESTON COMMONS, LLC 1701 ALLIED ST, SUITE B4 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 engineer: RWD CE CABELL AVENUE 30 SCALE, LLC LOD 871 JUSTIN DRIVE PALMYRA, VA 22963 SAF PS MU p: 434.242.2866 SAF N e: mike@30scale.com web: www.30scale.com SF PS MU DD SF LAVATORY IP 04 DUMPSTER 00 DD PS 02 SF CONCRETE WASHOUT FUE L 98 PAINT 00 WASHOUT BARBOUR DRIVE 98 96 LOT 4 LOT 5 BF=500.5 FF=498.0 IP TMP 3-68,3-69,3-70,3-71 & 3-72 06 ROBINSON PLACE 04 TS TS CONSTRUCTION PHASE 3 NARRATIVE: MU MU 1. A BMP PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH THE CITY IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK ON THE BMP. 2. PROVIDE DIVERSION DIKE UPSTREAM OF PROPOSED 72” CMP INSTALLATION TO DIVERT UPSTREAM RUNOFF AROUND PIPE EXCAVATION AND TOWARDS SEDIMENT TRAP. LOT 3 DD LOT 6 FF=498.0 SF FINAL SITE PLAN BF=499.5 IP CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 3. INSTALL STORM DRAIN OUTFALL FROM STRUCTURE X16 UP TO AND INCLUDING STRUCTURE 3 (JUNCTION 02 BOX STRUCTURE). SET STRUCTURES 4A, 7A AND 7B AND KEEP INLETS BLOCKED SO THAT NO RUNOFF WILL PS MU 94 ENTER THE DETENTION SYSTEM UNTIL THE SITE IS STABILIZED. ALSO SET 6’ ID MANHOLE 8. KEEP DROP 96 INLET AT STRUCTURE 3 BLOCKED SO THAT NO RUNOFF CAN ENTER THE DETENTION SYSTEM. 98 96 00 4. EXCAVATE FOR AND BEGIN INSTALLATION OF 72” CMP PIPE AND GRAVEL TRENCH DETENTION SYSTEM. 02 5. INSTALL 15” STORM SEWER PIPE FROM STRUCTURE 4 TO 4A AND 7 TO 7A TO 7B AS 72” PIPE AND GRAVEL 04 TRENCH ARE INSTALLED. 6. 7. BEGIN CONSTRUCTION OF MODEL HOME ON LOTS 3 AND 4. STABILIZE THE REMAINDER OF THE SITE NOT TO BE BUILT OR PAVED UPON WITH PERMANENT SEEDING AND MULCH. PS MU SAF 8. PROVIDE TEMPORARY SEEDING AND MULCH ON THE REMAINING PAD SITES. LOT 2 9. 10. PROVIDE INLET PROTECTION FOR INLETS 3, 4A, 7A AND 7B ONLY AFTER SITE IS STABILIZED. REMOVE SEDIMENT TRAP #1 AFTER PERMISSION FROM THE CITY E&S INSPECTOR IS GRANTED, AND GRADE BF=497.0 DD LOT 7 DD LOD 90 PAD SITE ON TO EXISTING TMP 3-72. THE SEDIMENT TRAP SHALL NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL PERMISSION FROM FF=498.0 LOD 90 TS THE CITY E&S INSPECTOR IS GRANTED. 11. PROVIDE TEMPORARY SEEDING ON EXISTING TMP 3-72. MU 12. WORK MAY BEGIN ON EACH PAD SITE AS MARKET CONDITIONS DICTATE. 98 96 MU 13. PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK ON EACH PAD SITE, PERIMETER SILT FENCE, DUMPSTER, LAVATORY, PAINT AND CONCRETE WASHOUT AREAS ARE TO BE PROVIDED IN CONVENIENT LOCATION AS COORDINATED BETWEEN 04 TS 02 THE BUILDER AND THE CITY E&S INSPECTOR. LOT 8 00 14. ONCE ALL BUILDING LOTS ARE COMPLETED AND PERMISSION IS GRANTED FROM CITY E&S INSPECTOR, FF=496.0 LOT 1 REMOVE ALL E&S MEASURES TO INCLUDE DIVERSION DIKES, SILT FENCE, STONE, TRASH, DEBRIS, AND BF=497.0 CLEANUP STATIONS. SAF DD SF DD NOTE: SEDIMENT TRAP TO 94 98 IP REMAIN OPERATIONAL UNTIL PRE 00 UPSITE AREA IS STABILIZED. 00 SEDIMENT TRAP SHALL NOT BE 92 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL LEGEND STO SF IP SF REMOVED UNTIL PERMISSION FROM THE CITY E&S INSPECTOR SAF T IPSSF IS GRANTED. 90 STD# ABBREV. SYMBOL E&S PRACTICE NA 90 CE 3.02 3.05 SF CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SILT FENCE SF 88 PS MU VEN 90 92 3.05 SSF SUPER SILT FENCE 86 SSF 82 SSF X 3.01 SAF SAFETY FENCE (CHAIN LINK) 82.0 UE 3.07 IP INLET PROTECTION 12.0' 3.09 DD DIVERSION DIKE SSF 38.0' 3.13 ST TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAP 90 20 TS . 0' 80 3.31 TS TEMPORARY SEEDING 3.32 PS PERMANENT SEEDING 82 PS 90 SAF .0 X 3.35 MU MU MULCH 8586 87.0 0' LOD 8. LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE X 88 SILT FENCE BREAK 88 (SEE DETAIL SHEET 19) ST-1 86 84.0 sheet title: X .dwg NAME: 20.003 ROBINSON SP.dwg EROSION AND IP IP SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN - REVISIONS DD SSF PHASE 3 DESCRIPTION DATE CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #2 4/16/2021 scale: 1"=20' CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #3 CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #4 8/25/2021 11/16/2021 SAF IP date: CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #5 02/01/2022 4.07 % 6/27/2020 30 SCALE CHIT# 18.003 @ . . 4" RCP 2 LF- 144 EX sheet # 18 OF 25 ©2021 - 30SCALE, LLC 30 SCALE ENGINEERING owner: PRESTON COMMONS, LLC 1701 ALLIED ST, SUITE B4 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 engineer: 30 SCALE, LLC 871 JUSTIN DRIVE PALMYRA, VA 22963 p: 434.242.2866 e: mike@30scale.com web: www.30scale.com DD DIVERSION DIKE VESCH STD. 3.09 TMP 3-68,3-69,3-70,3-71 & 3-72 ROBINSON PLACE TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAP FINAL SITE PLAN CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA VOLUME CALCULATIONS IP INLET PROTECTION SF SILT FENCE DETAIL CE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE DETAIL BLOCK AND GRAVEL DROP INLET SEDIMENT FILTER VESCH STD. 3.05 VESCH STD. 3.02 VESCH STD. 3.07 STONE WEIR SUPER SILT FENCE 6' 3.0' 488.0 487.0 3.0' 1345 CF 2.0' 6' BREAK IN SILT FENCE 485.0 485.0 CENTER SILT FENCE FLOW LINE BREAK AT LOW POINT 1368 CF 482.0 3.0' UPSTREAM ELEVATION TOP OF GRAVEL WEIR FLOW LINE 4' USE 8' CL I RIP-RAP FLO W 3' SHEET FLOW 10' #3 STONE STONE WEIR SECTION sheet title: TS TEMPORARY SEEDING SPECIFICATIONS .dwg NAME: 20.003 ROBINSON SP.dwg SILT FENCE BREAK VESCH STD. 3.31 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REVISIONS DETAILS DESCRIPTION DATE PS PERMANENT SEEDING SPECIFICATIONS ST SEDIMENT TRAP scale: 1"=20' CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #2 4/16/2021 VESCH STD. 3.32 VESCH STD. 3.13 CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #3 8/25/2021 date: CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #4 11/16/2021 6/27/2020 30 SCALE CHIT# 18.003 CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #5 02/01/2022 . . sheet # 19 OF 25 ©2021 - 30SCALE, LLC VRRM SPREADSHEET ROADWAYS CONCRETE N CABELL AVENUE (85 SF) CABELL AVENUE ASPHALT N APRONS (174 SF) DRIVEWAYS PUBLIC SCALE (5,364 SF) 30 SIDEWALKS EXISTING ROADWAY (2,870 SF) LAWN ENGINEERING 04 EXISTING ROADWAY (577 SF) AREA 02 (24,898 SF) 98 BUILDABLE AREA (10,610 SF) owner: EXISTING LAWN (5,776 SF) 00 CONCRETE PRESTON COMMONS, LLC SIDEWALK (398 SF) 1701 ALLIED ST, SUITE B4 96 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 BAR BAR engineer: 06 30 SCALE, LLC 04 BOU BOU 871 JUSTIN DRIVE PALMYRA, VA 22963 PRE R DR WOODS R (36,459 SF) p: 434.242.2866 DRIV e: mike@30scale.com STO 02 IVE 94 web: www.30scale.com 96 E 98 N AV 00 ONSITE ONLY 02 04 AREA = 1.01 AC ENU CN (PRE) = 58 E 96 STOOPS AND PRE LEAD WALKS 96 98 (368 SF) EXISTING ASPHALT STO 04 PARKING LOT (645 SF) 02 00 94 N AVE NUE 96 94 98 92 00 PHOSPHORUS LOAD REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS 00 TMP 3-68,3-69,3-70,3-71 & 3-72 ROBINSON PLACE 92 90 ONSITE ONLY 90 AREA = 1.01 AC CN (POST) = 77 FINAL SITE PLAN CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 88 92 HATCH LEGEND EXISTING CONC HATCH LEGEND DRIVEWAY (249 SF) BUILDABLE AREA (CN = 98) 86 IMPERVIOUS AREA (CN = 98) CONCRETE (CN = 98) 88 LAWN (CN = 61) ASPHALT DRIVEWAYS (CN = 98) WOODS (CN = 55) LAWN (CN = 61) APPLICANT TO PURCHASE 1.01 LBS/YR NUTRIENT CREDITS FROM A BANK IN THE SAME OR ADJACENT HUC PRE-DEVELOPMENT LAND COVER MAP (ONSITE ONLY) POST-DEVELOPMENT LAND COVER MAP (ONSITE ONLY) PRE-DEVELOPMENT COMPOSITE CN CALCULATIONS (ONSITE ONLY) POST-DEVELOPMENT COMPOSITE CN CALCULATIONS (ONSITE ONLY) LAND COVER (SF) (AC) CN CN*A COMPOSITE CN LAND COVER (SF) (AC) CN CN*A COMPOSITE CN ROADWAY 577 0.01 ROADWAY 85 0.00 DRIVEWAYS 249 0.01 DRIVEWAYS 5,364 0.12 NUTRIENT CREDIT AVAILABILITY LETTER ROOFTOP 0 0.00 BUILDABLE AREA * 10,345 0.24 SIDEWALKS 398 0.01 STOOPS AND LEAD WALKS 368 0.01 PARKING LOTS 645 0.01 CONCRETE APRONS 174 0.00 TOTAL IMPERVIOUS 1,869 0.04 98 4.2 PUBLIC SIDEWALKS 2,870 0.07 WOODS 36,459 0.84 55 46.0 TOTAL IMPERVIOUS 19,206 0.44 98 43.2 LAWN 5,776 0.13 61 8.1 LAWN 24,898 0.57 61 34.9 TOTAL AREA 44,104 SF 1.01 AC 58.3 58 TOTAL AREA 44,104 1.01 78.1 77 * BUILDABLE AREA INCLUDES ENTIRE BUILDABLE AREA OF LOT. TIME OF CONCENTRATION GEOMETRY - PRE-DEVELOPMENT L (FT) HI ELEV LO ELEV SLOPE NOTE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION FOR POST-DEVELOPMENT IS 5 MINUTES SHEET FLOW 100 505.0 498.2 6.8% SHALLOW CONCENTRATED FLOW 80 498.2 493.2 6.3% CHANNEL FLOW 242 493.2 483.6 4.0% TC = 7 MIN WATER QUANTITY COMPLIANCE NARRATIVE ENERGY BALANCE CALCULATIONS FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT, THE MAJORITY OF ONSITE RUNOFF IS COLLECTED VIA STORM SEWER FLOOD PROTECTION FOR 1-YEAR, 24-HOUR DESIGN STORM: sheet title: INLETS AND CONVEYED TO THE PROPOSED UNDERGROUND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DETENTION .dwg NAME: 20.003 ROBINSON SP.dwg Q(DEV) <= I.F. * (Q(PRE) * RV(PRE)) / RV(DEV) PIPE/GRAVEL TRENCH SYSTEM. THE SWM PIPE OUTFALLS VIA CONCENTRATED FLOW INTO THE MANMADE STORM SEWER PIPE OUTFALL SYSTEM. A WEIR WALL IN THE DOWNSTREAM END OF THE FLOOD PROTECTION IS MET BY COMPLIANCE WITH 9VAC25-870-66(C)2B. REFER TO STORM SEWER AND HGL COMPUTATIONS ON SHEET ## THAT INDICATE THAT THE EXISTING PIPE OUTFALL SYSTEM WHERE: STORMWATER DETENTION SYSTEM METERS THE RELEASE OF STORMWATER TO NOT EXCEED PRE-DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCES LOCALIZED FLOODING. I.F. = IMPROVEMENT FACTOR (0.8 FOR SITES > 1.0 AC) LEVELS AND TO MEET THE ENERGY BALANCE CRITERIA. Q(PRE) 0.28 CFS MANAGEMENT THE PEAK 10-YEAR, 24-HOUR (10% AEP) COMBINED DEVELOPED DISCHARGE RATE HAS BEEN REDUCED THE DESIGN COLLECTS THE MAXIMUM PRACTICAL DRAINAGE AREA AND CONVEYS IT TO THE TO BE LESS THAN THE PRE-DEVELOPMENT 10-YEAR, 24-HOUR DISCHARGE RATE. THE FOLLOWING RV(PRE) 1,025 CF PLAN - DETENTION SYSTEM. ALSO, WITH THE CENTRAL ALLEY DESIGN, THE MAJORITY OF PROPOSED PEAK RATES ARE TAKEN FROM THE HYDRAULIC AND HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS BOOKLET. RV(DEV) 4,155 CF IMPERVIOUS AREA IS ALSO CONVEYED TO THE DETENTION SYSTEM. THERE ARE TWO SMALL AREAS THAT WILL CONTINUE TO FLOW OFF THE SITE VIA SHEET FLOW AFTER DEVELOPMENT. UNDETAINED Q10 PRE-DEVELOPED = 5.70 CFS Q(DEV) MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE 0.06 CFS NARRATIVE AREA "A" CONSISTS OF A 30' GRASS STRIP (0.15 AC.) THAT SHEET FLOWS TOWARD PRESTON AVENUE. Q10 POST DEVELOPED = 5.64 CFS Q(DEV) PROPOSED 0.02 CFS OK UNDETAINED AREA "B" CONSISTS OF A 20' GRASS STRIP (0.10 AC.) AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SITE THAT SHEET FLOWS TOWARD BARBOUR DRIVE. NO ADVERSE IMPACTS ARE ANTICIPATED FROM scale: THE SHEET FLOW CONDITION. THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE IS 49,477 SF (1.14 AC.) REVISIONS 1"=30' WATER QUALITY COMPLIANCE NARRATIVE CHANNEL PROTECTION DESCRIPTION DATE date: CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #2 4/16/2021 6/27/2020 CHANNEL PROTECTION IS MET BY COMPLYING WITH 9VAC25-870-66(B)1b. THE PEAK 1-YEAR, 24-HOUR THE APPLICANT WILL BE PURCHASING NUTRIENT CREDITS TO MEET THE WATER 30 SCALE CHIT# 18.003 DEVELOPED DISCHARGE RATE IS LESS THAN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RUNOFF RATE FOR QUALITY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SITE. A LETTER OF AVAILABILITY HAS BEEN CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #3 8/25/2021 CONCENTRATED DISCHARGE USING THE ENERGY BALANCE CRITERIA. REFER TO ENERGY BALANCE PROVIDED ON SHEET 20 OF THE SITE PLAN FOR 1.01 LBS/YR PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL. CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #4 11/16/2021 SUMMARY ON THIS SHEET AND HYDRAULIC AND HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS BOOKLET. AFTER THE NUTRIENT CREDITS WILL BE PURCHASED PRIOR TO FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL. sheet # DEVELOPMENT, TWO ONSITE AREAS WILL SHEET FLOW OFFSITE AND THEREFORE HAVE NOT BEEN CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #5 02/01/2022 INCLUDED IN THE DEVELOPED DISCHARGE RATE FOR CONCENTRATED FLOW. REFER TO . . 20 OF 25 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SHEET ## FOR DELINEATION OF THESE AREAS. ©2021 - 30SCALE, LLC 30 SCALE ENGINEERING owner: N N PRESTON COMMONS, LLC 1701 ALLIED ST, SUITE B4 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 engineer: 30 SCALE, LLC 871 JUSTIN DRIVE 04 ET PALMYRA, VA 22963 SHE W 02 98 p: 434.242.2866 EX. DITCH FL O 00 e: mike@30scale.com SHEET FLOW web: www.30scale.com FLOW LENGTH (L) = 100 FT TO DETENTION 96 493.2 ONSITE DA=0.82 AC 06 498.2 CN=79 04 505.0 SHALLOW CONCENTRATED FLOW TO SITE OUTFALL (SO) OFFSITE DA=0.51 AC FLOW LENGTH (L) = 80 FT ET CN=87 02 SHE ONSITE DA=0.91 AC 94 96 W FLO 98 COMBINED DA=1.30 AC 00 CN=57 02 04 OFFSITE DA=0.57 AC CN=82 ET SHE CN=88 W FLO COMBINED DA=1.48 AC 96 SHEET FLOW "A" CHANNEL FLOW CN=69 96 98 TMP 3-68,3-69,3-70,3-71 & 3-72 FLOW LENGTH (L) = 242 FT ROBINSON PLACE DA=0.09 AC 04 02 00 94 CN=66 FINAL SITE PLAN 96 94 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 98 92 00 00 DITCH BEGINS TO PETER OUT 92 SHEET FLOW UNDETAINED "B" 90 90 SHEET FLOW DA=0.10 AC UNDETAINED "A" CN=75 DA=0.15 AC 88 CN=69 92 SHEET FLOW "B" AREA LEAVES THE SITE VIA SHEET FLOW AND CROSSES #107 BARBOUR DRIVE. OFFSITE - BYPASSES DETENTION SH 86 EE 483.6 DA=0.03 AC TF SHEET FLOW "B" PROPOSED DETENTION PIPE CN=98 LO 88 DA=0.25 AC W SITE OUTFALL (SO) CN=82 SITE OUTFALL (SO) PRE-DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE MAP POST-DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE MAP LAND COVER SUMMARY - PREDEVELOPMENT ONSITE LAND COVER SUMMARY - ONSITE POST-DEVELOPMENT TO DETENTION HATCH LEGEND LAND COVER (SF) (AC) CN CN*A COMPOSITE CN LAND COVER (SF) (AC) CN CN*A COMPOSITE CN ROADWAY 250 0.01 ONSITE BUILDABLE AREA (CN=98) ROADWAY 0 0.00 DRIVEWAYS 249 0.01 HATCH LEGEND DRIVEWAYS 4,965 0.11 PARKING LOTS 645 0.01 ONSITE CONCRETE (CN=98) ONSITE IMPERVIOUS AREA (CN=98) BUILDABLE AREA * 10,610 0.24 TOTAL IMPERVIOUS 1,144 0.03 98 2.6 LEAD WALKS AND STOOPS 156 0.00 ONSITE ASPHALT DRIVEWAYS (CN=98) WOODS 34,065 0.78 55 43.0 ONSITE LAWN (CN=61) CONCRETE APRONS 174 0.00 LAWN 4,500 0.10 61 6.3 ONSITE LAWN (CN=61) PUBLIC SIDEWALKS 1,808 0.04 ONSITE WOODS (CN=55) TOTAL AREA 39,709 SF 0.91 AC 51.9 57 TOTAL IMPERVIOUS 17,713 0.41 98 39.9 OFFSITE IMPERVIOUS AREA (CN=98) OFFSITE IMPERVIOUS AREA (CN=98) LAWN 15,986 0.37 61 22.4 LAND COVER SUMMARY - OFFSITE TO SITE OUTFALL (SO) TOTAL AREA 33,699 SF 0.77 AC 62.2 80 OFFSITE LAWN (CN=61) OFFSITE LAWN (CN=61) LAND COVER (SF) (AC) CN CN*A COMPOSITE CN LAND COVER SUMMARY - OFFSITE TO DETENTION ASPHALT/SIDEWALK 15,601 0.36 POST-DEVELOPMENT LAND COVER SUMMARY NOTE: LAND COVER (SF) (AC) CN CN*A COMPOSITE CN ROOFTOP 2,421 0.06 TIME OF CONCENTRATION GEOMETRY - ASPHALT/SIDEWALK 13,609 0.31 * ROOFTOP AREA INCLUDES ENTIRE BUILDABLE AREA OF LOT TOTAL IMPERVIOUS 18,022 0.41 98.0000 40.5 PRE-DEVELOPMENT sheet title: ROOFTOP 2,421 0.06 .dwg NAME: 20.003 ROBINSON SP.dwg LAWN 6,848 0.16 61.0000 9.6 TOTAL AREA 24,870 SF 0.57 50.1 88 L (FT) HI LO TOTAL IMPERVIOUS 16,030 6,848 0.37 98.0000 36.1 STORMWATER ELEV ELEV SLOPE LAWN 0.16 61.0000 9.6 LAND COVER SUMMARY - SHEET FLOW "A" - PRE-DEVELOPMENT TOTAL AREA 22,878 SF 0.53 AC 45.7 87 MANAGEMENT SHEET FLOW 100 505.0 498.2 6.8% LAND COVER (SF) (AC) CN CN*A COMPOSITE CN SHALLOW LAND COVER SUMMARY - SHEET FLOW - UNDETAINED "A" PLAN TOTAL IMPERVIOUS 844 0.02 98.0000 1.9 CONCENTRATED FLOW 80 498.2 493.2 6.3% LAND COVER (SF) (AC) CN CN*A COMPOSITE CN WOODS 1,758 0.04 55.0000 2.2 TOTAL IMPERVIOUS 1,339 0.03 98.0000 3.0 LAWN 1,170 0.03 61.0000 1.6 CHANNEL FLOW 242 493.2 483.6 4.0% TC = 7 MIN LAWN 5,116 0.12 61.0000 7.2 TOTAL AREA 3,772 SF 0.09 AC 5.8 66 scale: LAND COVER SUMMARY - SHEET FLOW "B" - PREDEVELOPMENT TOTAL AREA 6,455 SF 0.15 10.2 69 REVISIONS 1"=30' (SF) (AC) LAND COVER SUMMARY - SHEET FLOW - UNDETAINED "B" DESCRIPTION DATE LAND COVER CN CN*A COMPOSITE CN date: TOTAL IMPERVIOUS 6,604 0.15 98.0000 14.9 LAND COVER (SF) (AC) CN CN*A COMPOSITE CN CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #2 4/16/2021 6/27/2020 30 SCALE CHIT# 18.003 1,696 CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #3 8/25/2021 WOODS 3,239 0.07 55.0000 4.1 TOTAL IMPERVIOUS 0.04 98.0000 3.8 CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #4 11/16/2021 LAWN 891 0.02 61.0000 1.2 LAWN 2,814 0.06 61.0000 3.9 sheet # CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #5 02/01/2022 TOTAL AREA 10,734 SF 0.25 AC 20.2 82 TOTAL AREA 4,510 SF 0.10 7.8 75 21 OF 25 . . ©2020 - 30SCALE, LLC PRESTON AVE RUGBY A N VE OFFSITE DRAINAGE ANALYSIS - SUMMARY INFORMATION TR-55 METHODOLOGY REFER TO HYDRAULIC AND HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS BOOKLET EL=542' SHEET FLOW L=20' 30 SCALE ENGINEERING EL=540' NOAA ATLAS 14 PRECIPITATION DATA EL=594' owner: SHEET FLOW PRESTON COMMONS, LLC L=100' OAD 1701 ALLIED ST, SUITE B4 YR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 121C RU GB engineer: SOILS SUMMARY 30 SCALE, LLC EL=590' 871 JUSTIN DRIVE PALMYRA, VA 22963 p: 434.242.2866 SHALLOW CONCENTRATED FLOW e: mike@30scale.com L=1260' web: www.30scale.com FLOW PATH #2 SHALLOW CONCENTRATED FLOW FLOW PATH #2 FOR PRESTON AVE STORM L=383' TIME OF CONCENTRATION = 6.2 MIN SEWER CAPACITY ANALYSIS EL=570' CHANNEL FLOW (TO X1) 3,398' CABELL AVE PRE BARB FLOW PATH #1 REFER TO OFFSITE STORM SEWER SITE STO FOR OVERALL 98.1-AC COMPUTATIONS THIS SHEET AND DRAINAGE SHED PROFILE ON SHEET ## FOR OUR N AV E STRUCTURES X16 TO X1. AV LL E D X16 BE X15 RIVE CA BU LAND COVER AND COMPOSITE CN X14 121B RN 127C LE TMP 3-68,3-69,3-70,3-71 & 3-72 CHANNEL FLOW (X10 TO X1) ROBINSON PLACE Y 1,192 FT 121D AV X13 E X11 X12 EL=534' FINAL SITE PLAN EL=434' CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA PL N TO X10 MADISO ES X8 X2 N AVE MADISON AVE PR X9 X7 WASHINGTON PARK X1 X5 CREEK X6 88 X4 X3 BURLEY ES T HS 17T TIME OF CONCENTRATION GEOMETRY FLOW PATH #1 - (OVERALL SHED TO X1) 91 DA TO X1 (PIPE OUTFALL AT CREEK) GR AD YA 98.1 AC. VE NU E CN=76 T HS TIME OF CONCENTRATION=14.4 MIN 14T ST TIME OF CONCENTRATION GEOMETRY TH 10 FLOW PATH #2 - (PRESTON AVE. STORM X16-X6) GO RD ON AV EN UE PR ES TO N AV E OFFSITE DRAINAGE AREA MAP sheet title: .dwg NAME: 20.003 - CITY GIS FILES.dwg SWM REVISIONS COMPUTATIONS - DESCRIPTION DATE OFFSITE CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #2 CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #3 4/16/2021 8/25/2021 DRAINAGE MAP CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #4 11/16/2021 CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #5 02/01/2022 scale: . . 1"=200' date: 6/27/2020 30 SCALE CHIT# 18.003 sheet # 22 OF 25 30 SCALE CHIT# 18.003 .dwg NAME: 20.003 ROBINSON SP.dwg 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500 TOP = 441.25 MH-1 X1 (1) (H=7.25') 120' - EX 48" RCP @ 0.5% TOP = 442.00 X2 MH-1 (H=7.37') 10% AEP HGL 10-YEAR, 24-HOUR DESIGN STORM, TR-55 METHODOLOGY 211' - EX 48" RCP @ 0.5% OFFSITE STORM SEWER CAPACITY COMPUTATIONS 10-YEAR, 24-HOUR DESIGN STORM, TR-55 METHODOLOGY TOP = 443.16 X3 MH-1 (H=7.35') LD-347 HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE COMPUTATIONS 72' - EX 48" RCP @ 0.5% STA = 5+27 TOP = 447.00 X4 48" INV OUT = 436.29 (TO X3) MH-1 48" INV IN = 436.39 (FROM X5) (H=10.71') 15" INV IN = 439.00 (FROM X4A) . DESCRIPTION REVISIONS CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #5 CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #4 CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #3 CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #2 112' - EX 48" RCP @ 0.5% . DATE STA = 6+44 8/25/2021 4/16/2021 TOP = 449.00 02/01/2022 11/16/2021 X5 48" INV OUT = 436.98 (TO X4) MH-1 42" INV IN = 437.08 (FROM X6) (H=12.02') 6" INV IN = 440.00 (FROM X5A) 430 440 420 500 450 460 470 480 490 15" INV IN = 456.00 (FROM X8) STA = 11+28 15" INV OUT = 457.54 (TO X7) 15" INV IN = 457.58 (FROM X9) STA = 11+70 15" INV OUT = 460.40 (TO X8) 15" INV IN = 460.46 (FROM X10) 111' 32' - EX 15" RCP @ 4.2% 339' - E - EX 1 X 42 5" R STORM SEWER OUTFALL PROFILE 38' - EX 15" RCP @ 6.7% CP @ " RCP @ 5 .4% 3.8% STA = 12+85 15" INV OUT = 466.65 (TO X9) 24" INV IN = 466.72 (FROM X11) STA = 13+01 TOP = 470.55 MH-1 X11 24" INV OUT = 466.80 (TO X10) (H=3.75') 67' - EX 2 24" INV IN = 467.30 (FROM X12) 4" RCP @ 3 .3% 12' - EX 24" RCP @ 0.5% STA = 13+72 24" INV OUT = 469.64 (TO X11) 24" INV IN = 469.58 (FROM X13) STA = 9+88 42" INV OUT = 450.16 (TO X5) STA = 14+08 15" INV IN = 452.15 (FROM X7) 24" INV OUT = 470.54 (TO X12) 42" INV IN = 450.26 (FROM ) 24" INV IN = 470.86 (FROM X14) STORM SEWER OUTFALL PROFILE STA = 14+50 24" INV OUT = 472.94 (TO X13) 24" INV IN = 473.00 (FROM X15) 99' - EX 15" RCP @ 0.5% STA = 14+87 32' - EX 24" RCP @ 2.7% 24" INV OUT = 473.80 (TO X14) 24" INV IN = 473.90 (FROM X16) STA = 10+91 15" INV OUT = 452.67 (TO X6) 15" INV IN = 456.00 (FROM X8) 38' - EX 24" RCP @ 5.0% 144 STA = 11+28 15" INV OUT = 457.54 (TO X7) ' - EX 2 15" INV IN = 457.58 (FROM X9) 34' - EX 24" RCP @ 2.1% 4" RC STA = 11+70 P @ 4.1 15" INV OUT = 460.40 (TO X8) % 15" INV IN = 460.46 (FROM X10) 111' - 32' - EX 15" RCP @ 4.2% EX 15 38' - EX 15" RCP @ 6.7% " RCP 500 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 420 @ 5.4 500 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 % date: scale: owner: sheet # FINAL SITE PLAN engineer: sheet title: SWM 30 SCALE, LLC 30 p: 434.242.2866 871 JUSTIN DRIVE PALMYRA, VA 22963 ROBINSON PLACE e: mike@30scale.com web: www.30scale.com 1701 ALLIED ST, SUITE B4 PRESTON COMMONS, LLC 6/27/2020 23 OF 25 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 TMP 3-68,3-69,3-70,3-71 & 3-72 VERT. 1"=10' STORM SEWER ENGINEERING HORIZ. 1"=40' ©2021 - 30SCALE, LLC CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA SCALE COMPUTATIONS - OUTFALL PROFILE ©2021 - 30SCALE, LLC TRASH RACK NOTE CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE TRASH RACK IN ACCORDANCE WITH VDOT STD. SWM-DR EXCEPT AS MODIFIED DIMENSIONALLY PER STRUCTURE 3 DETAIL ON SHEET 13. 30 SCALE ENGINEERING owner: PRESTON COMMONS, LLC 1701 ALLIED ST, SUITE B4 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 engineer: 30 SCALE, LLC 871 JUSTIN DRIVE PALMYRA, VA 22963 p: 434.242.2866 e: mike@30scale.com web: www.30scale.com TMP 3-68,3-69,3-70,3-71 & 3-72 ROBINSON PLACE FINAL SITE PLAN CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA TRASH RACK DETAILS sheet title: .dwg NAME: 20.003 ROBINSON SP.dwg CONSTRUCTION DETAILS NOTE: SEE SHEET 7 FOR CITY STD. CG-12 DETAILS REVISIONS DESCRIPTION DATE scale: CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #2 4/16/2021 AS SHOWN CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #3 8/25/2021 date: CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #4 11/16/2021 6/27/2020 30 SCALE CHIT# 18.003 CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #5 02/01/2022 . . STANDARD ROADWAY DETAILS sheet # 24 OF 25 ©2021 - 30SCALE, LLC 30 SCALE ENGINEERING owner: PRESTON COMMONS, LLC 1701 ALLIED ST, SUITE B4 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 engineer: 30 SCALE, LLC 871 JUSTIN DRIVE PALMYRA, VA 22963 p: 434.242.2866 e: mike@30scale.com web: www.30scale.com TMP 3-68,3-69,3-70,3-71 & 3-72 ROBINSON PLACE FINAL SITE PLAN CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA sheet title: .dwg NAME: 20.003 ROBINSON SP.dwg REVISIONS CONSTRUCTION DESCRIPTION DATE CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #2 4/16/2021 DETAILS CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #3 8/25/2021 CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #4 11/16/2021 CITY FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL #5 02/01/2022 . . scale: AS SHOWN date: 6/27/2020 30 SCALE CHIT# 18.003 sheet # 25 OF 25 STANDARD WATER AND SANITARY SEWER DETAILS CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A FINAL SITE PLAN APPLICATION NUMBER: P22-0010 DATE OF MEETING: October 11, 2022 Project Planner: Dannan O’Connell Date of Staff Report: September 29, 2022 Applicant: Neighborhood Investments, LLC Applicant’s Representative(s): Scott Collins, Collins Engineering Current Property Owner: Neighborhood Investments, LLC Property Street Address: 64 University Way (“Subject Property”) Tax Map & Parcel: 050048000 Current Zoning Classification: R-3 Residential Overlay District: District H (Rugby Road—University Circle—Venable Neighborhood) Architectural Design Control District Reason for Planning Commission Review: Final site plan reflects the proposed development of a property that is the subject of an approved special permit per Sections 34-820(d) and 34-822 Vicinity Map Page 1 of 4 P22-0010 64 University Way Final Site Plan Standard of Review Site plan approval is a ministerial function of Planning Commission in which no discretion is involved. If this final site plan contains all required information, then it must be granted approval. If Planning Commission disapproves this plan, it shall set forth in writing the specific reasons therefor. 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. Scott Collins of Collins Engineering, on behalf of Neighborhood Investments LLC, is seeking Planning Commission approval for the Lyndhall Apartments Final Site Plan. This final site plan proposes a 16-unit apartment building at 64 University Way. On May 3, 2021, City Council approved Special Use Permit SP21-00003 authorizing a residential density of up to 48 dwelling units per acre (DUA) at this location. As per the City’s Zoning Ordinance, Planning Commission shall review this final site plan because it reflects the proposed development of property that is subject to a Special Use Permit. Site Plan Requirements A. Compliance with the City’s Erosion and Sediment Control ordinance (Chapter 10) Staff has determined that this final site plan complies with the City’s Erosion and Sediment Control ordinance. Total land disturbance is below 6,000 sq. ft. and therefore an Erosion and Sediment Control plan is not required for this project. B. Compliance with applicable R-3 Residential District zoning regulations (Sections 34- 350 thru 34-420) The property is zoned R-3 Residential District. The project complies with all requirements of the R-3 Residential District. C. Compliance with general standards for site plans (Sections 34-827 thru 34-828) 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 Sheets 1 and 2. 2. Existing condition and adjacent property information: Found on Sheet 3. 3. Phasing plan: The project will be constructed in one phase per Sheet 2. 4. Topography and grading: Found on Sheet 5. 5. Existing landscaping and trees: Found on Sheet 3. 6. The name and location of all water features: N/A. Page 2 of 4 P22-0010 64 University Way Final Site Plan 7. One hundred-year flood plain limits: N/A. 8. Existing and proposed streets and associated traffic information: No new roads are proposed. 9. Location and size of existing water and sewer infrastructure: Found on Sheet 3. 10. Proposed layout for water and sanitary sewer facilities and storm drain facilities: Found of Sheets 5 and 6. 11. Location of other existing and proposed utilities and utility easements: Found on Sheet 5. 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 4. 13. Location and dimensions of all existing and proposed improvements: Found on Sheets 3, 4, 5, 6. 14. All areas intended to be dedicated or reserved for public use: No new area is proposed to be dedicated for public use. 15. Landscape plan: Found on Sheet 6. 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 2. b. Estimated vehicles per day: Found on Sheet 2. 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 May 3, 2021 includes the following conditions (See Attachment 2), which are provided on Sheet 7A of the final site plan. 1. Upon completion of the Project, the Building shall contain, in the aggregate, no more than 16 dwelling units, and not more than 24 bedrooms. Found on Sheet 2. 2. Pursuant to §34-162(a): a. the side setbacks required by City Code §34-353(a) are hereby modified; all side setbacks shall be 10 feet, minimum; Found on Sheet 2. b. the off-street parking offset requirements required by City Code §34-972(b)(6) are hereby modified to require no minimum setback; Found on Sheet 2. c. the off-street parking requirements of City Code §34-984 are hereby modified to reduce required off-street parking spaces by two (2) spaces. Found on Sheet 2. Page 3 of 4 P22-0010 64 University Way Final Site Plan 3. Outdoor lighting shall be provided only at building entrances. All outdoor lighting and light fixtures shall be full cut-off luminaires. Light spillover from luminaires onto public streets or abutting lots shall not exceed one-half (0.5) foot candle. A spillover shall be measured horizontally and vertically at the property line or edge of public right of way or public easement, whichever is closer to the luminaire. Found on Sheet 6A. 4. A total of at least sixteen (16) bicycle parking spaces shall be provided within the area of the Subject Property, as follows: a. At least eight (8) bicycle lockers, Found on Sheet 4. b. At least eight (8) outdoor bicycle parking spaces on site. Found on Sheet 4. 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 applicant held a virtual site plan conference on April 7, 2021 beginning at 10:00 AM using the Zoom webinar platform. Property owners and occupants within 500 feet, and all City neighborhood association leaders were notified of the meeting per requirements in Section 34‐ 41(c)(2). Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the final site plan. Attachments 1. Final Site Plan dated September 22, 2022 2. Special Use Permit Resolution dated May 3, 2021 3. Conceptual Site Plan Associated with SUP dated January 15, 2021 Page 4 of 4 #R-21-065 RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 64 UNIVERSITY WAY (LYNDHALL APARTMENTS) WHEREAS, landowner Neighborhood Investments, LLC (“Landowner”) is the current owner of certain land identified within the City’s real estate records by Real Estate Parcel Identification No. 050048000, currently having a street address of 64 University Way, and having an area of approximately 0.34 acre (14,810 square feet) (the “Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, Landowner proposes to renovate the existing multifamily dwelling (“Building”) located on the Subject Property, to increase the number of dwelling units within the Building, and seeks a special use permit to authorize an overall residential density of 48 dwelling units per acre (DUA) within the area of the Subject Property, together with certain changes to the parking and landscaping within the Subject Property (collectively, the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is located within the R-3 (Residential, medium-density residential) zoning district, a district in which, according to the Use Matrix set forth within City Code 34-420, additional residential density may be authorized by City Council by means of a special use permit; and WHEREAS, the Project is described in more detail within the Landowner’s application materials submitted in connection with SP21-00003, as required by City Code §34-158 (collectively, the “Application Materials”); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council conducted a joint public hearing, after notice and advertisement as required by law, on April 13, 2021; and WHEREAS, upon consideration of the comments received during the joint public hearing, the information provided by the Landowner within the Application Materials, and the information provided within the Staff Report, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the proposed Special Use Permit for the Project subject to suitable regulations and safeguards; and WHEREAS, upon consideration of the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the Staff Report, comments received at the public hearing, as well as the factors set forth within Sec. 34-157 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, this Council finds and determines that granting the proposed Special Use subject to suitable regulations and safeguards would serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, that a special use permit is hereby approved and granted to authorize residential density of up to 48 dwelling units per acre for a Project to be constructed within the Subject Property, subject to the following conditions: 1. Upon completion of the Project, the Building shall contain, in the aggregate, no more than 16 dwelling units, and not more than 24 bedrooms. 2. Pursuant to §34-162(a): a. the side setbacks required by City Code §34-353(a) are hereby modified; all side setbacks shall be 10 feet, minimum; b. the off-street parking offset requirements required by City Code §34-972(b)(6) are hereby modified to require no minimum setback; c. the off-street parking requirements of City Code §34-984 are hereby modified to reduce required off-street parking spaces by two (2) spaces. 3. Outdoor lighting shall be provided only at building entrances. All outdoor lighting and light fixtures shall be full cut-off luminaires. Light spillover from luminaires onto public streets or abutting lots shall not exceed one-half (0.5) foot candle. A spillover shall be measured horizontally and vertically at the property line or edge of public right of way or public easement, whichever is closer to the luminaire. 4. A total of at least sixteen (16) bicycle parking spaces shall be provided within the area of the Subject Property, as follows: a. At least eight (8) bicycle lockers, b. At least eight (8) outdoor bicycle parking spaces on site. 5. The specific Project for which additional residential density is authorized by this special use permit is the Project described within the Application Materials, including, without limitation: the design, Building height, Building footprint, parking areas, landscaping and other characteristics described or depicted within the site plan exhibit dated January 15, 2021, included among the Application Materials. Except as may otherwise be required in order to comply with requirements of the zoning ordinance or the City’s Standards and Design Manual, or with other conditions of this special use permit: any change in the material aspects of the Project that is inconsistent with the representations made within the Application Materials shall require a modification of this Special Use Permit. Without limiting the foregoing, the following are deemed material aspects of the Project for purposes of this special use permit approval: a. The number of dwelling units and bedrooms within the renovated Building, as authorized by the overall density approved within this special use permit, b. The height and footprint of the existing Building, and c. The size, location and configuration of the outdoor patio proposed to be established on the south side of the Building. 6. No construction or improvements shall be commenced prior to approval of a final site plan for the Project and approval of a permit authorizing landဨdisturbing activities pursuant to Section 10ဨ9. For purposes of Chapter 10 of the City Code, demolition activities shall be planned and built into the erosion & sediment control plan and stormwater management plan (if required), as part of the overall plan for the development of the Subject Property, and no such demolition shall be undertaken as a standဨalone activity. Approved by Council May 3, 2021 Kyna Thomas, CMC Clerk of Council CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT ERB Review of a Special Use Permit request within the 5th Street SW Entrance Corridor 1150 5th Street SW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: October 11, 2022 Project Planner: Matt Alfele Date of Hearing: October 11, 2022 Application Number: P22- 00007 Zoning: Highway Corridor (HW) with Entrance Corridor (EC) Overlay Entrance Corridor Overlay District: §34-307(a)(6) 5th Street SW (from corporate limits to beginning of the Ridge Street ADC District) Tax Parcel: 21B004400 Site Acreage: 0.99-acres Current Usage: Vacant building, formerly a bank. ERB Staff report prepared by: Jeff Werner, AICP, Preservation and Design Planner ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Relevant Code Section Sec. 34-157(7) When the property that is the subject of the application for a special use permit (SUP) is within a Entrance Corridor (EC), Council shall refer the application to the Entrance Corridor Review Board (ERB) for recommendations as to whether the proposed use will have an adverse impact on the EC, and for recommendations as to reasonable conditions which, if imposed, would mitigate any such impacts. The ERB shall return a written report of its recommendations to Council. Background The 0.9-acre site is zoned HW (Highway Corridor) and within the Fifth Street Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The site was most recently occupied by a bank—the existing building was constructed in 1988. Applicant requesting a SUP to allow an automatic car wash (“car wash”), a facility for washing motor vehicles using production line methods with a chain conveyor or blower, steam cleaning device or other mechanical device requiring continuous movement of cars into the wash rack. (Ref. Code Sec. 34-930(a)(1).) If the SUP is approved, the bank will be razed and the car wash constructed, including landscaping and associated site work. Regardless of approval or denial of the requested SUP, per Code Sec. 34-309, any subsequent redevelopment of this site will require design review by 1113 5th Street SUP ERB recm’d (final Sept 9, 2022 revw’d by MA) 1 the ERB [applying the City’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines (design guidelines)] and approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA). Discussion This site previously served a bank with three (3) drive-through lanes. Vehicular traffic will continue to use the east entrance off Harris Road, with no entrance/egress onto 5th Street. In staff’s opinion, the proposed SUP—either as a use or in the built form--will not have an adverse impact on the EC district. The required site plan review will address traffic issues. The EC design review will address visually important elements, including the architecture, lighting, and landscape plan. Recommendations The proposed building and landscaping plans, while conceptual, do not present any elements of the design, height, massing, or scale that concern design staff or that otherwise cannot be resolved during the required design review process. The design guidelines for 5th Street SW Entrance Corridor acknowledge the auto-oriented, commercial uses and that it is intended as an area where the most intense commercial development in Charlottesville occurs. Staff recommends the proposed use and redevelopment of the site associated with a car wash, as presented conceptually, will not adversely impact the 5th Street SW Entrance Corridor. Public Comments Received No public comments have been received relative to the design review of the SUP request. Suggested Motion Finding of no adverse impact: I move to find the impacts of the proposed Special Use Permit for a car wash at 1113 5th Street SW will not adversely impact the 5th Street SW Entrance Corridor. Attachments 1. Links to the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines 2. Information [from the Design Guidelines] re: the 5th Street SW Entrance Corridor 1113 5th Street SUP ERB recm’d (final Sept 9, 2022 revw’d by MA) 2 Attachment 1: Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines [links] • Chapter I: Introduction http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793359/1_Introduction_ERB.pdf • Chapter II: Streetscape http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793360/2_Chapter%20II%20Streetscape_E RB.pdf • Chapter III: Site http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793361/3_Chapter%20III%20Site_ERB.pdf • Chapter IV: Buildings http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793362/4_Chapter%20IV%20Buildings_ER B.pdf • Chapter V: Entrance Corridors http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793363/5_Chapter%20V%20Maps%20of% 20Corridors_ERB.pdf Attachment 2: Design Guidelines: Recommendations specific to the 5th Street SW EC. • From Chapter V: Entrance Corridors (pages 20 – 22) http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793363/5_Chapter%20V%20Maps%20of% 20Corridors_ERB.pdf Fifth Street is a major downtown gateway to the city from I-64, and from development areas of Albemarle County in the south. This new street travels relatively parallel to the old Ridge Road but is comprised of four traffic lanes and a wide median. The corridor is lined with street trees and contains wooded hillsides and some small-scale townhouses. Highway oriented commercial uses dominate the southern end of the corridor. Positive Aspects • Street trees and planted median • Wooded hillsides and much open space • Opportunity to develop a stronger architectural image at a major gateway Vision This major southern entry leads to the Ridge Street historic district. It is auto-oriented and relatively undeveloped. The opportunity is to create an attractive boulevard leading to the downtown area. Additional landscaping along the corridor, including median flowers beds, will help define this entrance to the City, and will help make walking a more pleasant experience. Interior road connections should preclude excessive curb cuts along 5th Street. The Moore’s Creek buffer area and wooded steep slopes should be maintained to emphasize a green gateway. Individual building designs should complement the existing residential fabric of the 1113 5th Street SUP ERB recm’d (final Sept 9, 2022 revw’d by MA) 3 Ridge Street historic neighborhood. This corridor is a potential location for public wayfinding signage. Design Guidelines: Recommendations specific to Sub-Area A (Corporate limits to Harris Road) Description • Streetscape: Interstate-oriented, turn lanes, overhead utilities, cobra-head lights. • Site: Planted banks, planted sites, gas station canopies, elevated sites, parking lots. • Buildings: Mixed-use with retail, strip, national chains, one-story, deep setbacks. Recommended General Guidelines • Retain auto-oriented uses geared to I-64 • Upgrade franchise designs as opportunities arise • Create stronger gateway presence with plantings • Maintain 100-foot Moore’s Creek buffer Guidelines Specific to the Zoning (HW) Highway Corridor district: The intent of the Highway Corridor district is to facilitate development of a commercial nature that is more auto-oriented than the mixed-use and neighborhood commercial corridors. Development in these areas has been traditionally auto- driven and the regulations established by this ordinance continue that trend. This district provides for intense commercial development with very limited residential use. It is intended for the areas where the most intense commercial development in Charlottesville occurs. Height regulation: • Maximum height: 1 to 7 stories, recommend 1 to 3. Setbacks: • Primary street frontage: 5 feet, minimum; 30 feet, maximum • Linking street frontage: 5 feet minimum; 20 feet, maximum • Side and Rear, adjacent to any low density residential district: 20 feet, minimum. • Side and Rear, adjacent to any other zoning district: none required. Buffer regulations: • Adjacent to any low-density residential district, side and rear buffers (S-2 type) shall be required, 10 feet, minimum. 1113 5th Street SUP ERB recm’d (final Sept 9, 2022 revw’d by MA) 4 5th Street SW Entrance Corridor 1113 5th Street SUP ERB recm’d (final Sept 9, 2022 revw’d by MA) 5 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: SP22-00007 DATE OF HEARING: October 11, 2022 Project Planner: Matt Alfele, AICP Date of Staff Report: September 19, 2022 Applicant: Green Clean Albemarle LLC (Contract Purchaser) Applicant’s Representative(s): Megan Nedostup, AICP with Williams Mullen Current Property Owner: Patriot Bank Application Information Property Street Address: 1113 5th Street SW (“Subject Property”) Tax Map & Parcel/Tax Status: 21B004400 (real estate taxes paid current - Sec. 34-10) Total Square Footage/ Acreage Site: Approx. 0.81 acres (35,425 square feet) Comprehensive Plan (Future Land Use Map): Urban Mixed Use Corridor Current Zoning Classification: Highway Corridor (HW) Overlay District: Entrance Corridor Applicant’s Request (Summary) The applicant is requesting a Special Use Permit (SUP) pursuant to Code Sec. 34-796 and Sec. 34-158 to demolish the existing bank on the Subject Property and construct a Car Wash. The Subject Property has street frontage on 5th Steet SW and Harris Road. The proposed Car Wash will have a main building fronting on 5Th Street SW with parking, pay stations, vacuums, a dumpster, and an ingress/egress from Harris Road. Offsite improvements include pedestrian markings across the entrance to Willoughby Square Shopping Center. Page 1 of 15 SP22-00007 1113 5Th ST SW Car Wash SUP Vicinity Map Subject Properties Context Map 1 Subject Properties Page 2 of 15 SP22-00007 1113 5Th ST SW Car Wash SUP Context Map 2- Zoning Classifications Subject Properties KEY - Orange: R-2U, Purple: HW, Brown: MR, Green: PUD, Hatch: Entrance Corridor Context Map 3- Future Land Use Map, 2021 Comprehensive Plan Subject Properties KEY – Brown: Medium-Intensity Residential, Purple: Urban Mixed Use Corridor, Yellow: General Residential, Blue: Education, Green: Open Spaces and Parks, Light Green: Stream Buffer Page 3 of 15 SP22-00007 1113 5Th ST SW Car Wash SUP 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 proposed 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 the applicant’s analysis of their application per Sec. 34-157, see attachment B. (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 properties are described as: Direction Use Zoning North Townhouses MR (McIntire/Fifth Street Residential Corridor) South Commercial HW (Highway Corridor) East Open Space for Willoughby PUD (Planned Unit Development) West Hotel/Motel HW (Highway Corridor) The proposed development would replace a vacant bank building on the Subject Property with an Automotive Car Wash and be located within an established commercial district. According to the application materials (Attachment C), the Car Wash would be one story in height. The uses adjacent to the Subject Property are commercial in nature. A hotel/motel is adjacent to the Subject Property on the western side, but under Section 34-769 this use is Non-residential Commercial. To the north of the Subject Property across Harris Road are townhouses (Willoughby Townes) and three (3) Single Family Detached dwellings. Not adjacent to the Subject Property, but within the vicinity is Jackson Via Elementary School. To the east is the Willoughby PUD. This is a residential development containing Single Family Detached and Single Family Attached units. To the south (and within the commercial development) is the Willoughby Square Shopping Center. Page 4 of 15 SP22-00007 1113 5Th ST SW Car Wash SUP Staff Analysis: The predominate use surrounding the Subject Property within ¼ mile is commercial. There are residential uses close to the Subject Property mainly along Harris Road and across 5th Street within the Willoughby PUD development. Staff has some concerned with pedestrian traffic in this area as it relates to the proposed development and Jackson Via Elementary School. Harris Road is identified on the Jackson Via Elementary School Safe Route to School map. Based on this concern, the applicant is proposing to provide a crosswalk (Attachment C) along Harris Road at the entrance to the development and Willoughby Square Shopping Center. This offsite improvement would be an upgrade to the currently unmarked entrance and would not be required if the site was developed by- right. Staff finds that the change from a bank with three (3) drive-through lanes to a Car Wash at this location will be harmonious with existing patterns of use and development within the neighborhood. (2) Whether the proposed use or development and associated public facilities will substantially conform to the city's comprehensive plan. Below are specific areas of the Comprehensive Plan for which the request could be in compliance: a. Land Use, Urban Form, and Historic & Cultural Preservation Goal 2: Future Land Use Vision. Guide implementation of the Future Land Use vision contained in this Comprehensive Plan, including support for existing neighborhoods and preventing displacement. Goal 7: Entrance Corridors. Ensure that the quality of development in Charlottesville’s designated Entrance Corridor Overlay Districts is compatible with the City’s requirements and standards, and with the adjacent neighborhood’s historic, architectural, and cultural resources, while allowing for reuse of structures and evolution of uses in these areas. b. Transportation Goal 1: Complete Streets Create and maintain a connected network of safe, convenient, and pleasant accommodations for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders, including people of all ages and abilities. c. Environment, Climate, and Food Equity Goal 6: Tree Canopy Contribute to the creation, protection, and expansion of robust urban forests. Page 5 of 15 SP22-00007 1113 5Th ST SW Car Wash SUP Below are specific areas of the Comprehensive Plan for which the request may not be in compliance: a. Transportation Goal 2: Coordination with Land Use & Community Design Improve quality of life and promote active living by reducing automobile use and congestion and supporting multimodal options for safe and convenient travel in conjunction with implementation of the Future Land Use Vision. Comprehensive Plan- Staff Analysis: The Subject Property is zoned Highway Corridor (HW) with Entrance Corridor overlay. The HW zoning district is traditionally auto focused catering to commercial and retail development with limited residential uses. Some examples of uses in the HW zoning district include grocery, restaurants with drive-throughs, hotels, shopping centers, and Car Washes. The 2021 Comprehensive Future Land Use Map indicates the Subject Property remain Urban Mixed Use Corridor. The land use section of the comprehensive plan states the following for Urban Mixed Use Corridor: Description: Higher intensity mixed use development arranged along corridors between employment, commercial, and civic hubs of the City. Form: Respond to existing residential, environmental, historic context. building heights according to context. Height: 5 stories, up to 8 at key intersections, such as intersections identified in the Streets That Work Downtown, Industrial, Mixed Use, or Neighborhood corridors. Use and Affordability: Commercial, employment, residential. Include an inclusionary zoning mechanism to support housing affordability. As presented, the development will not require any affordable housing units per Sec. 34-12. Staff finds the proposed development would conform to the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map. A one story Car Wash in the HW district is consistent with the zoning intent of the area and the land use. The proposed development is also consistent with the surrounding development. Streets that Work Plan The 2016 Streets that Work Plan labels 5th Street SW as Mixed Use A typology. Mixed Use A streets are characterized by two vehicular travel lanes in either direction, a center median/turn lane, sidewalks without buffers and standard bicycle lanes. The Streets that Work Plan recommends a minimum clear zone width of seven (7) feet for sidewalks, which Page 6 of 15 SP22-00007 1113 5Th ST SW Car Wash SUP are noted along with a curbside buffer zone (the area between the curb and sidewalk) as the highest priority items in the Mixed Use A typology. The next level (high) priority items for Mixed Use A typology are five (5) to seven (7) foot bike lanes, turn boxes, ten (10) foot shared use paths, and bicycle parking in curbside buffer zoned or on-street. The existing conditions for 5th Street SW include five (5) foot wide sidewalks with no buffer, planted median with turn lanes, a marked bike lane, and ADA crosswalks at the Harris Street intersection. Nothing in the application materials would alter the existing conditions to the public right of way of 5th Street SW. The Streets that Work Plans labels Harris Road as “Neighborhood A”. Neighborhood A streets have one travel lane in each direction, sidewalks on at least one side, dedicated bicycle facilities and some on-street parking. The highest priority for this street typology is sidewalks with a five (5) to six (6) foot clear zone and bicycle facilities. These facilities include signage, shared lane markings, five (5) foot lanes, and six (6) foot climbing lanes. The next level priority for Neighborhood A streets is seven (7) to eight (8) foot on-street parking. The existing conditions for Harris Road include five (5) foot wide sidewalks with no buffer, marked bike lanes, and on street parking just west of the Subject Property. Currently the entrance to the Willoughby Square Shopping Center off Harris is not marked for pedestrian crossing. As part of the application (Attachment C) the developer will provide pedestrian improvements at this location. This is the only improvement being proposed within or impacting the public right of way along Harris Road. Bike Ped Master Plan The City’s 2015 Bike Ped Master Plan indicates 5Th Street SW have “Protected Bike Lanes”. This type of infrastructure is defined as ‘bicycle lanes that are separated from motor vehicle traffic by physical or visual elements. These lanes can be one-directional on each side of the road, or bi-directional on one site of the road. Separated bicycle lanes require a minimum width of 8-12 feet for two-way configuration and 5-7 feet for a one-way configuration.’ One- way protected bike lanes are currently provided along 5th Steet SW at the Subject Property. For Harris Road the City’s 2015 Bike Ped Master Plan calls for “Bike Lane”. ‘Bicycle lanes are one-way, on-road bike facilities that provide a dedicated space for people bicycling parallel to motor vehicle traffic. Bicycle lanes are often delineated with pavement marking stripes and, in some cases, may be fully colored for higher visibility, especially at intersections. Additional striping or hatching between a bicycle lane and vehicular travel lane is recommended to provide a buffer between the person bicycling and the person driving, Page 7 of 15 SP22-00007 1113 5Th ST SW Car Wash SUP where roadway widths allow. Bicycle lanes without a buffer require a minimum width of 5-6 feet and bicycle lanes with a buffer require 7-8 feet.’ Bike lanes are currently provided along Harris Road. It should be noted that due to the intersection of Harris Road with 5 th Street SW, bike lanes are not provided directly adjacent to the Subject Property and are not recommended. The City’s 2015 Bike Ped Master plan also calls for pedestrian improvements to the intersection of Harris Road and 5th Street SW. ADA improvements were provided at the intersection within the last few years to provide better pedestrian crossing along the northern portion of the intersection. The plan also calls out the lack of crosswalk striping along the entrance to the Willoughby Square Shopping Center along Harris Road. The development being proposed would provide that crosswalk. Staff Analysis: Based on the application package, staff concludes that the pedestrian network along 5th Street SW and Harris Road will not be impacted by the proposed SUP or development. Staff believes the addition of the pedestrian crosswalk along Harris Road at the entrance to the Willoughby Square Shopping Center will be an improvement to current conditions. Staff does recommend that along with the striping for the crosswalk that CG-12 detectable warning surfaces be provided on the ramps to the east and west of the intersection. (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, but final determination cannot be made until final site plan review. (4) Potential adverse impacts, including, but not necessarily limited to: a) Traffic or parking congestion Traffic The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the application and finds the amount of traffic related to this development would have no impact to Harris Road, 5th Street SW or the intersection of the two streets. Vehicular Access The proposed project will have vehicular access from Harris Road and 5th Street SW. These points of access are the same points of vehicular access that serve the Willoughby Square Shopping Center. Page 8 of 15 SP22-00007 1113 5Th ST SW Car Wash SUP Parking All parking for the proposed development will pe provided onsite per the application materials. Twenty-three (23) spaces are being provided per attachment C. The code (Sec. 34-984) requires 1.5 spaces/bay; plus 1 space per employee, based on largest shift. As presented, the proposed development will meet the minimum requirements for parking. Staff Analysis: An automotive Car Wash of this scale, at this location will have no impact as it relates to traffic. Staff finds the parking plan as presented would meet code and not have an adverse impact or be more intensive than what could be provided with a by- right development. b) Noise, lights, dust, odor, fumes, vibration, and other factors which adversely affect the natural environment The proposed development will not result in any additional dust, odor, fumes, vibration, or other factors that could also be present with any by-right development. Any site plan submitted would need to conform to Division 3 Lighting of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has provided noise study for the site (Attachment D). It should be noted that per Section 16-8, the City’s noise ordinance only applies to noise created within a Residential Zoning District or Residential Building and the proposed development will be within a commercial building and in a Mixed Use Zoning District. Staff Analysis: Staff is not concerned with the main Car Wash portion of the development. The intersection of Harris Road and 5th Street SW creates a noticeable level of constant background sound. Machinery contained within the Car Wash building fronts on this intersection and is away from residential development to the north of Harris Street. Staff is concerned with the possible disruptive noise produced by the individual vacuums located on the northern section of the development. These vacuums will run sporadically during operation hours and the level of noise produced will very widely depending on how many vacuums are running at once. Ideally staff would like to see the development flipped so the vacuums are located on the south side of the development, but due to site constricts this would produce circulation and traffic problems. Staff is confident the noise from the vacuums can be mitigated at site plan review. A small wall to reflect noise back on site, larger shrubs, relocation of a few of the vacuums to internal parking spaces, reduction in the number of vacuums, and use of quieter vacuums are all options that can be explored during site plan review. Staff has reviewed the noise study provided by the applicant and believes the proposed Page 9 of 15 SP22-00007 1113 5Th ST SW Car Wash SUP development would meet the City’s noise ordinance. Staff would recommend conditioning the operation of the Car Wash as offered by the applicant in Attachment B (“…the facility will be open Monday-Saturday from 7am -8pm and Sunday from 9am - 6pm”) to ensure any noise created by the Car Wash is limited to normal business hours. c) Displacement of existing residents or businesses The existing bank on the Subject Property is currently vacant and has not been in use for some time. d) Discouragement of economic development activities that may provide desirable employment or enlarge the tax base No discouragement of economic development activities will be associated with the proposed development. The existing bank on site is not currently in use. 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. Although final determination for capacity and code compliance will take place at Final Site Plan review, each of these departments have reviewed the SUP applicant and determined the development, as proposed, would not have an adverse impact on community facilities. f) Reduction in the availability of affordable housing in the neighborhood As the most recent use of the Subject Property was commercial and the new use will be commercial, there will be no reduction in the availability of affordable housing to the neighborhood based off the approval of this SUP. g) Impact on school population and facilities As this will be a commercial use, there will be no impact on the school population and facilities. h) Destruction of or encroachment upon conservation or historic districts The Subject Property is not within any of these design control districts. i) Conformity with federal, state and local laws, as demonstrated and certified by the applicant Page 10 of 15 SP22-00007 1113 5Th ST SW Car Wash SUP 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 zoning 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 applicant materials (Attachments A-C) show a one story Car Wash that will front on 5th Street SW. The application materials also show that the Car Wash will be within the “Build-to-zone” required in the Highway Corridor Zoning District. The City code defines a Build-to-zone as the area between the minimum and maximum allowable setbacks along a street frontage. A building façade may be required to maintain a minimum percentage in the build-to-zone, measured based on the width of the building divided by the width of the lot. Minor deviations such as recessed entries, recessed balconies, and architectural features are considered to be at the same setback as the building façade immediately adjacent to those features. Staff believes the massing and scale of this project is consistent with the surrounding developments. (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 Subject Property is currently zoned Highway Corridor (HW) with Entrance Corridor (EC) overlay. The purpose of the Mixed Use zoning district is to encourage mixed-use development within appropriate areas of the city, located along or adjacent to streets or highways found by the city council to be significant routes of access to the city. Objectives of these districts include the following: (1) Creation of a dynamic street life, encouraging the placement of buildings close to property lines, and/or heavily landscaped yard areas, in order to engage pedestrians and de-emphasize parking facilities; (2) Encouragement of mixed-use development; (3) Facilitation of development that demonstrates an appropriateness of scale; (4) Encouragement of development that offers creative minimization of the impact of parking facilities and vehicular traffic; Page 11 of 15 SP22-00007 1113 5Th ST SW Car Wash SUP (5) Encouragement of landscaped spaces available for pedestrian use (e.g., pocket parks, tree-lined streets and walkways); (6) Encouragement of alternate forms of transportation (e.g., pedestrian travel, bicycle paths, use of public transit); (7) Encouragement of neighborhood-enhancing economic activity; (8) Encouragement of home ownership; and(9)Encouragement of neighborhood participation in the development process. The districts in which such development is encouraged fall, generally, into two (2) categories: (1) Commercial/residential mixed use districts. With little remaining vacant land, the city's continued vitality depends upon its ability to attract and facilitate a harmonious mixture of commercial and residential development and redevelopment. Generally, each of these zoning districts seeks to encourage a mixture of residential, commercial and cultural uses within a single building, or within multiple related buildings and structures. Of particular importance is the creation of corridors to serve as vital centers for economic growth and development while at the same time encouraging development that is friendly to pedestrians and alternate modes of transportation characteristic of an urban setting. (2) Commercial/industrial mixed use districts. Each of these zoning districts seeks to provide an area in which important industrial uses, of limited scale, may be located, but in which opportunities for incorporation of related or harmonious commercial uses can be facilitated. Highway Corridor district. The intent of the Highway Corridor district is to facilitate development of a commercial nature that is more auto oriented than the mixed use and neighborhood commercial corridors. Development in these areas has been traditionally auto driven and the regulations established by this section continue that trend. This district provides for intense commercial development with very limited residential use. It is intended for the areas where the most intense commercial development in Charlottesville occurs. The entrance corridor overlay district (EC) is intended to implement the comprehensive plan goal of protecting the city's historic, architectural and cultural resources, by ensuring a quality of development compatible with those resources through design control measures. The purposes of this article are to stabilize and improve property values; to protect and enhance the city's attractiveness to tourists and other visitors; to sustain and enhance the economic benefits accruing to the city from tourism; to support and stimulate development complimentary to the prominence afforded properties and districts having historic, Page 12 of 15 SP22-00007 1113 5Th ST SW Car Wash SUP architectural or cultural significance; all of the foregoing being deemed to advance and promote the health, safety and welfare of the general public. Staff Analysis: Staff finds that a Car Wash on the Subject Property would be in harmony with the purposes of the specific zoning district in which it will be placed. (6) Whether the proposed use or development will meet applicable general and specific standards set forth within the zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, or other city ordinances or regulations; and 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 located within an Entrance Corridor Overlay, where the final design of the proposed development is subject to review by the Entrance Corridor Review Board (ERB). See Entrance Corridor Memo for more information. Public Comments Received Community Meetings Required by Sec. 34-41(c)(2) The applicant held an online community meeting on September 8, 2022 which was attended by five (5) members of the public. A recording of the meeting can be found at the below link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU0VTBXq0Xc Members of the public had the following concerns: • Traffic from the Car Wash will add to an already busy intersection. • Lighting from cars will shine into homes on Harris Street. • Noise from the vacuums will be a problem. • Environmental impacts from a Car Wash. Staff has received two phone call related to this development. Below is an outline of these concerns: Page 13 of 15 SP22-00007 1113 5Th ST SW Car Wash SUP • Increased traffic at the intersection. • Noise from the Car Wash. • Lighting from the Car Wash will impact the residential neighborhood. • Property values around the Car Wash will go down. Any comments received after the completion of this staff report will be directly sent to Planning Commission and City Council. Staff Recommendation Staff finds the application meets the general standards for a Special Use Permit and recommends approval with the below conditions: Recommended Conditions Should Planning Commission recommend approval to City Council, Staff recommends that following conditions be included: 1. Pedestrian crosswalk striping will be provided along with CG-12 detectable warning surfaces to the west of the Subject Property across the entrance road to the Willoughby Square Shopping Center. 2. Operation of the Car Wash will be limited to Monday-Saturday from 7am -8pm and Sunday from 9am -6pm. 3. The applicant will work with staff during final site plan review to ensure any noise created by the onsite vacuums will be mitigated. These solutions may include but are not limited to; construction of a small wall or physical barrier to reflect noise back on site, larger shrubs (at planting), relocation of a number of vacuums to internal parking spaces, reduction in the number of vacuums, and/or installation of low noise vacuums. Suggested Motions 1. I move to recommend approval of this application for a Special Use Permit in the HW zone at 21B004400, 1113 5th Street Southwest to permit a Car Wash 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 HW zone at 21B004400, 1113 5th Street Southwest to permit a Car Wash. Attachments A. Special Use Permit Application Page 14 of 15 SP22-00007 1113 5Th ST SW Car Wash SUP B. Special Use Permit Narrative C. Layout and Elevations D. Noise Study E. Community Engagement Meeting Information F. Public Comments Page 15 of 15 City of Charlottesville Application for Special Use Permit 1113 5th Street Attachment A Attachment A City of Charlottesville Application Checklist - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Attachment A City of Charlottesville Community Meeting - - - - Attachment A City of Charlottesville (Not Required) - Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A City of Charlottesville Fee Schedule - Attachment A Attachment A August 16, 2022 Green Clean Auto Wash 5th Street 1113 5th Street Special Use Permit Application Narrative for Car Wash Tax Map Parcel 21B004400 00007 SP 2022-_______ Proposal: Green Clean Albemarle LLC wishes to locate a car wash on the corner of 5th Street and Harris Road in the City of Charlottesville. The property is located at 1113 5th Street SW and currently contains a vacant bank building with a drive thru. The existing building will be removed, but the parking will remain and be reconfigured as shown on the proposed Layout Plan. The car wash itself will be enclosed within the proposed building and vacuums will be located adjacent to the parking spaces. Employees will be on site to assist users and the facility will be open Monday-Saturday from 7am-8pm and Sunday from 9am-6pm. Description of Surrounding Area: The surrounding area is a mix of commercial and residential uses. The property is located north of the Willoughby Shopping Center and shares an accessway and entrance off Harris Road. To the north, across Harris Road, is the Willoughby Towns townhome community, the property adjacent to the south is a professional office building, and the property to the west is an existing motel known as Affordable Suites of America Charlottesville. To the east, across 5th Street, is the Willoughby neighborhood. Jackson-Via Elementary school is located nearby as well. Attachment B 1 August 16, 2022 Site Maps: Willoughby Neighborhood Jackson-Via Elementary Site Willoughby Shopping Center Contextual Vicinity Map Site Parcel Aerial Map Attachment B 2 August 16, 2022 Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The property is designated as Urban Mixed-Use Corridor which is described as: “Higher intensity mixed use development arranged along corridors between employment, commercial, and civic hubs of the city.” The proposed car wash use meets this designation. Site Comprehensive Plan Map Zoning Ordinance: Highway Corridor Zoning District: The property is zoned Highway Corridor which states that the intent of the district is as follows: “to facilitate development of a commercial nature that is more auto oriented than the mixed use and neighborhood commercial corridors. Development in these areas has been traditionally auto driven and the regulations established by this section continue that trend. It is intended for the areas where the most intense commercial development in Charlottesville occurs.” The proposed car wash meets the intent of the Zoning District. Attachment B 3 New VIA August 16, 2022 Site Zoning Map Car Wash Criteria: Per 34-930 of the Zoning Ordinance, the following criteria must be met for a Car Wash use (ordinance in italics): (a) Automatic car washes. (1) For the purpose of this division, "automatic car wash" means a facility for washing motor vehicles using production line methods with a chain conveyor or blower, steam cleaning device or other mechanical device requiring continuous movement of cars into the wash rack. The proposed car wash meets this definition for automatic car wash. (2) No lot on which an automatic car wash is situated shall have an area of less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet, or a lot width of less than fifty (50) feet. The proposed car wash is located on a parcel that is more 10,000 square feet and more than 50 feet in width. (3) A hard surfaced driveway of either one (1) or more lanes shall be constructed on the site in such a manner as to provide for a continuous movement of cars into the wash rack. The driveways so provided shall be not less than ten (10) feet wide for a single lane and not less than ten (10) additional feet in width for each additional lane. Each lane is not less than ten (10) feet in width. Attachment B 4 August 16, 2022 a. Where access to the wash rack is restricted to a single lane, such lane shall be used only for such purposes as are a part of the washing operation. The total length of the required lane or lanes so provided shall be determined by the overall length of the building including areas having side walls but no roof. In any building where the washing operation moves in other than a straight line, the length of the building for the purposes of this section shall be the distance measured along the center line of the conveyor or wash line from the point of entry to the point of exit from the building. Access to the wash rack is restricted to a single lane and is used only for the washing operation. The operation moves in a straight line. b. The overall length of the required lane or lanes as measured along the center line shall be determined in accordance with the following formula: Where the building is eighty (80) feet or less in overall length, the total required lane or lanes shall be not less than two hundred (200) feet in length. Where the building exceeds eighty (80) feet in length, the length of the required lane or lanes shall be increased twenty (20) feet for each ten (10) or fraction thereof by which the building exceeds eighty (80) feet in overall length. The building is 100 feet in length, and therefore, the three lanes combine equal 300+ feet in length, as shown on the Layout Plan, which meets this requirement. (4) Gasoline pumps may be permitted on the site; provided, however, that the area occupied by such pumps shall be in addition to the area required under subsection (3) of this section. Gasoline pumps are not proposed. (5) The building exit for automobiles that have completed the washing process shall be at least twenty- five (25) feet distant from the nearest point of the public sidewalk of the adjacent street. The building exit is more then 25 feet from the public sidewalks along 5th Street and Harris Road. (6) A sand trap for waste water with a minimum capacity of one hundred twenty (120) cubic feet shall be provided within the building for the protection of the sewers. A sand trap will be provided that meets this requirement. (7) Vacuuming facilities may be outside the car wash building but shall not be in the required front yard. Vacuums are located outside of the required front yard. (8) The building or vacuuming facilities shall be sufficiently buffered from any residential district or use. Vacuums will be screened with landscaping from the residential use across Harris Road. (9) Any light used to illuminate the area shall be in conformance with the regulations set forth in Article IX, sections 34-1000, et seq. (outdoor lighting regulations). Attachment B 5 August 16, 2022 Lighting proposed will meet the outdoor lighting regulations at site plan. Special Use Permit Criteria: Per 34-157 of the Zoning Ordinance, in considering an application for a special use permit, the city council shall consider the following factors (ordinance in italics): (1) Whether the proposed use or development will be harmonious with existing patterns of use and development within the neighborhood; The property is located along 5th Street, which is an auto-centric designated area of the City. The Willoughby Shopping Center is located to the south, along with other auto-centric uses such as gas stations and drive thru fast-food restaurants. The car wash use will align with the existing patterns of use and development along the 5th Street corridor. It will also provide a convenient service to nearby residents. (2) Whether the proposed use or development and associated public facilities will substantially conform to the city's comprehensive plan; As stated above, the Comprehensive Plan designated this property as Urban Mixed-Use Corridor where development is arranged along corridors between employment, commercial, and civic hubs of the City. The car wash use in this location aligns with the designation, where commercial uses are recommended. (3) Whether proposed use or development of any buildings or structures will comply with all applicable building code regulations; The use and proposed building will comply with all applicable building code regulations. (4) Whether the proposed use or development will have any potentially adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, or the community in general; and if so, whether there are any reasonable conditions of approval that would satisfactorily mitigate such impacts. Potential adverse impacts to be considered include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: a. Traffic or parking congestion; The proposed car wash will not adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood or community as it relates to traffic or parking. The users of the car wash will be intermittent and not interfere with traffic in this location. The trip generation for the car wash use is similar to that of the existing bank use. There will be sufficient parking for the users, which will also provide vacuums for their use. b. Noise, lights, dust, odor, fumes, vibration, and other factors which adversely affect the natural environment; The car wash itself will be enclosed in the proposed building and will only have a small amount of noise at the exit from the dryers. The vacuums located at the parking spaces will create minimal noise and given that both Harris Road and 5th Street are busy corridors, the noise from the vacuums and the dryers will not be noticed above the vehicular traffic and other ambient Attachment B 6 August 16, 2022 noise. In addition, the car wash will close at 8pm Monday through Saturday, and at 6pm on Sunday. Finally, landscaping has been provided to assist in buffering the sound. Lighting proposed will be on the building and in the parking lot and will meet the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines and be full cut off fixtures. c. Displacement of existing residents or businesses; It is our understanding that the existing bank building has been vacant for at least several years, and no residences are located on the property. Therefore, no displacement of existing residents or businesses will occur as a result of the proposed use. d. Discouragement of economic development activities that may provide desirable employment or enlarge the tax base; The proposed use will not discourage any economic development activities. Rather, the proposed use will provide additional tax revenue to the city as a commercial use, and provide additional employment opportunities for the construction and staffing of the car wash. e. Undue density of population or intensity of use in relation to the community facilities existing or available; The car wash use is similar in intensity to the previous bank use on the property, and is similar those other existing uses in the surrounding area, and those uses that are permitted by-right in the Highway Corridor district. f. Reduction in the availability of affordable housing in the neighborhood; The proposed car wash will not result in the reduction of available affordable housing in the neighborhood. g. Impact on school population and facilities; As stated above, Jackson-Via is located near the property, along Harris Road. Given the bus driver shortage, students from nearby neighborhoods, including Willoughby, will likely be walking to school, past the proposed car wash. In an effort to assist in safe access to school, the proposal includes the addition of a crosswalk striping at the entrance/access from Harris Road. In addition, the city recently reconstructed a portion of the sidewalk along Harris Road that had been damaged, and the sidewalk will support those students. The proposed use will not have any impact on the school population or any of its facilities. h. Destruction of or encroachment upon conservation or historic districts; The property is not located within or adjacent to either a conservation or historic district, and thus will not have any adverse impact on any such district. i. Conformity with federal, state and local laws, as demonstrated and certified by the applicant; and, Attachment B 7 August 16, 2022 The proposed car wash will conform with all federal, state, and local laws. j. Massing and scale of project. The proposed building for the car wash will be one story, as shown on the conceptual elevations. The proposed building will be of similar size and scale as the existing bank building on the property. (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; As stated above, property is zoned Highway Corridor, which is an auto-oriented zoning district. The car wash use is in harmony with the purpose and intent of 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 The proposed use will meet applicable general and specific standards within the zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, and other city ordinances or regulations. See response to car wash criteria in prior section. (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 proposed use is within an Entrance Corridor and thus subject to the Entrance Review Board. The car wash is a similar use as what has existed on the site for many years, and will not have an adverse impact on the district. The layout of the site, building, and the landscaping has been designed to meet the Fifth Street from Harris Road to the City corporate limits (Sub Area A) Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines. We understand that approval by the Entrance Review Board will be a requirement of final site plan approval. Summary: The proposed special use will not have adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, entrance corridor, or community in general, it aligns with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan, and meets the intent and purposes of the Zoning District. (100818564.2) Attachment B 8 GREENCLEAN AUTO WASH 5TH STREET M NS TM #21-B-47 LG AS PROPCO LLC DB 2019, PG 152 DB 724, PG 679 (PLAT) ZONING: HW USE: MOTEL M NS M NS ∆ C1 H I M (V NF AR ABL AR RI E R 5 S RD /W) . 3 10 5 IP F TM #21-B-45 1115 5TH STREET LLC ∆ DB 2014, PG 3512 DB 572, PG 334 (PLAT) ZONING: HW C2 USE: OFFICE MON C 3 IP IP MON IP F F F ∆ IP F F 5TH ST. SW S.R. 631 (VARIABLE R/W) LIGHTING NOTE: ALL LIGHTING SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REGULATIONS SET FORTH IN SECTIONS 34-1000, ET SEQ. N O R TH LAYOUT PLAN Attachment C August 10, 2022 Side Elevation Entry Elevation Scale: 3/16” = 1’-0” Scale: 3/16” = 1’-0” Side Elevation Exit Elevation Scale: 3/16” = 1’-0” Scale: 3/16” = 1’-0” Green Clean Auto Wash 5th Street SW, Charlottesville, VA Attachment C CONCEPT PLANT SCHEDULE GREENCLEAN LARGE DECIDUOUS TREES 250 SF CANOPY/EA Acer rubrum `October Glory` TM / October Glory Maple Liquidambar rotundiloba / Fruitless Sweet Gum 11 B & B, 2.5"Cal B & B, 2.5"Cal AUTO WASH 5TH STREET Platanus x acerifolia `Bloodgood` / London Plane Tree B & B, 2.5"Cal Quercus phellos `Hightower` / Willow Oak B & B, 2.5"Cal ORNAMENTAL TREES 5 Cercis canadensis `Hearts of Gold` / Hearts of Gold Redbud B & B, 8` HT. MIN Cornus x `Rutcan` TM / Constellation Flowering Dogwood B & B, 8` HT. MIN Prunus x yedoensis / Yoshino Cherry B & B, 8` HT. MIN EVERGREEN TREES 15 Ilex opaca 'Jersey Knight' / Jersey Knight American Holly B & B, 8` HT. MIN Ilex x 'Nellie R. Stevens' / Nellie R. Stevens Holly B & B, 8` HT. MIN M NS TM #21-B-47 LG AS PROPCO LLC SHRUBS 87 DB 2019, PG 152 DB 724, PG 679 (PLAT) Abelia x 'Rose Creek' / Rose Creek Abelia Cont., 36" HT. MIN. ZONING: HW Ilex cornuta 'Burfordii Nana' / Dwarf Burford Holly Cont., 36" HT. MIN. USE: MOTEL Ilex glabra 'Shamrock' / Shamrock Inkberry Holly Cont., 36" HT. MIN. M NS M NS ∆ C1 H I M (V NF AR ABL AR RI E R 5 S RD /W) 14 . " CH ER RY 14 "M AP LE 3 10 5 IP F 16 M" AP TM #21-B-45 LE 1115 5TH STREET LLC ∆ DB 2014, PG 3512 DB 572, PG 334 (PLAT) ZONING: HW C2 USE: OFFICE MON 36 "O RN AM EN TA L C 3 IP IP MON IP F F F ∆ IP F F 30 "O RN AM 5TH ST. SW EN TA L S.R. 631 (VARIABLE R/W) N O R TH LANDSCAPE PLAN Attachment C August 25, 2022 Craig Van Bremen Green Clean Holdings, LLC 5215 Colley Avenue, Suite 109 Norf olk, VA 23508 Subject: Green Clean Car Wash 1113 5th Street Southwest, Charlottesville, VA Project Description The purpose of this technical memorandum is to summarize the monitored noise levels associated with a proposed location for a Green Clean car wash at 1113 5th Street Southwest in Charlottesville, VA. The proposed car wash is located at the corner of Harris Road and 5th Street Southwest, Willoughby Square in Charlottesville, VA. The site is generally located northwest of 5th Street, south of Harris Road, and east of Affordable Suites of America Charlottesville. The proposed development will be located on a parcel currently occupied by a vacant bank with residential land uses to the north, vacant land to the south and east, and retail land uses to the west. The location of the project site is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1: Site Location and Vicinity kimley-horn.com 1700 Willow Lawn Drive, Suite 200, Richmond, VA 23230 804 673 3882 Attachment D Green Clean Charlottesville Noise Analysis August 25, 2022 - Page 2 Characteristics of Noise Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from many natural and man-made sources. Sound pressure levels are usually measured and expressed in decibels (dB). The decibel scale is logarithmic and expresses the ratio of the sound pressure unit being measured to a standard ref erence level. Most sounds occurring in the environment do not consist of a single frequency, but rather a broad band of differing frequencies. The intensities of each frequency add together to generate sound. Because the human ear does not respond to all frequencies equally, the method commonly used to quantify environmental noise consists of evaluating all of the frequencies of a sound according to a weighting system. It has been found that the A-weighted decibel [dB(A)] filter on a sound level meter, which includes circuits to differentially measure selected audible frequencies, best approximates the frequency response of the human ear. The degree of disturbance from exposure to unwanted sound – noise – depends upon three factors: 1. The amount, nature, and duration of the intruding noise 2. The relationship between the intruding noise and the existing sound environment; and 3. The situation in which the disturbing noise is heard In considering the first of these factors, it is important to note that individuals have varying sensitivity to noise. Loud noises bother some people more than other people, and some individuals become increasingly upset if an unwanted noise persists. The time patterns and durations of noise(s) also af f ect perception as to whether or not it is offensive. For example, noises that occur during nighttime (sleeping) hours are typically considered to be more offensive than the same noises in the daytime. With regard to the second factor, individuals tend to judge the annoyance of an unwanted noise in terms of its relationship to noise from other sources (background noise). A car horn blowing at night when background noise levels are low would generally be more objectionable than one blowing in the af ternoon when background noise levels are typically higher. The response to noise stimulus is analogous to the response to turning on an interior light. During the daytime an illuminated bulb simply adds to the ambient light, but when eyes are conditioned to the dark of night, a suddenly illuminated bulb can be temporarily blinding. The third f actor – situational noise – is related to the interference of noise with activities of individuals. In a 60 dB(A) environment such as is commonly found in a large business office, normal conversation would be possible, while sleep might be difficult. Loud noises may easily interrupt activities that require a quiet setting for greater mental concentration or rest; however, the same loud noises may not interrupt activities requiring less mental focus or tranquility. As shown in Figure 2, most individuals are exposed to fairly high noise levels from many sources on a regular basis. To perceive sounds of greatly varying pressure levels, human hearing has a non- linear sensitivity to sound pressure exposure. Doubling the sound pressure results in a three-decibel change in the noise level; however, variations of three decibels [3 dB(A)] or less are commonly considered “barely perceptible” to normal human hearing. A five decibel [5 dB(A)] change is more readily noticeable. A ten-fold increase in the sound pressure level correlates to a 10 decibel [10 dB(A)] noise level increase; however, it is judged by most people as only sounding “twice as loud”. kimley-horn.com 1700 Willow Lawn Drive, Suite 200, Richmond, VA 23230 804 673 3882 Attachment D Green Clean Charlottesville Noise Analysis August 25, 2022 - Page 3 Figure 2: Common Noise Levels Over time, individuals tend to accept the noises that intrude into their lives on a regular basis. However, exposure to prolonged and/or extremely loud noise(s) can prevent use of exterior and interior spaces and has been theorized to pose health risks. kimley-horn.com 1700 Willow Lawn Drive, Suite 200, Richmond, VA 23230 804 673 3882 Attachment D Green Clean Charlottesville Noise Analysis August 25, 2022 - Page 4 Existing Conditions The site is located in the southwest corner of the 5th Street Southwest and Harris Road intersection on the property of the former Carter Bank & Trust. The proposed development is surrounded by vacant land to the east, the Affordable Suites of America Charlottesville to the west and a townhouse community (Willoughby Townes) to the north. There are additional commercial uses to the south of the site. The predominant sources of noise in the vicinity of the proposed development are anticipated to be traf f ic along the surrounding roadway network. Other sources of noise include ambient environmental noise, which includes wind, birds, insects, lawn mowers, etc. To assess existing noise conditions at the proposed site, long-term noise measurements were collected for 1-hour durations on August 11, 2022. Norsonic 140 Type 1 integrating sound level meters were set up at two long-term monitoring locations: one near the townhouses to the north of the site and one near the motel to the west of the site. Long-term noise measurement hourly Leq values obtained in the field ranged between 57 dB(A) and 64 dB(A). The long-term noise field data of each monitoring site is shown in Table 1. Table 1. Long-term Noise Measurement Data 1-hr LMAX LMIN Measurement Leq Noise Noise Setup Location Description Noise Level Time Level Level [dB(A] [dB(A] [dB(A] West side of the site near LT1 Af fordable Suites of 12:57 PM to 1:57 PM 57.1 78.5 51.5 America Charlottesville North of the site near LT2 12:56 PM to 1:56 PM 64.4 85.1 58.6 Willoughby Townes The measurements were taken using the A-weighted scale and are reported in decibels [dB(A)]. Data collected by the noise meters included time, average noise level (Leq), maximum noise level (Lmax), and instantaneous peak noise level (Lpk) for each interval. Hourly average noise levels (Leq(h)) were derived from the Leq values. The existing noise measurements were collected under meteorologically acceptable conditions and were conducted based on the acceptable collection of existing noise level readings. Pictures of each field monitoring setup are shown in Table 2, and the locations of the monitoring sites are shown in Figure 3. kimley-horn.com 1700 Willow Lawn Drive, Suite 200, Richmond, VA 23230 804 673 3882 Attachment D Green Clean Charlottesville Noise Analysis August 25, 2022 - Page 5 Table 2. Long-term Noise Measurement Setup Pictures LT1: Facing East LT2: Facing South Figure 3: Long-Term Measurement Site Locations kimley-horn.com 1700 Willow Lawn Drive, Suite 200, Richmond, VA 23230 804 673 3882 Attachment D Green Clean Charlottesville Noise Analysis August 25, 2022 - Page 6 To understand potential noise impacts at the proposed site, short-term noise measurements were collected for 5-minute durations on November 3, 2021 at an existing Green Clean Car Wash located in Portsmouth, VA. Larson Davis LxT ANSI Type 1 integrating sound level meters were set up at four short-term monitoring locations around the site. Short-term noise measurement Leq values obtained in the f ield ranged between 57 dB(A) and 71 dB(A). The short-term noise field data of each monitoring site is shown in Table 3. Table 3. Short-term Noise Measurement Data Leq LMAX LMIN Measurement Noise Noise Noise Setup Location Description Time Level Level Level [dB(A] [dB(A] [dB(A] 1A Northeast corner of the site 12:14 to 12:19 PM 61.0 75.4 54.5 1B Southeast corner of the site 12:14 to 12:19 PM 63.8 72.7 59.4 East side of the site 2A 12:35 to 12:40 PM 62.1 71.8 58.8 (~120 f t f rom building) East side of the site 2B 12:35 to 12:40 PM 57.1 66.2 53.5 (~220 f t f rom building) 3A Northeast corner of the site 12:42 to 12:47 PM 57.9 64.7 54.6 3B Southeast corner of the site 12:42 to 12:47 PM 64.0 70.0 60.8 South side of the site 4A 12:49 to 12:54 PM 70.8 79.9 61.9 (~50 f t f rom dryers) 4B Southeast corner of the site 12:49 to 12:54 PM 63.9 71.0 60.0 The measurements were taken using the A-weighted scale and are reported in decibels [dB(A)]. Data collected by the noise meters included time, average noise level (Leq), maximum noise level (Lmax), and instantaneous peak noise level (Lpk) for each interval. Hourly average noise levels (Leq(h)) were derived from the Leq values. The existing noise measurements were collected under meteorologically acceptable conditions and were conducted based on the acceptable collection of existing noise level readings. Pictures of the field monitoring setups are shown in Table 4, and the locations of the monitoring sites are shown in Figure 4. kimley-horn.com 1700 Willow Lawn Drive, Suite 200, Richmond, VA 23230 804 673 3882 Attachment D Green Clean Charlottesville Noise Analysis August 25, 2022 - Page 7 Table 4. Short-term Noise Measurement Setup Pictures 1A, 3A: Facing West 1B, 3B, 4B: Facing West 2A: Facing West 2B: Facing West kimley-horn.com 1700 Willow Lawn Drive, Suite 200, Richmond, VA 23230 804 673 3882 Attachment D Green Clean Charlottesville Noise Analysis August 25, 2022 - Page 8 Figure 4: Short-Term Measurement Site Locations Noise Regulation The proposed development is located in Charlottesville, VA. Chapter 16 of the Charlottesville Code of Ordinances regulates noise and prohibits loud noises. Section 16-8 provides maximum allowable sound levels in residential zones. During daytime hours (6:00am to 10:00pm), sound levels are restricted to 65 dB(A) when measured at or outside the property boundary. Conclusions The site is located in the southwest corner of the 5th Street Southwest and Harris Road intersection on the property of the former Carter Bank & Trust. The proposed development is surrounded by vacant land to the east, the Affordable Suites of America Charlottesville to the west and a townhouse community (Willoughby Townes) to the north. There are additional commercial uses to the south of the site. As shown in Table 5, based on the collected field data, the monitored average noise levels at the proposed site are consistent with the sound levels measured at the existing car wash site in Portsmouth, VA at similar locations and distances from the building (e.g., location 2B corresponds to LT1, location 1B corresponds to LT2). Theref ore, the proposed car wash is not expected to have a significant impact on the ambient noise environment at the proposed site. As a result, noise abatement measures are not recommended for the proposed site. kimley-horn.com 1700 Willow Lawn Drive, Suite 200, Richmond, VA 23230 804 673 3882 Attachment D Green Clean Charlottesville Noise Analysis August 25, 2022 - Page 9 Table 5. Noise Measurement Comparison Leq Noise Level Setup Location Description [dB(A] LT2 North of the site near Willoughby Townes – Shown on 64.4 (Charlottesville) Figure 3 1B (Portsmouth) Southeast corner of the site – Shown on Figure 4 63.8 LT1 West side of the site near Affordable Suites of America 57.1 (Charlottesville) Charlottesville – Shown on Figure 3 East side of the site 2B (Portsmouth) 57.1 (~220 f t f rom building) – Shown on Figure 4 kimley-horn.com 1700 Willow Lawn Drive, Suite 200, Richmond, VA 23230 804 673 3882 Attachment D Attachment E Attachment E Attachment E Attachment E Attachment E Recipient Address 2 Address 3 City / State ZIP PANDIT, SAGAR P 103 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22903 GNANVO, KONDO 105 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22903 SANTISTEVAN, MICHAEL R & RUBEN 107 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22903 LG AS PROPCO LLC 10801 MONROE RD STE 200 MATTHEWS NC 28105 MUNICIPAL BAND OF CH'VILLE INC THE 1119 5TH ST SW CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902 GONG, MEIPING 1131 CAMBRIDGE HILL LN KESWICK VA 22947 LIU, ZHENQI 1131 CAMBRIDGE HILL LN KESWICK VA 22947 MOORE, HUNTER D 117 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22903 LAFFOON, DANIELLE & LORREN 122 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22903 AGUILERA, MARIA F, ETAL 123 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22903 CLARK, JOSHUA D 125 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22903 CALANCIE, SAMUEL ERIK 127 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22903 TIAN, ZHONGZHENG 128 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902 PATRIOT BANK, NA 1300 KINGS MOUNTAIN ROAD MARTINSVILLE VA 24112 MITCHELL, CHEKISHA A 1325 NORTH STATE PKWY UNIT 19E CHICAGO IL 60610 CHEN, JOSEPH W & CHE‐YU 135 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22903 DENTON‐SPALDING, CLAIRE 137 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22903 NEWSOME, WALTER L & CAROLYN W 1407 BAKER ST CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22903 SJORDAL, JONATHAN E, KRISTIE & ELISABETH J 141 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22903 DEANE, RODNEY E, JR 1411 SACHEM PL CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22901 D'ERAMO, ROBERT, JR 148 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22903 DI ZIO, JESSICA & 150 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22903 WILLOUGHBY, PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIA 1500 AMHERST ST #3 CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22903 MCELFRESH, STEPHEN & STEPHANIE BLANCH 1514 MAYMONT COURT CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902 129 OLD FIFTH CIRCLE LLC 16 PRESIDENTIAL LN STAFFORD VA 22554 GROSS, JOSHUA M 166 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22903 WALKER, EVERETT MAURICE 168 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22903 YANG, DAI 170 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22903 GEZAHEY, GIDEY & TIBEYELA KIDANE 172 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22903 JENSEN, DAVID M 174 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22903 ZHANG, WEIXIA 1844 MARIETTA DR CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22911 SHORT, MATTHEW & NOREEN REILLY 2 SETTLERS LN WESTFIELD NJ 7090 DILORENZO, FRANCIS X, BISHOP OF RICHMOND 208 EAST JEFFERSON STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902 KEPLINGER, SCOTT M & COURTNEY P 220 E HOWELL AVE ALEXANDRIA VA 22301 MOORES CREEK LLC 224 14TH STREET NW CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22903 ARMSTRONG, CHARLES T, JR 2300 HYLAND RIDGE DR CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22911 COPPOLINO, ELIZABETH 232 HUNTLEY AVE CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22903 YOUNG, WILLIAM C 2508 CENTRAL AVE ALEXANDRIA VA 22302 Attachment E MCELFRESH, JOHN R 2508 CENTRAL AVENUE ALEXANDRIA VA 22302 KASTENMAYER, TRUSTEE, RUTH W 2600 BARRACKS RD APT 312 CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22901 WELK PLACE, LLC 3056 BERKMAR DRIVE CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22901 KEPLINGER, FRANKLIN W & JULIE A 3191 WALLINGFORD LANE KESWICK VA 22947 CUI, QUANJUN & LING YANG 425 FOXDALE LN CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22903 MCELFRESH, CAROL E, TRUSTEE 4440 MAJESTIC LN FAIRFAX VA 22033 RBD BENT CREEK, LLC 455 2ND ST SE # 201 CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902 WILLOUGHBY SQUARE ASSOCIATES, LLP 4701 COLUMBUS ST STE 300 VIRGINIA BEACH VA 23462 VIA, JOHN W 513 HARRIS ROAD CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22903 CHEN, YONG 590 WANAMAKER RD JENKINTOWN PA 19046 KUMRA, USHA 6023 MUNSON PLACE FALLS CHURCH VA 22041 FATOYINBO, ANNE E & TEMILOLA E 6520 HILLMEAD RD BETHESDA MD 20817 HERNANDEZ, MANUEL O & MARY B, CO‐TRUSTEES 656 BAYWICK CIR CROZET VA 22932 NIKPEY, PARI, TRUSTEE 714 LYONS AVE CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902 SHACKELFORD, ELLIE WICHTER 906 CHARLTON AVENUE CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22903 MCIMETRO ACCESS TRANSMISSION SVCS OF VA, INC P O BOX 152206 IRVING TX 75015 WILLOUGHBY TOWNES OWNERS ASSOC, INC P O BOX 5306 CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22905 1115 5TH STREET LLC P O BOX 7046 DALLAS TX 75209 OCCUPANT 507 HARRIS RD APT A CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 509 HARRIS RD APT A CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 147 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 125 WELK PL APT A CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 1113 5TH ST SW CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 1119 5TH ST SW UNIT C CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 1145 5TH ST SW CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 156 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 108 WELK PL APT A CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 160 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 112 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 509 HARRIS RD APT B CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 1119 5TH ST SW UNIT D CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 1135 5TH ST SW CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 1139 5TH ST SW CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 115 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 133 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 107 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 125 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 145 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 116 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 Attachment E OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 129 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 102 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 122 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 141 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 112 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 130 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 155 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 147 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 135 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 104 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 124 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 143 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 114 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 132 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 106 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 120 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 146 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 137 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 138 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 121 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 131 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 101 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 111 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 140 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 119 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 105 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 113 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 142 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 123 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 103 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 134 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 108 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 136 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 117 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 148 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 126 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 110 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 139 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 118 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 Attachment E OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 149 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 128 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 109 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 127 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 150 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 156 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 152 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 151 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 154 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 158 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 160 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 159 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 153 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 157 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 511 HARRIS RD APT B CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 125 WELK PL APT B CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 109 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 533 HARRIS RD CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 162 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 1143 5TH ST SW CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 154 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 121 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 133 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 113 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 115 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 1141 5TH ST SW CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 1147 5TH ST SW CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 511 HARRIS RD APT A CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 507 HARRIS RD APT B CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 110 WELK PL APT B CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 1115 5TH ST SW CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 119 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 129 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 131 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 101 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 152 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 108 WELK PL APT B CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 1119 5TH ST SW UNIT H CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 1119 5TH ST SW UNIT A CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 Attachment E OCCUPANT 143 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 145 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 126 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 116 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 124 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 1131 5TH ST SW CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 1133 5TH ST SW CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 164 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 158 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 1146 5TH ST SW CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 OCCUPANT 110 WELK PL APT A CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 120 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 114 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 139 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 111 OLD FIFTH CIR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 OCCUPANT 524 HARRIS RD # 144 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 Matt Alfele, Neighborhood Development Services P.O. Box 911 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attachment E Attachment F CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APPLICATION FOR A CRITICAL SLOPE WAIVER APPLICATION NUMBER: P22-0039 DATE OF MEETING: October 11, 2022 Project Planner: Matt Alfele, AICP Date of Staff Report: September 13, 2022 Applicant: Collins Engineering Applicant’s Representative(s): Scott Collins Current Property Owner: Belmont & Carlton Holdings, LLC Application Information Property Street Address: 1003 - 1005 Carlton Ave., 0 Walnut St., 730 - 732 Walnut St., 735 Walnut St., and 0 Cherry St. Tax Map & Parcel/Tax Status: 570020000, 570002100, 570004000, 570006000, 570007100, 570007300, 570007500, 570007700, 570007900, 570002000, 570003000, 57005000, 570007000, 570007200, 570007400, 570007600, 570007800, 570010000 (real estate taxes paid current – Sec. 34-12) Total Project Area (Limits of Disturbance): 6.193 acres Total Area of Critical Slopes on Parcels: 0.988 acres | 15.95% Area of Proposed Critical Slope Disturbance: 0.563 acres | 65.3% of total critical slopes area Comprehensive Plan (General Land Use Plan): Neighborhood Mixed Use Corridor and Neighborhood Mixed Use Node Current Zoning Classification: NCC (Neighborhood Commercial Corridor) Overlay District: None Applicant’s Request (Summary) Belmont & Carlton Holdings, LLC has submitted a Critical Slope Waiver application prior to submitting a final site plan for a proposed mixed use development near the intersection of Carlton Avenue and Garden Street. The proposed by-right mixed use development would include one- hundred and thirty (130) residential units, eight-thousand seven-hundred and fifty (8,750) square feet of commercial space, new private street, reconfiguration of Holly Street, new City streets, a connection to Spruce Street, and open space. It is also indicated in the application materials (Attachment B) that 5% of the residential units will be affordable. This calculates out to seven (7) units. To construct the mixed use development, as presented in the application, the developer will Page 1 of 10 P22-0039 Belmont Condominiums Critical Slope Waiver need to disturb 86.4% of the critical slopes on site. Of that 86.4%, 65.3% needs a waiver from City Council. The remaining percentage of critical slopes is exempt per Section 34-1120(b)(7)(c). Existing critical slopes areas located on this Property include 0.988 acres or 15.95% of the site. The applicable definition of “critical slope” is as follows: Any slope whose grade is 25% or greater, and (a) a portion of the slope has a horizontal run of greater than 20 feet, and its total area is 6,000 SF or greater, and (b) a portion of the slope is within 200 feet of a waterway. See City Code Sec. 34- 1120(b)(2). Based on the information presented within the application materials, Staff verifies that the area for which this waiver is sought meets all of the above-referenced components of the definition of “critical slope”. Vicinity Map Critical Slopes per the Zoning Ordinance Page 2 of 10 P22-0039 Belmont Condominiums Critical Slope Waiver Standard of Review Per Sec. 34-1120(6)(d): The planning commission shall make a recommendation to city council in accordance with the criteria set forth in this section, and city council may thereafter grant a modification or waiver upon making a finding that: (i)The public benefits of allowing disturbance of a critical slope outweigh the public benefits of the undisturbed slope (public benefits include, but are not limited to, stormwater and erosion control that maintains the stability of the property and/or the quality of adjacent or environmentally sensitive areas; groundwater recharge; reduced stormwater velocity; minimization of impervious surfaces; and stabilization of otherwise unstable slopes); or (ii)Due to unusual size, topography, shape, location, or other unusual physical conditions, or existing development of a property, one (1) or more of these critical slopes provisions would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use, reuse or redevelopment of such property or would result in significant degradation of the site or adjacent properties. If the recommendation is for City Council to grant the requested waiver, the Planning Commission may also make recommendations as to the following: In granting a modification or waiver, city council may allow the disturbance of a portion of the slope, but may determine that there are some features or areas that cannot be disturbed. These include, but are not limited to: (i)Large stands of trees; (ii)Rock outcroppings; (iii)Slopes greater than 60%. Page 3 of 10 P22-0039 Belmont Condominiums Critical Slope Waiver City council shall consider the potential negative impacts of the disturbance and regrading of critical slopes, and of resulting new slopes and/or retaining walls. City council may impose conditions as it deems necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare and to insure that development will be consistent with the purpose and intent of these critical slopes provisions. Conditions shall clearly specify the negative impacts that they will mitigate. Conditions may include, but are not limited to: (i)Compliance with the "Low Impact Development Standards" found in the City Standards and Design Manual. (ii)A limitation on retaining wall height, length, or use; (iii)Replacement of trees removed at up to three-to-one ratio; (iv)Habitat redevelopment; (v)An increase in storm water detention of up to 10% greater than that required by city development standards; (vi)Detailed site engineering plans to achieve increased slope stability, ground water recharge, and/or decrease in stormwater surface flow velocity; (vii)Limitation of the period of construction disturbance to a specific number of consecutive days; (viii)Requirement that reseeding occur in less days than otherwise required by City Code. Project Review and Analysis Each applicant for a critical slopes waiver is required to articulate a justification for the waiver, and to address how the land disturbance, as proposed, will satisfy the purpose and intent of the Critical Slopes Regulations, as found within City Code Sec. 34-1120(b)(1). The applicant has provided information in the attached critical slopes waiver narrative (Attachment A) for Application Finding #1 and Finding #2. Staff Analysis 34-1120(b)(d)(i) Application Finding #1: Public Works Engineering Department: Based on the submitted materials and the applicant’s justifications, engineering cannot recommend approval under either Finding #1 or Finding #2. In regards to providing an evaluation of the waiver in accordance with Sec. 34-1120 (6) (c): “The director shall provide the planning commission with an evaluation of the proposed modification or waiver that considers the potential for soil erosion, sedimentation and water pollution in accordance with current provisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook and the Virginia State Water Control Board best management practices, and, where applicable, the provisions of Chapter 10 of the City Code. The director may also consider other negative impacts of disturbance as defined in these critical slope provisions.” This project triggers the City of Charlottesville threshold for requiring both VESCH, and VSMP plans. Since this requires a full review for compliance from the City, and ultimate approval in order to receive a Land Disturbing Permit, the City will have some authority over assuring the project conforms to VESCH, VA SWM BMP, as well as Chapter 10 of the City Code. An evaluation of negative impacts specifically provided in the critical slope provisions follows: Page 4 of 10 P22-0039 Belmont Condominiums Critical Slope Waiver a. Erosion affecting the structural integrity of those features./ b. Stormwater and erosion- related impacts on adjacent properties. It appears as if the development in the proposed conditions will reduce drainage across the steep slopes from existing, helping to preserve onsite and immediately adjacent steep slopes. Most of the erosion of the sensitive features, both onsite and downstream, are affected during construction of the project. While preliminary, the consultant has provided an E&S concept which seems rigorous. c. Stormwater and erosion-related impacts to environmentally sensitive areas such as streams and wetlands. There will be 202 lf of “intermittent waters of the US” and 0.02 Acres of “Palustrine Emergent Wetlands” that will be totally displaced with the development. There is 0.03 Acres of “Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetlands” that is outside the proposed LOD and appears to be preserved in the proposed conditions. See below response to “d” for impacts to downstream sensitive areas. d. Increased stormwater velocity due to loss of vegetation. The development proposes considerable removal of existing vegetation and a large increase of impervious surfaces. To offset this, there are three SWM facilities proposed. While preliminary, the consultant is claiming that 3 of the 4 outfalls will have a reduced flow in the 10 year storm event. The 4th, will have slight increase. It is presumed future submittals will demonstrate this has been accounted for in accordance with State VSMP requirements (or City staff will not approve it). Note that (very generally), VSMP requirements are that 10-year flows match those of existing conditions, not be reduced below it. e. Decreased groundwater recharge due to changes in site hydrology. The applicant is claiming that all 3 SWM facilities will provide groundwater recharge. It is unlikely, based on existing soil types, the selected facility locations, and the large amount of compacted fill necessary to bring the SWM areas to grade, that there will be any substantial groundwater recharge to offset the reduction caused by the extensive grading and additional impervious. f. Loss of natural or topographic features that contribute substantially to the natural beauty and visual quality of the community such as loss of tree canopy, forested areas and wildlife habitat. Staff would tend to agree that “natural beauty and visual quality” of the site is lacking in existing conditions. While hard to quantify, there will be some habitat loss caused by the removal of the “intermittent stream” and “Palustrine Emergent Wetlands” It is challenging for City staff to provide insightful engineering concerns or comments without engineered plans at this stage. While the plans have not been submitted for review by PWE staff as a “Final Site Plan”, usually the focus of the Critical Slopes waiver request review is on the post- development SWM scheme yet provided and any Erosion and Sediment control sequencing issues that can be identified. There are limited sequencing or constructability concerns from staff at this time based on the information provided. If Planning Commission feels approval of this Critical Slope Waiver is worthwhile, the following “boilerplate” comments should be required, at a minimum: 1) Site Plans (VESCP Plans) should include, at a minimum, 4 stages/phases of ESC controls. The first phase shall include “Initial/Preliminary Controls”. Outfalls from any proposed traps shall be established with rigorous independent ESC controls, early in the sequence, prior to the establishment of a sediment trap and associated conveyances. 2) Any channels/diversions that convey ‘clear’ water shall be stabilized with sod on the ‘clear water’ side immediately after installation. 3) “Super Silt Fence” (chain linked backing) shall be installed where perimeter silt fence is specified. Page 5 of 10 P22-0039 Belmont Condominiums Critical Slope Waiver 4) Any disturbance occurring outside of conveyances to the trap, in either sequence or space, planned or unforeseen, shall be immediately stabilized with sod (for pervious areas, utilities should have other “same day stabilization”). 5) At no time shall concentrated water be directed toward the critical slopes without adequate conveyance down and beyond the slopes to an acceptable outfall. There is also language in the applicant’s waiver request regarding providing more water quality than is ‘required’: “The SWM facilities have been designed to also provide water quality (approximately 25% more than required)”. In Charlottesville, there is no requirement that any onsite water quality be provided with a project. Rather, each regulated project calculates its required annual Phosphorus removal requirement (in lbs), and provides that through onsite water quality or purchases of nutrient credits. It is common in Charlottesville that nutrient credits are purchased which does not benefit local waters/ecosystems (generally, within the City limits). City Engineering Staff is always pleased to see onsite water quality proposed, especially those providing more than required. If the Planning Commission would like to memorialize this as a requirement, the following language is suggested: 1. To document the landowner's representation regarding onsite water quality measures, the Final Plan will include a Virginia Stormwater Management Plan that includes a design for onsite water quality provided by a facility, OR facilities that are either 1) designed in accordance with the BMP Clearinghouse “2013 Draft Design Specifications for Practices 1- 15”, or 2) proprietary Manufactured Treatment Device(s) approved by DEQ as of the date the Final Plan is submitted. The facility or facilities should provide 125 percent of the onsite Phosphorus removal required by the Virginia Water Quality requirements for the development. Compliance with the 125 percent will be demonstrated by accurate project data set forth within a completed VRRM spreadsheet for the project. Neighborhood Development Services Planning Department: The General Land Use Plan of the 2021 Comprehensive Plan calls for the Subject Properties to be Neighborhood Mixed Use Corridor and Neighborhood Mixed Use Node. The majority of the site is designated as Neighborhood Mixed Use Node. This designation calls for compact neighborhood centers that encompass a mix of land uses arranged in smaller scale buildings. The form will respond to existing residential, environmental, historic contexts. This land use district will be comprised of a walkable grid of streets, civic amenity spaces, and an intensive mix of uses. Height should be allowed up to five (5) stories. Uses should include commercial, employment, and residential in the same building. Inclusionary zoning should be implemented to support affordably housing. A small portion of the development will fall under the Neighborhood Mixed Use Corridor. This designation calls for neighborhood-scaled mixed use areas arranged along corridors that support existing residential districts. The form should respond to existing residential, environmental, and historic context. Height should allow up to five (5) stories. Uses should include commercial, employment, and residential in small multi-unit and live- work unit buildings. Inclusionary zoning should be implemented to support affordably housing. Staff finds that the subject properties could be developed without impacting critical slopes, but Page 6 of 10 P22-0039 Belmont Condominiums Critical Slope Waiver would be developed in such a way that many of the 2021 Comprehensive Plan goals would not be met. Connectivity and walkable streets on the site would be hard to achieve without impacting critical slopes. Previous attempts to develop the site without impacting critical slopes included two large apartment buildings on site (one on the east side and one on the western side) without new public streets or connection to the surrounding neighborhood. This previous layout would be permissible under the current code but would not achieve or further the goals of the comprehensive plan. Although what is currently being proposed does not meet all the goals stated in the comprehensive plan (such as a greater mix of uses, a better transition to the surrounding historic neighborhood in regard to scale, and the inclusion of civic amenity space) it would meet more of them than two large apartment buildings. Some of the goals that could be met by this development included a walkable grid of streets, a compact neighborhood center with an arrangement of smaller scaled buildings, and inclusion of affordable housing (see the Office of Community Solutions for more information on the affordable housing aspect of this applicant.) that is not required for by-right development. City Manager Office of Community Solutions: The application has been revised as follows: The number of proposed affordable housing units has been reduced from 6% (8 units) to 5% (7 units). There is no additional information as to unit types that will be affordable (i.e. rental vs. homeownership), affordability level, or length of affordability. The revised application proposes: • 5% of the total number of dwelling units shall be dedicated to affordable housing, meeting the City affordable housing requirements. o 130 total residential units * 5% = 7 units o 7 residential units are proposed to be dedicated as affordable housing units. o Note: No affordable housing is required for this project. • The mix of unit types has been revised from 118 multi-family condominiums and 12 single- family attached townhouses to 110 condominium units and 20 apartment units (total of 130 residential units has not changed). Current Site Conditions: Existing structures and vacant lots Will any existing affordable housing units be removed? Unknown; plans state all existing uses are commercial uses. If yes, how many? Unknown • The existing conditions survey (dated 3/15/22) within the development application is showing a structure on the property located at 731 Walnut Street, however, on the GIS aerial it appears that this is a vacant lot. The applicant has provided a response to this concern stating: o “The lot 731 Walnut Street contained a residential home, per documentation dated 2008. This is consistent with City GIS mapping. At some point in the past 14 years this residential home was removed, which is consistent with City GIS aerials dated 2018.” Office of Community Solutions Staff Analysis: Page 7 of 10 P22-0039 Belmont Condominiums Critical Slope Waiver 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%) 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) *25% of gross monthly income calculated to approximate allowance for rent plus utilities In this particular application, the proposed development application does not trigger Section 34-12 of the City code, therefore the applicant is not required to provide affordable dwelling unit(s) as part of the project. However, the applicant is offering “7 residential units are proposed to be dedicated as affordable housing units.” The Office of Community Solutions offers the following comments as to this application: • The existing conditions survey submitted with the application is not accurate. • Pursuant to Section 34-12, "affordable dwelling units" means dwelling units that are affordable to households with incomes at not more than 80% of the area median income and that are committed to remain affordable for a term of not more than thirty (30) years. There has been recent discussion regarding affordable dwelling units that are affordable to households with incomes at not more than 60% of the area median income, with an affordability period of 99 years. The application is not clear as to: o Which of the residential units will be affordable – homeownership vs. rental units o The level of affordability o The length of affordability • There has been no timeframe provided as to completion of the required affordable units in conjunction with the development of the remainder of the residential units. • 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 Page 8 of 10 P22-0039 Belmont Condominiums Critical Slope Waiver 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, developer 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. Staff Analysis 34-1120(b)(d)(ii) Application Finding #2 : Because the area could be developed, by-right, on existing lots or record, staff determines findings II are not applicable. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider the following when making a recommendation to City Council: Purpose and Intent of the Critical Slope Provisions The purpose and intent of the critical slope provisions in Section 34-1120(b)(1) are to protect topographic features whose disturbance may cause negative impacts including: Location of building site(s). The code allows for the disturbance of critical slopes for driveways, public utility lines and appurtenances, stormwater management facilities and any other public facilities (streets) necessary to allow the use of the parcel and shall not be required to be located within a building site and shall not be subject to the building site area and dimension requirements. With this in mind, does Planning Commission feel the location of the building site(s) for Building #3, #5, #6, #8 appropriate in relation to impact on critical slopes? Loss of tree canopy and wildlife habitat that contribute to the natural beauty and visual quality of the community. Any site plan that is approved for this development will be required to meet the minimum tree canopy requirements as outlined in Section 34-869. Although a subject properties are not considered forested due to previous development and use of the site, the critical slopes in the center and on the northern edge do contain mature trees. These trees will be lost if the critical slope wavier is granted and the subject properties are developed as presented in this application. As presented, staff see no opportunity for any meaningful tree preservation. Recommended Conditions Public Works Engineering has outlined the following considerations if an affirmative recommendation is provided to City Council: 1. Site Plans (VESCP Plans) should include, at a minimum, 4 stages/phases of ESC controls. The first phase shall include “Initial/Preliminary Controls”. Outfalls from any proposed Page 9 of 10 P22-0039 Belmont Condominiums Critical Slope Waiver traps shall be established with rigorous independent ESC controls, early in the sequence, prior to the establishment of a sediment trap and associated conveyances. 2. Any channels/diversions that convey ‘clear’ water shall be stabilized with sod on the ‘clear water’ side immediately after installation. 3. “Super Silt Fence” (chain linked backing) shall be installed where perimeter silt fence is specified. 4. Any disturbance occurring outside of conveyances to the trap, in either sequence or space, planned or unforeseen, shall be immediately stabilized with sod (for pervious areas, utilities should have other “same day stabilization”). 5. At no time shall concentrated water be directed toward the critical slopes without adequate conveyance down and beyond the slopes to an acceptable outfall. 6. To document the landowner's representation regarding onsite water quality measures, the Final Plan will include a Virginia Stormwater Management Plan that includes a design for onsite water quality provided by a facility, OR facilities that are either 1) designed in accordance with the BMP Clearinghouse “2013 Draft Design Specifications for Practices 1- 15”, or 2) proprietary Manufactured Treatment Device(s) approved by DEQ as of the date the Final Plan is submitted. The facility or facilities should provide 125 percent of the onsite Phosphorus removal required by the Virginia Water Quality requirements for the development. Compliance with the 125 percent will be demonstrated by accurate project data set forth within a completed VRRM spreadsheet for the project. Suggested Motions 1. “I move to recommend approval of the critical slope waiver for Tax Map and Parcel 570020000, 570002100, 570004000, 570006000, 570007100, 570007300, 570007500, 570007700, 570007900, 570002000, 570003000, 57005000, 570007000, 570007200, 570007400, 570007600, 570007800, and 570010000, as requested, with no reservations or conditions, based on a finding that [reference at least one]: • The public benefits of allowing the disturbance outweigh the benefits afforded by the existing undisturbed critical slope, per Section 34-1120(b)(6)(d)(i) • Due to unusual physical conditions, or the existing development of the property, compliance with the City’s critical slopes regulations would prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use or development of the property, per Section 34-1120(b)(6)(d)(ii) 2. “I move to recommend denial of the steep slope waiver for Tax Map and Parcel 570020000, 570002100, 570004000, 570006000, 570007100, 570007300, 570007500, 570007700, 570007900, 570002000, 570003000, 57005000, 570007000, 570007200, 570007400, 570007600, 570007800, and 570010000. Attachments A. Application and Narrative B. Critical Slope Exhibit C. Wetland Delineation Report Page 10 of 10 Attachment A City of Charlottesville CRITICAL SLOPES WAIVER REQUEST SUPPLEMENT Please review city zoning ordinance section 34-1120(b) “Critical Slopes” and submit a completed Waiver Application Form, Critical Slopes Waiver Request Supplement and a Critical Slope Exhibit*. Applicant: Collins Engineering 200 Garrett Street, Suite K Charlottesville, VA 22902 Property Owner: Belmont & Carlton Holdings, LLC PO Box 1467 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Project Description: What are you proposing to do on this site? The applicant is looking to construct 130 multi-family condominiums and apartments on the site, along with 8,750 SF of Commercial Retail/Office. (110 condominium units and 20 apartment units). The site includes existing city Right of way that will be improved with the project for the development of the street grid and proposed neighborhood. New City ROW is also proposed to be dedicated to the City of Charlottesville, creating additional City Streets within the City street grid. An outdoor 20,000sf amenity area is also proposed with the project. This space will be open to the community and adjacent neighborhoods. Existing Conditions: The existing conditions of the site is currently industrial businesses and operations. Most of the site is currently paved or developed. There is an existing stream and outfall that bifurcates much of the site with manmade critical slopes around the outfall and above the streams. Total Site Area: 6.193 acres Zoning (if applying for rezoning-please note existing and intended change): The current zoning on the development aera on the property is NCC (Neighborhood Commercial Corridor). The zoning for the adjacent lot located on Spruce Street providing a street connection to the adjacent neighborhood is R-2, and this lot density is not included in the project. Percentage of Area that is made up of critical slopes - meets criteria set forth in Sec. 34- 1120(b)(2) Definition of critical slope: greater than or equal to 25% slopes and a) a portion of the slope has a horizontal run of greater than twenty (20) feet and its area is six thousand (6,000) square feet or greater; and b) a portion of the slope is within two hundred (200) feet of any waterway: 43,042 SF (0.988 acres) – 15.95% of the site Total Critical Slope Area: Critical slopes make up 0.988 acres of the site’s 6.193 acres, or 15.95 % of the site area. Note, there are 0.365 acres of offsite critical slopes on the adjacent properties that are connected to the Critical slopes on this property being impacted. These offsite slopes are not proposed to be impacted with this proposed development. *If critical slopes extend beyond property line, quantify total critical slope area as well as provide area of critical slope that falls within site area. Critical Slope Area Disturbed: 0.862 acres of the total critical slope area identified above will be disturbed, or 86.4% of the total critical slope area. Proposed critical slope area to be disturbed is 13.92 % of the site area. Note: of the 0.862 acres of critical slopes being disturbed, 0.299 acres are exempt impacts for streets and driveways. Therefore, the total critical slope impacts to the project (which are not exempt) are 0.563 acres, which is 65.3% of the critical slope area that is not exempt that is being impacted with this project and 9.1% disturbance of non-exempt critical slopes of the total site area. *Critical Slope Exhibit: Survey indicating location and area of critical slopes and what portions of critical slopes are proposed to be disturbed. Survey should be prepared, sealed, signed and dated by a professional engineer or land surveyor licensed to practice within the Commonwealth of Virginia. Attachment A This application should be used to explain how the proposed project meets some or all of the requirements as described in Section 34-1120(6) “Modification or waiver.” The applicant is expected to address finding #1 and/or finding #2 and justify the finding by utilizing the “critical slope provisions” as a guide. Completing this application will help staff make their recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. City Council may grant a modification or waiver, upon making one or more of the following findings: Finding #1: The public benefits of allowing disturbance of critical slope outweigh the public benefits of the undisturbed slope( public benefits include, but are not limited to, stormwater and erosion control that maintains the stability of the property and/or the quality of adjacent or environmentally sensitive areas; groundwater recharge; reduced stormwater velocity; minimization of impervious surfaces; and stabilization of otherwise unstable slopes) This development is proposing to construct 7 affordable units (5% of the overall density of the project). Affordability is not a requirement with the by-right project, but the developer is proposing to build onsite (7) affordable units to be included in the city’s affordable housing program. In addition, the proposed development includes stormwater management for the site. Currently, the majority of the site is impervious surfaces which flow directly to the existing stream to the north of the site with no stormwater management in place. This development is proposing to install three SWM facilities. Two facilities will collect the run-off, attenuate the flows and release rate of the run-off to the stream. The third facility will be a bioretention basin, which will help mitigate the loss of the existing wetlands. The bioretention basin will also promote wildlife habitat through its planting plan and water retention. The site will be designed to control stormwater management and erosion while creating the primary public benefit of providing additional new affordable housing units for Charlottesville. The proposed facility will also provide 25% more nutrient credits than required for the project to meet State SWM requirements. The underground detention facility within the amenity area will be a system with perforated pipes gravel storage area. This system will provide some additional recharge of the groundwater for the project for the drainage area not outfalling through the bioretention facility. The perforated pipes and gravel storage area will allow some of the run-off to filter back into the ground in lieu of the outfall pipe. This UGD system also receives approximately 2.7 acres of offsite drainage from the adjacent properties. The design of the perforated UGD facility will provide some groundwater recharge for the portion of the property not outfalling through the bioretention facility and for a large area of offsite development that currently outfalls through the property. Finding #2. Due to unusual size, topography, shape, location, or other unusual physical conditions, or existing development of a property, one (1) or more of these critical slopes provisions would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use, reuse or redevelopment of such property or would result in significant degradation of the site or adjacent properties. The majority of the existing critical slopes are manmade slopes, created with the grading for the existing businesses and site improvements. The existing outfall and stream on the property bifurcates the property with the critical slopes, creating an existing disjointed development. The proposed development includes the extension of the existing city streets Attachment A to create a grid network for the neighborhood development, connecting the areas together. This includes the impacts to these critical slopes to set up the overall development and street grids, as shown on the application plan. This grid system connects to the existing city streets and there is a connection proposed to the adjacent neighborhood. In addition, the right of way for Holly street has been shifted onto the property for the extension of this City street. There currently is an existing stream within the Holly street right of way. This stream shall remain, and shifting Holly Street to the east allows for the construction of the city street grid system while preserving some of the existing streams on the property. The active Greenspace amenity area proposed with this development (20,000 sf) is providing usable greenspace and open space to the development and the adjacent neighborhoods. This area is now designed as a focal point of the development and meeting area/recreational area for the neighborhoods, instead of dividing the property as it currently does in the existing conditions. Please address how Finding #1 and/or Finding #2 will be met utilizing the “critical slope provisions” noted below. 1. Erosion affecting the structural integrity of those features. Most of the critical slopes on the site, which are generally manmade slopes created from the existing businesses and site improvements as noted above, are located along the swales and stream located on the property. The run-off from the existing impervious areas currently drain directly to the critical slopes and streams surrounding the existing development. With the proposed development, the run-off from the property will be captured and detained within the onsite SWM facilities and the run-off will be released back into the stream below the site at controlled rates to help prevent downstream erosion of the stream and critical slopes. As mentioned above, currently there are no stormwater management facilities on the property to control the run-off release from the existing impervious areas. The proposed SWM facilities will help protect the remaining critical slopes and streams below the development by detaining and treating the runoff before releasing it from the site. 2. Stormwater and erosion-related impacts on adjacent properties. The Belmont development is proposing to capture the run-off from the site and detain it within the onsite stormwater management facilities. This will help control the run-off for the properties below this site. 3. Stormwater and erosion-related impacts to environmentally sensitive areas such as streams and wetlands. The impacts to the stream and wetlands on the property is associated with the development of the roadways and proposed City street grid system for the neighborhood. While one of the streams below an existing outfall will be impacted, another stream is being preserved with the shift of the existing right of way into the development area. Erosion and stormwater management facilities are proposed to protect the downstream property and streams from impacts with the build-out of the development, by capturing the run-off, detaining it, and releasing it at a controlled rate. 4. Increased stormwater velocity due to loss of vegetation. The increase of stormwater velocity on the site due to loss of vegetation will be heavily Attachment A mitigated with the onsite stormwater management facilities. Right now, the entire site is being released to the streams. This development has a minor increase in the overall impervious area on the site, but captures and retains all the run-off in the onsite stormwater management facilities. The SWM facilities have been designed to also provide water quality (approximately 25% more than required). 5. Decreased groundwater recharge due to changes in site hydrology. No impacts to groundwater recharge are anticipated with the redevelopment of the site. To help promote groundwater recharge, a bioretention basin is proposed. The bioretention basin’s engineered filter media, stone bedding and perforated underdrains will recharge the groundwater beneath the facility. In addition, the UGD facility designed in the open space area include perforated pipes and gravel storage areas for the underground detention. This system will allow some of the run-off to infiltrate into the ground prior to be released through the outfall pipes. This system also collects approximately 2.7 acres of offsite drainage that will be detained and released at controlled rates or through infiltration. 6. Loss of natural or topographic features that contribute substantially to the natural beauty and visual quality of the community such as loss of tree canopy, forested areas and wildlife habitat. The areas proposed for redevelopment are not a natural or forested area. The site is primarily developed as an industrial site. To help mitigate the impacts from the removal of the wetlands, a bioretention basin is proposed. The bioretention basin will promote wildlife habitat through its planting plan and groundwater recharge. In addition, substantial landscaping will be installed around the perimeter of the site, within the greenspace amenity areas, and along the proposed city streets. Please list all attachments that should be viewed as support to the above explanations. Belmont Condominium Critical Slopes Waiver Application Plan Please sign the following statement. I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the information I have provided above is based on sound engineering and surveying data and that this site has been carefully inspected and reviewed for the purposes of completing this application accurately. I certify that as the property owner/applicant I have not given false information that may affect the decisions made regarding this development. Property Owner Applicant Please do not write below this line. For office use only. Planner’s Comments/Recommendations: Attachment A Engineer’s Comments/Recommendations: Attachment B BELMONT CONDOMINIUMS ST RE I NT CI K ST M CRITICAL SLOPES WAIVER REQUEST PAR EAS T HI GH ST 9/1/22 EAST HIGH ST CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA T EA ES ST MA G R KE RID T ST MO TMP #570145A00 NT ICE PROJECT SITE INFO: LLO HIN TO RD NA TMP: 570020000 (2.594 AC) 570002000 (0.914 AC) TMP #570145B00 VE REVISED PER LAYOUT CHANGES N UE REVISION DESCRIPTION 570002100 (0.343 AC) 570003000 (0.118 AC) CARL REVISIONS INITIAL PLAN SUBMITTAL TMP #570145C00 TMP #570145B10 TON ST MO A VE 570004000 (0.118 AC) 570005000 (0.123 AC) NT ON ICE LL AV OA 570006000 (0.213 AC) 570007000 (0.121 AC) VE D 570007100 (0.116 AC) 570007200 (0.119 AC) NR TMP #570008000 LTO 570007300 (0.119 AC) 570007400 (0.117 AC) CA R 570007500 (0.116 AC) 570007600 (0.153 AC) TMP #570001000 TMP #570001100 TMP #580355000 570007700 (0.116 AC) 570007800 (0.116 AC) 570007900 (0.121 AC) 570010000 (0.160 AC) BUILDING #8 (16 CONDOMINIUM TMP #570009100 VICINITY MAP BALSAM COURT UNITS) PRIVATE ALLEY UNIMPROVED (NON-CITY DEDICATED RIGHT OF WAY) - 0.556 AC CHERRY STREET NOTE: TMP 570010000 IS INCLUDED WITH THE FINAL SITE PLAN APPLICATION BUILDING #7 EXISTING PUBLIC ROAD SCALE: 1" = 1000' FOR THE PROPOSED OFFISTE GRADING AND IMPROVEMENTS ON THE ADJACENT (14 CONDOMINIUM TMP #570009001 BELMONT CONDOMINIUMS - CRITICAL SLOPES WAIVER REQUEST TMP #580354100 UNITS) PROPERTY ASSOCIATED WITH THIS FINAL SITE PLAN. STORMWATER ADDRESS: GARDEN STREET BUILDING #6 MANAGEMENT (14 UNITS) FACILITY TMP #570009000 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 ZONING: NCC (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR) AND R-2 (RESIDENTIAL) TMP #580354000 ACREAGE: 6.193 AC TOTAL (PROJECT AREA AND ACREAGE DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY CITY BIRCH STREET 3/15/22 DEDICATED RIGHT OF WAY OR TMP 570010000 - SEE PLAT ON SHEET 3) 9/1/22 DATE PROPOSED PUBLIC ROAD Sheet List Table D.B./PG.: 1070/445 Sheet Number Sheet Title EXISTING USE: COMMERCIAL USES 1 COVER 2 GENERAL PROJECT NOTES PROPOSED USE: 8,750 COMMERCIAL SPACE AND 130 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS (20 TMP #570011000 TMP #580353000 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS EXISTING PUBLIC ROAD APARTMENT UNITS & 110 CONDOMINIUM UNITS) 4 OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SPRUCE STREET OWNERS: BELMONT & CARLTON HOLDINGS, LLC 5 PROPOSED LAYOUT & CRITICAL SLOPES IMPACTS PLAN BUILDING #4 BUILDING #5 6 PROPOSED GRADING & CRITICAL SLOPES IMPACT PLAN PO BOX 1467 OPEN SPACE (14 CONDOMINIUM (14 CONDOMINIUM TMP #570012000 7 OVERALL EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN RECREATION UNITS) UNITS) CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 AREA 8 PRE-DEVELOPMENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 200 GARRETT STREET, SUITE K.-CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 -434.293.3719 BUILDING #3 TMP #580351000 (16 CONDOMINIUM 9 POST-DEVELOPMENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN PRIVATE ALLEY FICUS LANE SPRUCE STREET INVESTMENTS, LLC UNITS) 9 TOTAL SHEETS 600 E WATER ST BUILDING #2 TMP #570013000 (22 CONDOMINIUM UNITS) CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 DEVELOPER: RIVERBEND DEVELOPMENT, INC 455 2ND STREET SE, SUITE 201 TMP #580352000 IC ROAD TMP #570014000 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 TREET MYRTLE STREET (434) 245-4970 EXISTING PUBLIC ROAD WALNUT STREET ED PUBL HOLLY S PROPOSED PUBLIC RD ENGINEER: COLLINS ENGINEERING, INC TMP #570015000 PROPOS 200 GARRETT STREET, SUITE K TMP #570017000 TMP #580351000 TMP #570018000 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 TMP #570018100 (434) 293-3719 EXISTING PUBLIC ROAD GARDEN STREET DOUGLAS AVENUE EXISTING PUBLIC ROAD AFFORDABLE HOUSING: COVER 5% OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS SHALL BE DEDICATED TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING, TMP #580350000 TMP #570019000 MEETING THE CITY AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS. 130 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS * 5% = 7 UNITS 7 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ARE PROPOSED TO BE DEDICATED AS AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS. NOTE: NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT. BUILDING #1 TMP #580349100 (20 APARTMENT UNITS & 8,750 SF COMMERCIAL SPACE) AVENUE CARLTON BL IC ROAD EXISTING PU TMP #580349000 STO P SIGNATURE PANEL DIRECTOR,_________________________________________ SHEET LAYOUT NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SCALE: 1" = 60' CITY ENGINEER, _____________________________________ NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT SHEET JOB NO. 202201 SCALE AS SHOWN SHEET NO. 1 Attachment B Attachment B Attachment B Attachment B Attachment B X Attachment B XX XX S INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS (9VAC25-880-70 S PART II, F.2.): XX X CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL A PORTION X XX Inspection schedule. OF THE RETAINING WALLS AT THEIR XX X W XX a. Inspections shall be conducted at a frequency S of: XX FINAL ELEVATIONS, AS SHOWN. XX WALLS TO TEMPORARILY TERMINATE PROPOSED BELMONT S X (1) At least once every five business days; or BW X 44 X XX AT SED. BASIN #1 IN ESC PHASE III. 0 426 VAR CONDOMINIUMS XX X (2) At least once every 10 business days and no later than 48 hours following a measurable W XX .00 IES LIMITS, TYP. XX w/ WIRE BACKINGSF X storm event. In the event that a measurable storm event occurs when there are more X TW X X XX XX than 48 hours between business days, the inspection shall be conducted no later than X W XX S 42 PROPOSED XX the next business day. XX b. Where areas have been temporarily stabilized or land-disturbing activities will be X 4348.00 BLANKET XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X .00 BW CRITICAL SLOPES X X X X X X XX X X X X MATTING X 44 438 T4W X X X X X X suspended due to continuous frozen ground conditions and stormwater discharges are X 9/1/22 W TO REMAIN, TYP. X X X 2 X X X X X XXX X X X X X X X X X X 36 X X X XXXX S BM XX X X unlikely, the inspection frequency may be reduced to once per month. If weather conditions X X XX X X X X 44 X X XX X XX XX XX X X (such as above freezing temperatures or rain or snow events) make discharges likely, the CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE 0 X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X OUTLET W XX POSITIVE SLOPE IS MAINTAINED, 434' X operator shall immediately resume the regular inspection frequency. X X XX DD1 X PROTECTION X AN 18" BERM HEIGHT IS PROVIDED & S XX X c. Representative inspections may be utilized for utility line installation, pipeline construction, X XX X X XX RR DESIGN, TYP. 41 THE BERM IS STABILIZED AS A FIRST X or other similar linear construction activities provided that: 43 X X PROPOSED X W XX 44 X 6 8 X STEP IN DISTURBANCE (TYP.) X 4 (1) Temporary or permanent soil stabilization has been installed and vehicle access may XX BM BLANKET X OP1 432' X XX X 416 XX X S X compromise the temporary or permanent soil stabilization and potentially cause MATTING 440 X X X XX X 414 43 XX X FINAL CLEARING XX W X X 432' C/L 434 additional land disturbance increasing the potential for erosion; 4 420 X 434 436 X LIMITS, TYP. X 43 X (2) Inspections occur on the same frequency as other construction activities; 434 X 4 6 X X XX X XX 422 43 XX S (3) Control measures are inspected along the construction site 0.25 miles above and below W 4 XX PROPOSED IMMOVABLE 432' C/L 6 43 each access point (i.e., where a roadway, undisturbed right-of-way, or other similar 438 XX 43 43 X XX CHAIN-LINK FENCE TO X XX 6 X feature intersects the construction activity and access does not compromise temporary X XX 4 X SERVE AS TREE TP XX 43 W or permanent soil stabilization); and S 434' C/L XX PROTECTION ALONG XX (4) Inspection locations are provided in the report required by Part II F. 434' C/L X LIMITS OF CLEARING 424 XX OP2 X 430' C/L REVISED PER LAYOUT CHANGES W ESC PLAN LEGEND XX XX REVISION DESCRIPTION S X XX REVISIONS INITIAL PLAN SUBMITTAL SAF SAFETY FENCE PER VESCH 3.01 OP OUTLET PROTECTION PER VESCH 3.18 438 X 6 43 XX XX W RR RIPRAP PER VESCH 3.19 PROPOSED SAFETY FENCE, CE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE PER VESCH 3.02 8 SAF XX 43 424 XX INSTALL SIGNS "WARNING S 418 420 428' C/L X ROCK CHECK PER VESCH 3.20 CD3.03 QUICK SAND, KEEP OUT" XX CRS CONSTRUCTION ROAD STABILIZATION PER VESCH SB 1410 XX W 6 44 OP3 XX TS TEMPORARY SEEDING PER VESCH 3.31 XX SF SILT FENCE PER VESCH 3.05 XX S X PS PERMANENT SEEDING PER VESCH 3.32 412 CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL THE X DC W XX X DD DIVERSION DIKE PER VESCH 3.09 RETAINING WALLS AT THEIR PROPOSED X PS 440 XX X DC DUST CONTROL PER VESCH 3.39 BM BLANKET 436' C/L FINAL ELEVATIONS, AS X RWD RIGHT OF WAY DIVERSION PER VESCH 3.11 S X XX W 422 MATTING SHOWN, IN ESC PHASE III X BM BLANKET MATTING PER VESCH 3.36 PROPOSED TEMPORARY 18" CMP X ST SEDIMENT TRAP PER VESCH 3.13 XX PROPOSED SEDIMENT BASIN #1 X (L=142', II=438.00, IO=434.00') TO X TP TREE PROTECTION TAPE PER VESCH 3.38 XX DRAINAGE DIVIDE, TYP. X 438 SB SEDIMENT BASIN PER VESCH 3.14 OUTFALL PERMANENT STORM SEWER X S XX X LOCATED WITHIN HOLLY STREET 438 X XX X X 8 X 43 SEDIMENT BASIN #1 XX X 436' C/L X w/ WIRE XX LIMITS OF LAND DISTURBANCE BACKINGSF X X BELMONT CONDOMINIUMS - CRITICAL SLOPES WAIVER REQUEST XX DIVERSION DIKE X X 438 X XX BOUNDARY LINE E X OH X SILT FENCE XX T X X SILT FENCE WITH WIRE BACKING XX X X DIRECTION OF FLOW XX X X CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL PERMANENT E 440 PROPOSED CONTOUR OHT X 444 OHE XX SF PS 430 W STORM SEWER WITHIN HOLLY STREET, X 438 DRAINAGE DIVIDE TO SEDIMENT BASIN X XX AS SHOWN, WITH THE STREET's X SUBAREA WITHIN SEDIMENT BASIN X E X X XX DD2CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE POSITIVE OH SUBGRADE CONSTRUCTION. X T DRAINAGE DIVIDE 0 X SLOPE IS MAINTAINED, AN 18" BERM HEIGHT X 44 438 442 X 3/15/22 EXISTING CHANNEL 9/1/22 XX DATE X 438' C/L IS PROVIDED & THE BERM IS STABILIZED AS A X W OHE 442 EXISTING TREELINE XX X FIRST STEP IN DISTURBANCE (TYP.) 440 X PROPOSED CLEARING LIMITS T X XX OH E X CRITICAL SLOPES 440 X XX X SEDIMENT BASIN T X DISTURBED CRITICAL SLOPES X E X OH #1 DRAINAGE XX X SEDIMENT BASIN & TRAP PROPOSED WT X AREA=7.87 ac. XX E X E OH BLANKET OH T s X W 438' C/L X XX MATTING T X OUTLET PROTECTION PROPOSED STOCKPILE. STOCKPILE 2 6 X 43 XX 44 X S SHALL BE SURROUNDED BY SILT BM X TEMPORARY SEEDING X XX X S FENCE WHEN NOT IN ACTIVE USE, TYP. X T X X XX 440' C/L w/ WIRE X SFBACKING E XX PERMANENT SEEDING PROPOSED TEMPORARY 15" CMP CULVERT #1 OH X X X X X 200 GARRETT STREET, SUITE K.-CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 -434.293.3719 TMP (L=18', II=438.27, IO=438.00'). CULVERT TO XX 44 X E OVERALL EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN 442 2 X OH X BLANKET MATTING TS XX 580351000 ALLOW VEHICULAR CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC W X XX 444 X TREE PROTECTION TO CROSS THE DIVERSION. X X XX X XX DUST CONTROL X X X X T S XX W X S SAFETY FENCE X GA X 0 X 442' C/L 44 E 44 X X OH X 4 ET X X IMPACTED CRITICAL OHE X CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 440' C/L X OHE X E TRWE X 444 OH S SLOPES, TYP. XX X 6 X 44 X X XX ES X X CONTRACTOR SHALL X X X XX X X RECONSTRUCT THE EXISTING UC X X S X TS XX X X HOLLY STREET, AS SHOWN, WITHIN W X SPR E X OH PUBLIC R/W IN ESC PHASE III. X XX 444' C/L X XX E OHE 44 OH S TMP 580350000 OHE W 8 XX X X X X XX T XX S XX W XX XX T 442' C/L XX XX E 450 OH S XX XX W XX W T XX GA 2' DEEP SEDIMENT TRAP TO TS OHE S E XX OH XX CAPTURE MINOR FLASH RUNOFF IP S G XX XX AS FROM THE CONSTRUCTION OHE W W T W EXISTING STORM SEWER DRAINING XX XX ENTRANCE WASH-OFF E OH 0 444' C/L INTO SEDIMENT BASIN #1 TO XX 0 XX 45 E 45 OH 45 S OHE CONCRETE WASH 0 43G6AS REMAIN IN ESC PHASES I, II & III XX W XX CIP T OUT AREA XX XX W 44 OHE CRS 2 XX XX W 438 S W XX XX T PROPOSED STONE CE RR XX XX CONSTRUCTION W W E XX LOCATION OF XX OH S ENTRANCE (12'x70' 4 446 OVERALL EROSION CONTROL NARRATIVE FOR PROTECTION OF THE 45250 PORTA-POTTIES XX T XX MIN.) w/ WASH RACK CRITICAL SLOPES AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES BELOW THE XX XX W 456 T SLOPES XX EET GA XX S S T · OVERALL, THERE ARE SEVEN PHASES OF EROSION CONTROL ON THIS PROJECT TO W T XX XX w/ WIRE ENSURE T THE PROTECTION OF THE REMAINING CRITICAL SLOPES AND STR BACKINGSF W OH TMP ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES BELOW THE CRITICAL SLOPE AREAS. XX E XX T E PROPOSED CONTRACTOR 570019000 THIS SHEET HIGHLIGHTS THE PHASING OF THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN TO ENSURE OH · S XX X LY W PARKING & STAGING AREA E T XX PROTECTION, CONTAINMENT, AND TREATMENT OF THE RUN-OFF DURING THE OH XX W L EROSION CONTROL PHASE PRIOR TO RELEASING IT TO THE EXISTING STREAM. EET XX HO XX W · PHASE I OF THE EROSION CONTROL (HIGHLIGHTED IN ORANGE ON THIS SHEET) TMP XXXX S XX BEGINS WITH THE INSTALLATION OF THE SEDIMENT BASIN. THIS FACILITY IS SIZED STR T 45 8 570018000 S W GA FOR THE ENTIRE SITE DRAINAGE AREA, INCLUDING THE OFFSITE AREAS THAT ALSO XX W DRAIN TO THE FACILITY. THIS FACILITY SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY X GAS GAS E PROPOSED CHAIN-LINK SAFETY E OH GAS LOCATION GA X OF S DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING BUILDINGS AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS. EN OH GAS S GAS GAS OHE X T GAS GAS FENCE TO SURROUND E G AS OHE DUMPSTER · PHASE II THROUGH PHASE IV OF THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN INCLUDES THE OH OHE RD GAS S SWINGING GATE GA OHE s S CONSTRUCTION SITE, AS SHOWN. W CONSTRUCTION OF THE DIVERSION BERMS (IN RED) WHICH ROUTE ALL THE ONSITE W GAS GAS LOCATION OF LOCATION OF DOUBLE GA GAS T T T GAS AND OFFSITE DRAINAGE TO THE SEDIMENT BASIN. THESE DIVERSION BERMS REMAIN S RAIN GAUGE WALLED W T IN PLACE PROTECTING THE DOWNSTREAM AREAS FROM THE SITE RUN-OFF. W W W T W W S OH GAS E W W FUELING TANK W OH T W E T GAS · DURING PHASES II THROUGH IV, HOLLY STREET AND THE PROPOSED SEGMENTED W S GAS T T 45 RETAINING WALLS (HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE ON THIS PLAN) SHALL BE INSTALLED. THE W S GA OH S 4 E E DIVERSION BERMS STILL DIVERT ALL THE UPLAND FLOW FROM THE SITE TO THE W OH W S T T GAS W S GAS TMP 570018100 TMP 570017000 BASIN, AND WIRE SILT FENCE, BLANKET MATTING, SEEDING AND STABILIZATION OF GAS T W S OH GA GA S THE DISTURBED AREAS BELOW THE DIVERSION BERM HELP MINIMIZE THE RUN-OFF W W E S T S OH GAE OHE DURING THESE PHASES OF THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN. S W S S GA · WITH THE PERIMETER IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED (HOLLY STREET AND THE OHE T W W S GA OH ES s RETAINING WALLS) THIS CREATES A BASIN ONSITE WITH ALL THE RUN-OFF FLOWING W T T W S GA S TO THE SEDIMENT BASIN. T T W E · PHASE V AND VI INCLUDE THE FILLING OF THE SITE, BRINGING THE OVERALL SITE UP OH S T W S GA S O HE T S W T W TO FINAL GRADES, AND THE INSTALLATION OF THE SITE UTILITIES. IT'S IMPORTANT PROPOSED LIMITS OFT W W GA S S TO NOTE THAT NO FILLING OF THE SITE SHALL BEGIN UNTIL ALL THE PERIMETER S PROJECT DISTURBANCE, TYP. S GAS W T W EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES FOR ALL PHASES: IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED, AS DETAILED ON THIS PLAN AND THE SHEET W TOTAL AREA=6.66 ac. T S T GAS 1. PHASE I EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL (ESC) PLAN SHALL OCCUR BEFORE PHASE II ESC PLAN. W S EROSION W AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANS. THIS SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION W GAS OHE 2. PHASE II ESC PLAN SHALL OCCUR BEFORE PHASE III ESC PLAN. T S HELPS ENSURE THAT THE RUN-OFF FROM THE FILLING OPERATION IS CONTROLLED S S W W W 3. PHASE III ESC PLAN SHALL OCCUR BEFORE PHASE IV ESC PLAN. GAS AND ROUTED AT ALL TIMES TO THE ONSITE SEDIMENT BASIN. T T T W S W 4. PHASE IV ESC PLAN SHALL OCCUR BEFORE PHASE V ESC PLAN. GAS OHE PHASE VII INCLUDES W THE FINAL STABILIZATION MEASURES ON THE SITE, AND THE JOB NO. E · S OH T W 4. PHASE V ESC PLAN SHALL OCCUR BEFORE PHASE VI ESC PLAN. S INSTALLATION OF SILT FENCE AROUND EACH OF THE BUILDING SITES FOR THE HOME CA 202201 AVERW LTON W ESC PLAN SHALL OCCUR BEFORE PHASE VII ESC PLAN. 4. PHASE VI W S BUILDING CONSTRUCTION.W W T S S T OHE T 5. FINAL STABILIZATION OF THE AREAS OF CRITICAL SLOPES DISTURBED SHALL BE PERMANENT T MEASURES FORW RESTABILIZATION OF THE AREAS AND POTENTIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT. 30 0 15 30 60 T NUE W S · NOTE, THIS SHEET HAS BEEN PREPARED W TO OUTLINE THE OVERALL CONCEPTS OF THE S SCALE 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECK SILT FENCE EVERY 5 DAYS, AND AFTER MAJOR RAINFALL EVENTS, EROSION CONTROL PLAN FOR THE PROJECT. EACH OF THE (7) EROSION AND W S OHE T 1"=30' W T W TO ENSURE NO EROSIONW OR SEDIMENT HAS CONTAMINATED ADJACENT SITES. SEDIMENT CONTROL SHEETS GO INTO SPECIFIC DETAILS FOR THE PHASING AND S W W S T S 7. TREE PROTECTION FENCING SHALL BE IMMOVABLE CHAIN-LINK FENCING PER THE TREE T OHE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SITE IMPROVEMENTS. W T W SHEET NO. PROTECTION DETAIL. CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL NECESSARY PRECAUTIONS TO PROTECT s E T W OHE T S 7 OH S W THE EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN UNDISTURBED. W T W S W OHE S W S S W T W Attachment B 410 W S 0 W W 44 W S THE LIMITS OF ANALYSIS IS THE DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL, S W W WHERE ALL THREE POINTS OF ANALYSES DRAIN. S 430 S W W 0 43 0 42 S 0 POA 'C' S 41 W W 430 9/1/22 W S T S T W W W 0 T 43 W S W W W T W W S W S T DA 1E REPRESENTS AREAS THAT ARE DISTURBED IN THE 430 W 0 X X 44 X SITE OUTFALL #6 S POST-DEVELOPMENT STATE & ARE RELEASED IN A X OHE OHE (EXISTING CHANNEL) X NON-CONCENTRATED FASHION (DEFINED AS SITE X W W W DRAINS DA 2 X X S S OUTFALL #5). DA 1E HAS BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE X STORMWATER QUANTITY (9VAC25-870-66) ANALYSIS. X S X W W 450 S X W S X W W X X S OHE OHE W SITE OUTFALL #3 (EXISTING PIPE REVISED PER LAYOUT CHANGES X OUTFALL BELOW SANITARY S REVISION DESCRIPTION X GRINDER) DRAINS DA 1C POA 'B' W REVISIONS W INITIAL PLAN SUBMITTAL X X S X S POA 'A' W W S X X SITE OUTFALL #1 T OHE OHE E OH E (EXISTING CHANNEL) X H S O W S W X T O HE X S X T E W OH W W W W W W W W W W W S S S OHE W W W W W X 0 T 43 X W s S S S S S S S S S S S S S S OHE X PROJECT OHE OHE X S LIMITS, TYP. T W OHE W OHE X S S X DA 1C T S BELMONT CONDOMINIUMS - CRITICAL SLOPES WAIVER REQUEST W W W T X X S S OHE O HE OHE OHE S E W W OH X SPRUCE X STREET E S OH 100' OF OVERLAND FLOW S X W E OH w/ ELEV.=7', OHE W W X 30' OF CONC. FLOW w/ S O X ELEV.=16' HE OH E 100' OF OVERLAND FLOW 100' OF OVERLAND FLOW S w/ ELEV.=5' & 240' OF CONC. FLOW w/ OHE S w/ ELEV.=2' & 140' OF CONC. W X W ELEV.=12' & 360' OF CHANNEL FLOW OHE OHE 3/15/22 FLOW w/ ELEV.=2' W 9/1/22 DATE E S OH X HE O E OH S W W S X T S OH W E W W OHE S DA 1A OHE OHE S OHE OHE GAS W E W OH 44 W OHE 100' OF OVERLAND FLOW OHE S S 6 S T w/ ELEV.=2', GAS GAS GAS GAS 50' OF CONC. FLOW w/ GASOHE GAS W W ELEV.=19' & 160' OF PRE-DEVELOPMENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 200 GARRETT STREET, SUITE K.-CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 -434.293.3719 GAS CHANNEL FLOW S S E (Tc=0.22 hrs.) S X T OH W OHE W W X OHE GAS DA 2 OHE X S OHE S T S W DA 1E W W GAS X X S S T W W S W GAS OHE GAS T X OHE T OHE W W X OHE OHE S T S GAS S 100' OF OVERLAND FLOW w/ ELEV.=12' X 20' OF CONC. FLOW OHE W X GAS W W w/ ELEV.=2' GAS X T S S 230' OF CHANNEL FLOW S X (Tc=0.11 hrs.) OHE X OHE W W GAS X W DA 1A CURRENTLY DRAINS TO THE T X OHE S DOWNSTREAM SITE OUTFALL #1 S W S SITE OUTFALL #4 (EXISTING VIA VARIOUS PIPES & SWALES DOUGLAS GAS CULVERT) DRAINS DA 1B W W X AVENUE W W T X S S X GAS GAS X W W X X X OHE X X W X X AS X X X X X S X X X G S S S S S S S s S T X S S W X X OHE X GAS W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W X S W GAS OHE W 446 W X T X OHE T S W OHE X W X S W OHE T X T X S W W X W W X S 100' OF OVERLAND FLOW OHE T T w/ ELEV.=7', X X W W 250' OF CONC. FLOW S W W w/ ELEV.=6' & X X S 425' OF CHANNEL FLOW T (Tc=0.16 hrs.) T OHE X X X X W X X W S W X S W W X W S OHE T X W S s W X OHE S GAS X W X X W S S T S OHE T X W W WT S OHE OHE S T W T S W W W S S GAS S W T W W W S DA 1B S OHE W 100' OF OVERLAND FLOW S W W S w/ ELEV.=14' W W S 90' OF CONC. FLOW OHE s W W S W S GAS w/ ELEV.=5' W W W X W S S OHE 50' OF CHANNEL FLOW W W W S S S OHE W W W X S OHE S W S W W S GAS S T W W S W S OHE GAS S s W W S GAS W S X GAS S STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN LEGEND W W T OHE GAS GAS S W OHE GAS CARLTOEN W W GAS W S GAS S GAS S GAS OHE S W OVERALL WATERSHEDS, WHICH WERE ANALYZED X GAS W GAS OHE S T FOR CHANNEL & FLOOD PROTECTION S AVENU W W GAS S T W GAS OHE W SW S W W W T GAS S S T S HE W T GO AS S SUBAREAS PROJECT W T W S GAS W T SHEET GAS S W AS W T W G S W T TIME OF CONCENTRATION PATH GAS S W T S ASHE S T GO s W T DENOTES CHANGE IN FLOW TYPE S W T W W T GAS S W STO GA W T T JOB NO. S AS 202201 P G W T W E OH W S S W GA T SCALE S 1"=40' S W T W GA T W W SE GOAH SHEET NO. S S T W W T 8 AS W G W 430 Attachment B 410 W S 0 W W STORMWATER MANAGEMENT NARRATIVE: 44 W S OVERVIEW: 420 THE LIMITS OF ANALYSIS IS THE THE PROPOSED BELMONT CONDOMINIUMS' STORMWATER MANAGEMENT (SWM) PLAN DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL, S W W COMPLIES WITH PART IIB MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS AND THE STORMWATER RUNOFF WHERE ALL THREE POINTS OF ANALYSES DRAIN. S RATES, VOLUMES, AND VELOCITIES RESULTING FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL BE 410 430 IMPROVED PRIOR TO EXITING THE SITE. S 2 44 W W 0 43 0 THE PROPOSED BELMONT CONDOMINIUMS GENERATES AN INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS 42 AREA. THIS INCREASE PROMPTS THE NEED FOR NEW STORMWATER QUANTITY AND S 0 POA 'C' S QUALITY TREATMENT, WHICH IS PROVIDED FOR WITH THE INSTALLATION OF TWO (2) 41 W W 41 0 UNDERGROUND DETENTION SYSTEMS (QUANTITY) AND ONE (1) BIORETENTION BASIN 430 (QUALITY). 9/1/22 W S T S STORMWATER QUALITY: 426 T W W W WITH THE AFOREMENTIONED INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS AREA AND THE PROPOSED 420 0 T DISTURBANCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT, A 43 W S W W W T PHOSPHOROUS REMOVAL RATE OF 2.69 lbs/yr IS REQUIRED. THIS WAS DETERMINED 8 W 43 PART OF 416 BY USING THE DEQ VIRGINIA RUNOFF REDUCTION METHOD (VRRM) SPREADSHEET FOR W S W S 432 ReDEVELOPMENTS. THE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL's LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE DA 1E T 430 DA 1E REPRESENTS AREAS THAT ARE DISTURBED IN THE W 0 BOUNDARY WAS USED FOR THE VRRM's WATER QUALITY BOUNDARY. 44 SITE OUTFALL #6 S POST-DEVELOPMENT STATE & ARE RELEASED IN A 43 OHE OHE (EXISTING CHANNEL) 8 430 NON-CONCENTRATED FASHION (DEFINED AS SITE W W W THE STORMWATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS ARE MET FOR THE PROPOSED DRAINS DA 2 S DEVELOPMENT THROUGH A NEW BIORETENTION BASIN THAT PROVIDES 3.38 lbs/yr S OUTFALL #5). DA 1E HAS BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE 4 43 44 REMOVAL OF PHOSPHOROUS. A BIORETENTION BASIN WAS SELECTED TO HELP 434 STORMWATER QUANTITY (9VAC25-870-66) ANALYSIS. 0 MITIGATE THE PROPOSED REMOVAL OF WETLANDS AND TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT TO S W W WILDLIFE HABITAT. THE BIORETENTION BASIN IS 'OFFLINE' FROM THE UPSTREAM 450 UNDERGROUND DETENTION (UGD) SYSTEM 1B. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE VA DEQ S W UGP S SPECIFICATION No. 9 FOR BIORETENTION BASINS, UNDER SECTION 6.5 ON PAGE 24, 0 43 "OFF-LINE DESIGNS ARE PREFERRED." ALSO IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS VA DEQ W W S OHE OHE 440 SECTION, A "LOW-FLOW DIVERSION OR FLOW SPLITTER AT THE INLET TO ALLOW ONLY 430 442 W REVISED PER LAYOUT CHANGES THE TREATMENT VOLUME TO ENTER THE FACILITY" IS UTILIZED. S REVISION DESCRIPTION POA 'B' UGP 426 W REVISIONS STORMWATER QUANTITY: W INITIAL PLAN SUBMITTAL 0 42 THE BELMONT CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT DRAINS TO THREE POINTS OF S ANALYSES, AS SHOWN ON THIS SHEET AND DESCRIBED BELOW. S POA 'A' W W POINT OF ANALYSIS 'A': S PRE-DEVELOPMENT SUBAREAS DA 1A & 1C DRAIN TO POINT OF ANALYSIS 'A'. THESE SITE OUTFALL UGP #2 SITE OUTFALL #1 T OHE OHE TWO SUBAREAS WILL BE COMBINED IN THE POST-DEVELOPMENT STATE, AS SHOWN ON OH E E 432 (EXISTING CHANNEL) H THIS SHEET AS DA 1A, WHEN SITE OUTFALL #3 IS REMOVED. S THIS RUNOFF WILL BE O 430 W S W ATTENUATED IN UNDERGROUND DETENTION SYSTEM 1A. T 44 POINT OF ANALYSIS 'B': S 4 T UGP 414 E W PRE- AND POST-DEVELOPMENT SUBAREAS DA 1B & 1E DRAIN TO POINT OF ANALYSIS OH W W W W W W W W W W S W S W S W W 'B'. IN THE POST-DEVELOPMENT STATE, DA 1B WILL BE ATTENUATED IN UNDERGROUND W W 414 0 T 43 DETENTION SYSTEM 1B. PLEASE NOTE, SUBAREA 1E REPRESENTS AREAS WHERE W s S S S S S S S S 424 S S S S S S DISTURBANCES ARE PROPOSED IN THE POST-DEVELOPMENT STATE THAT DO NOT S 42 42 6 PROJECT OHE OHE 2 DRAIN DIRECTLY TO AN OUTFALL AND ARE RELEASED IN A NON-CONCENTRATED S UGP T LIMITS, TYP. W FASHION. SUBAREA 1E WAS CREATED TO ENSURE ALL DISTURBED AREAS WERE 438 422 ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE CHANNEL & FLOOD PROTECTION ANALYSES. 440 W 434 436 420 S S 438 440 422 POINT OF ANALYSIS 'C': T 440 S 2 PRE- AND POST-DEVELOPMENT SUBAREA DA 2 DRAIN TO POINT OF ANALYSIS 'C'. 42 BELMONT CONDOMINIUMS - CRITICAL SLOPES WAIVER REQUEST UGP W POST-DEVELOPMENT DA 2's AREA AND IMPERVIOUSNESS IS REDUCED WITH THE W W T CONSTRUCTION OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. THIS REDUCTION IS PRIMARILY BECAUSE THE S 417 432 S PRE-DEVELOPMENT's ONSITE RUNOFF BEING RELEASED UNDETAINED IS NOW 442 OHE OHE PROPOSED TO BE CAPTURED & DETAINED IN UNDERGROUND DETENTION SYSTEM 1A. S W W 421 LOW-FLOW DIVERSION OR FLOW SPLITTER 442 UGD #1B 442 SPRUCE STREET TO SEND TREATMENT VOLUME RUNOFF TO UGP S NOTE, ALL SITE OUTFALLS AND SUBAREAS SHOWN IN THE SWM PLANS DRAIN TO THE S 446 BIOFILTER FOR WATER QUALITY TREATMENT W LIMITS OF ANALYSIS, WHICH IS THE DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL SHOWN AND LABELED ON OHE W W THIS SHEET. ALSO, ALL THREE POINTS OF ANALYSES WILL EXPERIENCE REDUCED 446 S 421 422 UGP POST-DEVELOPMENT FLOWS & VELOCITIES 444 444 448 FOREBAY PRE-TREATMENT 100' OF OVERLAND FLOW S 446 w/ ELEV.=5' & 240' OF CONC. FLOW w/ UGP S CHANNEL PROTECTION FOR ALL THREE POINTS OF ANALYSES (A, B & C) ARE MET FOR CELL WITH GRAVEL DIAPHRAGM W W ELEV.=12' & 360' OF CHANNEL FLOW OHE OHE 444 3/15/22 THIS DEVELOPMENT VIA 9 VAC 25-870-66, SECTION B.3.a. (i.e. THE ENERGY BALANCE UGP UGP UGP UGP W UGP 9/1/22 DATE S CALCULATION). THE LIMITS OF ANALYSIS FOR THE CHANNEL PROTECTION ANALYSES UGP UGP UGP HE O E ARE MET THROUGH THE ABOVE STATED COMPLIANCE WITH 9 VAC 25-870-66, SECTION OH BIORETENTION BASIN S W W W W W W W S B.3.a. W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W UGP 436 S S S S S S S S S 6 S S 4 44 S S S S S S S S S S S FLOOD PROTECTION COMPLIANCE IS MET FOR ALL THREE POINTS OF ANALYSES (A, B & 446 S S S S S 44 S T S W UGP C) VIA 9 VAC 25-870-66, SECTION C.2.b (i.e. THE POST-DEVELOPMENT PEAK 10-YEAR W W W W W W W W S 24-HOUR SCS FLOWS ARE LESS THAN THE PRE-DEVELOPMENT PEAK 10-YEAR 24-HOUR W S SCS FLOWS). PER 9 VAC 25-870-66, SECTION C.2.b, "DOWNSTREAM STORMWATER 446 442 43 OHE W W 8 CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS DO NOT REQUIRE ANY ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS TO SHOW 44 UGP UGP UGP UGP UGP W 0 COMPLIANCE WITH FLOOD PROTECTION CRITERIA IF THIS OPTION IS UTILIZED." GAS W HE W 446 44 446 O W UGP S S 6 W POST-DEVELOPMENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN S T 6 44 W W W UGP 200 GARRETT STREET, SUITE K.-CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 -434.293.3719 S S 6 W S T UGP 44 446 W OHE W W 426 DA 2 W UGP UGP S UGP UGP UGP UGP UGP S W T S W DA 1E W W UGP W S S T 444 W W W S UGP W OHE GAS T T W OHE 446 UGP UGP UGP 430 8 W W 42 DA 1B S 444 T S W S UGD #1A 444 UGP W W GAS 442 W W 440 44 T S 6 S W S DA 1A OHE W W W UGP T S S W W S 440 DOUGLAS 6 W W AVENUE 44 442 W W 440 438 T UGP S W S GAS 44 GAS W W 444 0 OHE S S S 446 S W S S S S sS S T S S 438 446 W 446 20' OF OVERLAND W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W S 440 UGP W W GAS OHE W 446 FLOW W 438 T 434 w/ ELEV.=1' OHE T 436 W S 30' OF CONC. FLOW W OHE W S w/ ELEV.=1' W UGP OHE 290' OF CHANNEL 442 T T W FLOW S W 444 W (Tc=0.10 hrs.) W W S 6 44 100' OF OVERLAND FLOW 446 T T w/ ELEV.=7', UGP 440 W W W 4 130' OF CONC. FLOW S 44 448 W W 446 2 w/ ELEV.=1 & S 44 444 375' OF CHANNEL FLOW T T OHE W (Tc=0.19 hrs.) W W UGP S W S 44 W 8 W W W S OHE UGP T W S s W OHE S W W S S T S OHE T W W W 450 WT S OHE S T W T OHE S W W W S S S W 44 T W W W 4 S S UGP UGP UGP UGP OHE W W S W S W W UGP W S S 4 50 OHE s W W W S 448 80' OF OVERLAND FLOW W W W W S S OHE 450 w/ ELEV.=9' W W W S S S OHE W 50' OF CONC. FLOW W W W S OHE S W S UGP S W W w/ ELEV.=1' S T W W S STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN LEGEND W S 454 OHE GAS s W S 615' OF CHANNEL FLOW GAS GAS S S W OVERALL WATERSHEDS, WHICH WERE ANALYZED W W S (Tc=0.11 hrs.) W T OHE GAS W GAS GAS S FOR CHANNEL & FLOOD PROTECTION W OHE CARLTOEN 452 W W GAS W S S GAS S GAS OHE W GAS S W S GAS OHE S T SUBAREAS AVENU UGP W 458 GAS W S T W W W GAS OHE SW 456 S W W T W UGP W GAS TIME OF CONCENTRATION PATH S S T S OHE W T GAS S W PROJECT W T W S GAS W T DENOTES CHANGE IN FLOW TYPE SHEET S W S W T W GA S W T GAS S W T S HE AS S T GO s W T S W T W W 458 W S W T GA W T JOB NO. STO T S AS 202201 P G W T W E OH W S W S GA W T SCALE S S 1"=40' W T W GA T W W SE GOAH SHEET NO. S S T W W T 9 AS W G W Attachment C WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT BELMONT CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA TNT PROJECT NO.: 836 FOR RIVERBEND DEVELOPMENT JULY 7, 2017 Attachment C July 7, 2017 Mr. Alan Taylor Riverbend Development 455 Second Street, Suite 400 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 TNT Project Number: 836 Reference: Wetland Delineation Report, Belmont, City of Charlottesville, Virginia Latitude: 38o 01’ 33” N, Longitude: 78o 28’ 22” W Dear Mr. Taylor: TNT Environmental, Inc. (TNT) is pleased to present this wetland delineation report for the above‐ referenced project in general accordance with TNT Proposal Number 1219 dated April 28, 2017. The wetlands and Waters of the U.S. identified during this investigation for the above‐referenced project site were delineated by TNT based on the Corps of Engineers’ Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains & Piedmont Region and represent those areas that are most likely considered jurisdictional by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The delineation entails the gathering of appropriate field data according to the applicable USACE Manuals, field flagging and mapping of approximate wetland and stream boundaries located onsite, preparation of this final report, and a request to the USACE for boundary confirmation and jurisdictional determination of U. S. Waters, including wetlands, identified onsite. Based on the field investigation conducted in May 2017, there are potentially jurisdictional Waters of the U.S., including wetlands, located within the study area. PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION The project site consists of seventeen (17) parcels of land totaling approximately 6.19 acres situated north of Carlton Avenue in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia (Figure 1: Project Location Map). The project site is further identified by Tax Map 57 parcels 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9, 20, and 21. The terrain of the project site consists of gently sloping topography and is within the Moores Creek drainage basin (Figure 2: USGS Topographic Map). The site consists of warehouses, sheds and concrete pads used for industrial purposes, and associated parking and staging areas. The remaining upland portions of the site consist of maintained grasslands and the riparian areas consist of various overgrown vegetation including vines and black locust saplings. Not to Scale Attachment C APPROXIMATE SITE LOCATION WETLAND DELINEATION FIGURE 1 BELMONT SITE LOCATION MAP CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 13996 PARKEAST CIRCLE SOURCE: GOOGLE MAPS SUITE 101 CHANTILLY, VIRGINIA JULY 2017 20151 TNT PROJECT NO: 836 Not to Scale Attachment C APPROXIMATE SITE LOCATION WETLAND DELINEATION FIGURE 2 BELMONT USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE EAST, VA CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 13996 PARKEAST CIRCLE QUADRANGLE MAP (2016) SUITE 101 CHANTILLY, VIRGINIA JULY 2017 20151 TNT PROJECT NO: 836 Attachment C Riverbend Development TNT Project #: 836 July 7, 2017 Page 2 SECONDARY INFORMATION REVIEW Secondary information entails the background research and review of recorded data and/or mapping associated with the project site. Resources reviewed include but are not limited to the following:  U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic Map, Charlottesville East Quadrangle, 2016  U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Online Mapper, http://wetlands.fws.gov/mapper_tool.htm  Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Electronic Field Office Technical Guide, City of Charlottesville, County Soils, www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/efotg/  Available aerial photography and GIS data The USGS Charlottesville East quadrangle map shows elevations of approximately 450 feet above mean sea level (MSL) in the northern portion of the site and approximately 480 feet above MSL in the southern portions. As shown on the USGS Map, the project site drains to a tributary of Moores Creek, located within the Rivanna watershed and identified as Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 02080204. The NWI map does not depict wetland features within the project site boundaries. The soil survey indicates that the site is underlain primarily by 121C – Culpeper‐Urban land complex soil, which is classified by the NRCS as non‐hydric. FIELD INVESTIGATION & METHODOLOGY Fieldwork was conducted during May 2017 using the Corps of Engineers’ Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains & Piedmont Region. The USACE Manual and associated Regional Supplement follow three parameters for the identification of wetlands: dominance of hydrophytic vegetation, presence of hydric soils, and hydrologic indicators. All three parameters must be present under normal conditions for an area to be considered a jurisdictional wetland in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Wetlands are then further classified according to the Cowardin System as described in Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (1979). The fieldwork was conducted to evaluate and characterize the soils, vegetation and hydrology, and establish the boundaries of wetlands or Waters of the U.S. located within the area of investigation. Wetland flags were placed in the field and sequentially numbered to provide an onsite record of the location of wetlands and other Waters subject to the jurisdiction of state and federal agencies. The data sheets used in this investigation are enclosed, along with the Delineation Map showing data point locations and surveyed wetland and Waters boundaries. A summary of the attached data sheets is included below in Table 3. Additionally, a photographic log documenting site conditions encountered is enclosed. Attachment C Belmont 1:4,885 0 0.04 0.08 0.16 mi U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Standards and Support Team, wetlands_team@fws.gov 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 km This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife June 19, 2017 Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should Wetlands Freshwater Emergent Wetland Lake be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site. Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Other Estuarine and Marine Wetland Freshwater Pond Riverine National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) This page was produced by the NWI mapper Attachment C Riverbend Development TNT Project #: 836 July 7, 2017 Page 3 FINDINGS Based on our field reconnaissance, TNT has identified and located several wetlands and Waters of the U.S. onsite. A palustrine emergent (PEM) wetland originating from a spring head, located in the central portion of the site, drains into a south to north trending intermittent stream channel, located on the northern portion of the site. This stream continues offsite to the northeast and consists of a network of palustrine scrub‐shrub (PSS) wetlands and intermittent stream channel. A portion of the PSS wetland arcs back onto the northeastern portion of the site. Dominant wetland vegetation is listed below in Table 1. The main source of hydrology for these wetlands include groundwater seeps, and surface runoff. The wetlands are underlain by 121C – Culpeper‐Urban land complex soil. Table 1 – Dominant Riparian Buffer and Wetland Vegetation Common Name Scientific Name Wetland Indicator* Kudzu Pueraria montana UPL Grape Vine Vitis rotundifolia FAC Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia FACU Trumpet Creeper Campsis radicans FAC English Ivy Hedera helix FACU Sedge, spp. Carex, spp. FACW Jewelweed Impatiens capensis FACW Arrow Arum Peltandra virginica OBL * The indicator status of a species indicates the probability that the species will occur in a wetland, as follows: Obligate Upland (UPL, <1%), Facultative Upland (FACU, 1‐33%), Facultative (FAC, 34‐66%), Facultative Wetland (FACW, 67‐99%), and Obligate Wetland (OBL, >99%) in accordance with the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: National Summary (2012). NI means no wetland indicator is available. The project site is currently utilized for industrial purposes and contains several metal warehouses, sheds, and concrete pads, as well as associated roadways and parking lots. The upland areas of the site are dominated maintained grasslands (listed in Table 2 below). Table 2 – Dominant Upland Vegetation Common Name Scientific Name Wetland Indicator Fescue, spp. Fescue, spp. FACU Table 3 – Data Points Summary Data Point Hydrology Hydrophytic Vegetation Hydric Soils Classification DP‐1 Yes Yes Yes PEM wetland DP‐2 No No No Non‐Wetland *Please refer to the attached data sheets for more information Attachment C Riverbend Development TNT Project #: 836 July 7, 2017 Page 4 REGULATORY DISCUSSION The USACE ‐ Norfolk District and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) have implemented the State Programmatic General Permit (SPGP) program to streamline the permit process and avoid duplication of agency review. For those projects impacting less than 0.1‐acres of non‐tidal wetlands and less than 300 linear feet of stream bed a Nationwide permit from the USACE can be obtained for most projects. For those projects impacting greater than 0.1‐acres of wetlands and 300‐1,500 linear feet of stream bed, a General Permit can be obtained from DEQ. All SPGP permit applications are reviewed by the USACE but the permit authorization comes solely from DEQ. Notification of potential impacts should be filed with DEQ by completing the Joint Permit Application (JPA) form which is submitted to the Virginia Marine Resources Agency (VMRC) and DEQ. Upon receipt the VMRC distributes the JPA to the other resource agencies (USACE, VDEQ, etc.) for review and comment. Compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to non‐tidal Waters and wetlands will generally be provided at a ratio of 2:1 for forested wetlands, 1.5:1 for scrub/shrub wetlands, 1:1 for emergent wetlands, and a site‐specific ratio based on the Unified Stream Methodology assessment for streams. Mitigation can include: the purchase or use of mitigation bank credits; wetland preservation; preservation of upland buffers; and in‐lieu‐fee contribution to the Virginia Aquatic Resources Trust Fund. PROCEEDINGS With your authorization, we will contact the USACE to schedule a field meeting to conduct a wetlands and Waters boundary confirmation and jurisdictional determination. This process takes an average of three to four weeks depending on the availability of USACE personnel. Once we have determined potential impacts we can assist you with permitting options and support to complete the process. In the interim, we recommend further review of state and federal agency records pertaining to Section 7 (Federal Endangered Species Act) and Section 106 (National Historic Preservation Act). These reviews will generally be required to verify compliance for either the Nationwide Permit (NWP) or General Permit conditions. Attachment C Riverbend Development TNT Project #: 836 July 7, 2017 Page 5 TNT would like to thank you for the opportunity to provide you with this wetland delineation. We look forward to assisting you further with this project and other environmental concerns you may have. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at any time at (703) 466‐5123. Sincerely, TNT ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. Sophie Swartzendruber, WPIT Environmental Scientist Sophie@TNTenvironmentalinc.com Lauren A. Duvall, PWD, PWS, ISA‐CA Avi M. Sareen, PWD, PWS, ISA‐CA Senior Wetland Scientist Principal/President Lauren@TNTenvironmentalinc.com Avi@TNTenvironmentalinc.com Attachment C WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: Belmont City/County: City of Charlottesville Sampling Date: 5/15/17 Applicant/Owner: Riverbend Development State: VA Sampling Point: DP-1 Investigator(s): L. Duvall, TNT Environmental, Inc. Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: 38* 01' 33" Long: 78* 28' 22" Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: 121C - Culpeper - Urban land complex NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: Palustrine Emergent Wetland near Flags A1-B1. Wetland originates from a spring. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16) Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0-3" Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): srfce Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): srfce (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Wetland hydrology observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Final Attachment C VEGETATION (Five Strata) – Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: DP-1 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. Number of Dominant Species 2. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 3. Total Number of Dominant 4. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 5. 6. Percent of Dominant Species 7. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) = Total Cover Prevalence Index worksheet: Sapling Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x1= 3. FACW species x2= 4. 5. FAC species x3= 6. FACU species x4= 7. UPL species x5= = Total Cover Column Totals: (A) (B) Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 3. 4. 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 7. = Total Cover 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15') supporting data in Remarks or on a 1. Carex spp. 80 Yes FACW separate sheet) 2. Impatiens capensis 15 Yes FACW Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 3. (Explain) 4. 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 5. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 6. Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata: 7. 8. Tree – Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. 9. (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH). 10. 11. Sapling – Woody plants, excluding woody vines, 12. approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less 95 = Total Cover than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Shrub – Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height. 2. 3. Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including 4. herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody 5. plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1 m) in height. = Total Cover Woody vine – All woody vines, regardless of height. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Hydrophytic vegetation dominates the vicinity. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Final Attachment C SOIL Sampling Point: DP-1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 3/2 90 7.5YR 5/6 10 c m siltclay w/gravel 1 2 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) Histic Epipedon (A2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136) MLRA 147, 148) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Remarks: Hydric soil observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Final Attachment C WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: Belmont City/County: City of Charlottesville Sampling Date: 5/15/17 Applicant/Owner: Riverbend Development State: VA Sampling Point: DP-2 Investigator(s): L. Duvall, TNT Environmental, Inc. Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: 38* 01' 33" Long: 78* 28' 22" Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: 121C - Culpeper - Urban land complex NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: Non-Wetland outside of flags A1/A2. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16) Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): - Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): >18" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): >18" (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No wetland hydrology observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Final Attachment C VEGETATION (Five Strata) – Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: DP-2 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. Number of Dominant Species 2. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A) 3. Total Number of Dominant 4. Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) 5. 6. Percent of Dominant Species 7. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A/B) = Total Cover Prevalence Index worksheet: Sapling Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x1= 3. FACW species x2= 4. 5. FAC species x3= 6. FACU species x4= 7. UPL species x5= = Total Cover Column Totals: (A) (B) Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 3. 4. 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 7. = Total Cover 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15') supporting data in Remarks or on a 1. Fescue spp. 100 Yes FACU separate sheet) 2. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 3. (Explain) 4. 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 5. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 6. Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata: 7. 8. Tree – Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. 9. (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH). 10. 11. Sapling – Woody plants, excluding woody vines, 12. approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less 100 = Total Cover than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Shrub – Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height. 2. 3. Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including 4. herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody 5. plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1 m) in height. = Total Cover Woody vine – All woody vines, regardless of height. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) No hydrophytic vegetation observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Final Attachment C SOIL Sampling Point: DP-2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-12+ 10YR 3/4 100 silt loam 1 2 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) Histic Epipedon (A2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136) MLRA 147, 148) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Remarks: Hydric soils not observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Final Attachment C BELMONT PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Photograph 1: View to the north showing Data Point 1 (PEM wetland) located in the central portion of the project site. Photograph 2: View to the south showing Data Point 2 (Upland) located approximately 15 feet southeast of Data Point 1, in the central portion of the site. TNT ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. JULY 2017 Attachment C BELMONT PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Photograph 3: View to the north showing a portion of the intermittent stream channel, heavily covered in vines, located in the central portion of the site. Photograph 4: View to the north showing a dense vegetation encompassing the onsite intermittent stream channel. TNT ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. JULY 2017 Attachment C BELMONT PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Photograph 5: View to the northeast showing the PSS wetland located in the northeastern portion of the site. TNT ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. JULY 2017 Attachment C ENVIRONMENTAL PH: 703-466-5123 WWW.TNTENVIRONMENTALINC.COM LEGEND INTERMITTENT WATERS OF THE U.S. (R4) PALUSTRINE SCRUB-SHRUB (PSS) FLAG A31 INTERMITTENT WATERS WETLAND PALUSTRINE SCRUB-SHRUB (PSS) WETLAND OF THE U.S. FLAG C19 PALUSTRINE EMERGENT (PEM) WETLAND 13996 Parkeast Circle, Suite 101 OFFSITE INTERMITTENT WATERS OF THE U.S. (R4) PALUSTRINE OFFSITE PALUSTRINE SCRUB-SHRUB (PSS) WETLAND SCRUB-SHRUB (PSS) Chantilly, VA 20151 WETLAND APPROX. DATAPOINT LOCATION FLAG C4 PALUSTRINE SCRUB-SHRUB (PSS) STUDY AREA WETLAND 1,261-SF (0.03 ACRES) Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Total Intermittent Waters of the U.S. 202 linear feet (1,539 square feet) Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetlands (PSS) 1,261 square feet (0.03 acres) INTERMITTENT WATERS OF THE U.S. Palustrine Emergent Wetlands (PEM) 896 square feet (0.02 acres) 202-LF NOTES: 1. THE WETLAND DELINEATION WAS CONDUCTED BY TNT ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. (TNT) IN MAY 2017. EXISTING CONDITION, TOPOGRAPHY AND WETLAND FLAGS WERE SURVEYED BY ROUDABUSH, GALE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2. THE WETLAND AND OTHER WATERS OF THE U.S. BOUNDARIES DEPICTED HEREON ARE PRELIMINARY UNTIL CONFIRMED DURING A JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION WITH THE US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (USACE). FLAG A9 PALUSTRINE EMERGENT (PEM) WETLAND 896-SF (0.02 ACRES) FLAG A1 (AT SPRING) 1 Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING September 14, 2021 – 5:30 P.M. Virtual Meeting I. COMMISSION PRE-MEETING (Agenda discussion(s)) Beginning: 5:00 PM Location: Virtual/Electronic Members Present: Chairman Mitchell, Commissioner Russell, Commissioner Habbab, Commissioner Stolzenberg, Commissioner Solla-Yates, Commissioner Lahendro Members Absent: Commissioner Dowell Staff Present: Patrick Cory, Missy Creasy, Alex Ikefuna, Joe Rice, James Freas, Lisa Robertson, Jack Dawson, Brenda Kelley, Matt Alfele Chair Mitchell called the meeting to order at 5:00pm and he asked commissioners if there were any concerns with the minutes. Commissioner Solla Yates provided an update and Ms. Creasy noted 3 updates that were submitted prior to the meeting by Mr. Emory and Commissioner Russell. Chair Mitchell then asked if there were questions concerning the PUD application. Commissioner Russell asked for clarification on the unit count threshold to require a 2nd ingress/egress for a development and Mr. Alfele explained. Commissioners Stolzenberg and Habbab did not have questions at this time. Chair Mitchell asked if the financial agreement for the work on Stribling Avenue was essentially a loan. Chris Engel noted that it could be called that. Chair Mitchell asked if there are legal reasons for the loan. Ms. Robertson noted yes and also noted reasoning for why this could not be considered under the proffer requirements. The infrastructure need for Stribling is documented and this development would have some impact but not all. Chair Mitchell asked for clarification on the order of decisions and Ms. Robertson noted that Council would need to approve the agreement prior to approving a rezoning request. Commissioner Habbab asked about consideration for the sidewalk to be a condition. Ms. Creasy provided the process for the hearing for this evening. He followed up by asking for additional background on the proposals for this site in the past and Commissioner Stolzenberg provided some information on the past proposals. Commissioner Stolzenberg asked about the traffic impact of this development and Ms. Robertson reiterated the long term documentation of need for the sidewalk. II. COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING – Meeting called to order by Ms. Creasy and Chairman Mitchell at 5:30 PM. Ms. Creasy started the meeting with the election of new officers for the Planning Commission. Beginning: 5:30 PM Location: Virtual/Electronic A. COMMISSIONER’S REPORT Commissioner Russell – No Report 2 Commissioner Stolzenberg – I attended the Thomas Jefferson District Planning Commission meeting. We reviewed the draft Home partnership report to HUD of how each locality has been spending the funds. We have been spending it on AHIP and Habitat for Humanity down payment assistance. We reviewed the draft solid waste plan, which is the plan for how the region will manage its solid waste (recycling and trash). There have been some challenges in the recycling industry lately. A lot less recycling has been taken lately. There is more emphasis on the reduce and reuse side of that. We do have an MPO Tech Committee meeting next Tuesday. Commissioner Mitchell – This has been a Parks and Recreation month for me. I have had five different engagements/meetings with Parks and Recreation. Jody and I spent the weekend with a couple people from Parks and Recreation. I want to talk about the Capital Improvement Budget for Parks and Recreation. The direction we have been given in Parks and Recreation is not to ask for anything new in the Capital Improvement Budget unless it is an emergency or it is an absolute need. We have at least four things that fall into that category. The first thing is the drainage in McIntire Park. The drainage in McIntire Park is creating a violation in the Department of Environmental Quality standards. It also is causing water to run off into the waterways. That is going to be a top priority. That’s going to be about $350,000 that we’re going to be asking Council to approve. We are in violation if we don’t fix that. The next big thing is Honesty Pool. That’s the pool at Meade Park. It has been out of use for a couple of years. We think it is going to take about $400,000 to bring that pool back online. I am asking my colleagues on the Planning Commission to make that a priority. The next thing is Oakwood Cemetery. There is a lot of water erosion there and standing water that we need to address. That’s going to be about $52,000. The last thing is a comprehensive Parks and Recreation master plan. We haven’t had anything like that in a number of years. Our future is going to be perilous for Parks and Recreation unless we do that. That’s going to be about $150,000. The last thing is an interesting project that we have a lot of VDOT funding for that is sitting there. It has already been spent. They’re just waiting for us to put our money in. The Washington Park pool is no longer open for the season. Crow pool is open. Smith will hopefully be open by the late fall. The City Market has been very active. The athletic programs have been busier than they were in 2019. It has been busier this year than Pre-Covid. We’re low on staffing. We’re missing a lot of key people. We’re short on key leadership positions. Unfortunately, we recently announced that Mr. Todd Brown is going to be leaving Parks and Recreation. He is going to Fredericksburg. The leader of the Parks and Rec Board asked a couple key councilors, key councilor candidates, a representative from VDOT, and Jody and I to join them to walk through what will be the Meadow Creek Trail. That trail begins in Greenbrier and runs to behind Whole Foods and back into Greenbrier. Much of the work has been done. Much of the work has been funded by VDOT. They have $750,000 that they’re going to add to what they’re doing. The only thing we have to add to that is another $650,000. It’s something that is very dear to the hearts and minds of the Parks and Rec team. The question is where we’re going to get the money to do it. We can maybe get it squeezed into the Capital Improvement Budget this cycle. I suspect that Mr. Sanders is going to ask us to give something up in order to get it into the cycle. Commissioner Lahendro – I attended the BAR meeting on August 17th. At that meeting, we had one new important item, a new apartment building behind Preston Place that was deferred for more design consideration. We had two items receive Certificates of Appropriateness. The Tree Commission is meeting right now. As for the walk in the woods, I am going to ask Mr. Mitchell if he wouldn’t mind sharing that experience. 3 Commissioner Habbab – I am going to be attending the Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee meeting tomorrow. Commissioner Dowell – I do have an update with the CDBG Task Force. On August 16th, HUD approved the environmental review. The traffic safety signs have been ordered. I will be attending the school CIP committee meeting, which will be Tuesday, October 26th. B. UNIVERSITY REPORT Commissioner Palmer – There is a lot happening at UVA. We continue with our Grounds Plan Update and the Affordable Housing Initiative. The consultant teams have been hard at work reaching out to the community, Albemarle planning establishment, and City Government with the Grounds Plan. The Health System is doing a strategic plan. They have a website for the community to leave comments on any aspects of the Health System. They have two areas that the community will be more interested in. One is Community and Public Equity. The other is Patient Experience. Those are two areas where people might want to comment. The Ivy Corridor utility work is beginning. The three buildings being designed continue to be at various levels of design. That’s the Data Science, the Hotel and Conference Center, and the Institute for Democracy. Alderman Library is starting to come out of the ground. They have removed the new stacks and are adding an addition for the 21st Century onto that building. There’s a Board of Visitors meeting next week on September 23rd and September 24th. On the 24th, there’s a Friday night football game at Scott Stadium. C. CHAIR’S REPORT 1. Annual Meeting – Election Commissioner Lahendro – Nominated Commissioner Solla-Yates as Chair and Commissioner Russell as Vice-Chair. Motion – Commissioner Lahendro (Second by Commissioner Mitchell) to approve the new Chair and Vice-Chair – Motion passes 7-0. Chairman Solla-Yates – The Charlottesville Plans Together Steering Committee met on September 1st. The feedback from the team was very similar. The Housing Advisory Policy Subcommittee met on September 10th to discuss how to move forward with housing since we don’t have a Housing Coordinator on staff. D. DEPARTMENT OF NDS Ms. Creasy – On September 21st, next Tuesday, we have a work session starting at 5:00 PM. It will be our continued review of the Comprehensive Plan. We will talk further about some of the items that we had at the last meeting. We’re currently scheduled at our regular meeting on October 12th for the Comprehensive Plan public hearing. We have a placeholder on the calendar for October 21st as we’re trying to manage the agendas the best that we can in October. James Freas, New NDS Director – I am very excited to be here. Today is my second day. I am still ‘finding my feet’ and learning my way around the building. I would really like to find some time to meet 4 with all of you in person. There’s a lot of great work happening right now. I am hoping for an opportunity to get to talk with each of you about what we have going on. I am excited to get involved in it. E. MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE FORMAL AGENDA Benjamin Heller – I wanted to chime in on an environmental question related to the Comprehensive Plan. I have a concern about whether there’s not more analysis potentially required to know whether the impacts are going to be as positive as we want them to be or potentially fall short. If we were building a city from scratch, with the goal of minimizing greenhouse gas emissions, we would build dense. The impact is going to depend on decisions that economic agents make. I fear there hasn’t been any modeling of that. I wonder what analysis has been done. When I look at the census tables, I don’t see a lot of commuters from outlying areas. I would like to know if they are there for economic reasons. Are the policies are going to push in the right way? When it comes time to impose these rules, are we going to hear that the city is mighty enough to redo the whole built-in environment but have a Council powerless against the built-in rule? I want to flag that. F. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes – March 30, 2021 – Work Session Motion to approve Consent Agenda – Commissioner Russell (Second by Commissioner Dowell) – Motion passes 7-0. Meeting recessed until 6:00 PM and/or a quorum of City Council was available. Once there was a quorum, Council was called to order by Vice-Mayor Magill (Items removed from the consent agenda will be considered at the end of the regular agenda) III. JOINT MEETING OF COMMISSION AND COUNCIL Beginning: 6:00 PM Continuing: Until all public hearings are complete Format: (i) Staff Report, (ii) Applicant, (iii) Hearing, (iv) Discussion and Motion 1. ZM20-00002 – 240 Stribling PUD – Southern Development on behalf of the landowner, Belmont Station, LLC, has submitted an application seeking a rezoning of approximately twelve (12) acres of land, identified within City tax records as Tax Map and Parcel 18A025000 (“Subject Property”). The Subject Property has frontage on Stribling Avenue. The application proposes to change the zoning district classifications of the Subject Property from R-1S (Residential Small Lot) / R-2 (Residential Two-Family) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) subject to certain proffered development conditions (“Proffers”) and development plan. The Proffers include: (1) a. For the purposes of this Proffer, the term “Affordable Dwelling Unit” (ADU) means a dwelling unit reserved for occupancy by a household that pays no 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 sixty percent (60%) or less than of the Area Median Income (AMI) for the City of Charlottesville, as said AMI is established annually by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Fifteen percent (15%) of all dwelling units constructed shall be ADUs. Thirty percent (30%) or more of the required ADUs shall be reserved for 5 rental to low- and moderate-income households for a period of a least ten (10) years. Thirty percent (30%) or more of the required ADUs shall be reserved for ownership by low- and moderate-income households for a period of at least thirty (30) years. During construction the For-Sale ADUs shall be constructed incrementally, such that at least five (5) Affordable Dwelling Units shall be either completed or under construction pursuant to a City-issued building permit, prior to the issuance of every 30th Building Permit for non-affordable dwelling unit. The rezoning would allow a PUD referred to as “240 Stribling PUD” containing no more than one-hundred and seventy (170) residential units divided between single-family attached, townhomes, and multifamily buildings at a density of fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre (DUA), with open space in the amount of 4.76 acres, and the following unique characteristics/ amenities per the development plan: approximately two (2) single-family attached style units, approximately sixty- nine (69) townhome style units, three (3) multifamily buildings, central green space, nature trail, four (4) new City standard public roads, pedestrian and vehicular access to Morgan Court, and six (6) new private roads built to City private road standards. The proposed development is intended to be completed in approximately twenty (20) phases. In order for the Landowners to implement the PUD Plan, they will need to disturb areas within Critical Slopes; this application also presents a request for a Critical Slopes Waiver per City Code Sec. 34-516(c). The Comprehensive Land Use Map for this area calls for Low Density Residential (15 DUA or less). Information pertaining to this application may be viewed online at http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and-services/departments-h-z/neighborhood- developmentservices (available online five to six days prior to the Public Hearing) or obtained from the Department of Neighborhood Development Services, 2nd Floor of City Hall, 610 East Main Street. Persons interested in this Rezoning may contact NDS Planner Matt Alfele by e-mail (alfelem@charlottesville.org) or by telephone (434-970-3636). i. Staff Report Matt Alfele, City Planner – Southern Development on behalf of the landowner, Belmont Station, LLC, has submitted an application pursuant to City Code 34-490 seeking a zoning map amendment to change the zoning district classifications of the above parcels of land. The application proposes to change the zoning classification of the Subject Property from “R-1S” (Residential Small Lots) & “R-2” (Residential Two-Family) to “PUD” (Planned Unit Development) subject to proffered development conditions. The proposed PUD development plan calls for a density not to exceed 15 dwelling units per acre, roughly 20 rows of townhomes, 3 multifamily buildings designated as condominiums, 2 single- family attached dwelling units, a use matrix that allows residential and related uses such as single-family attached townhouses, single-family detached, two family dwellings, and multi-family Day Home and Residential Treatment Facility up to 8 residents, non-residential uses, such as house of worship, ballfields, and swimming pools. The use matrix prohibits such uses as nursing homes, animal shelters, libraries, and gas stations. The use matric allows parking garages, surface parking lots (under and above 20 spaces), and temporary parking facilities as ancillary uses. Fifteen percent of the dwelling units constructed on site shall be affordable dwelling units. There will be two central greens/open spaces and preservation of existing wooded areas between the development and Moore’s Creek. The total open space will be 4.76 acres or roughly 41.9% of the total site. There will be a shared use public path connecting the development to Moore’s Creek built to city standards, four new city standard roads, a public road connection to Morgan Court, six private roads built up to city standards for rear loading of townhouses, on street parking, and structured parking for the three multifamily buildings to be provided within each building. Dwelling units within the development will have porches and balconies, zero minimum setback for structures within the development, five foot setbacks for structures adjacent to the property outside of 6 the development, and maximum building height of 55 feet, except for lots 1 through 7. These lots will have a maximum height of three stories, subtle variation and massing, wall openings, and color will be used on the dwelling units to reduce repetition. There will be a widening of Stribling Avenue along the north side of the property adjacent to the entrance road, a preliminary landscape plan with screening on the edge of the properties and general location of street trees, and sheltered 5 foot sidewalks along both sides of all public roads and one side of all private roads. The project is being proposed in a 20 phased process. In addition to the physical characteristics of the development plan, the applicant has also proposed a proffer statement with the following condition: Fifteen percent of all dwelling units constructed on site will be affordable. Affordable dwelling units per the proffer will mean a dwelling unit reserved for occupancy by a household that pays no more than 30% of its gross income on housing costs including utilities, provided that the annual gross income of the household is 60% or less than the area median income for the City of Charlottesville. Of the affordable dwelling units, a minimum of 30% will be reserved for rentals to low and moderate income households for a period of at least ten years. Of the affordable dwelling units, a minimum of 30% will be reserved for ownership by low and moderate income households for a period of at least 30 years. During construction, the affordable dwelling units shall be constructed incrementally such that five dwelling units shall either be completed or under construction pursuant to a city issued building permit prior to issuance of every 30th building permit for non-affordable dwelling units. In addition to the requested rezoning of 240 Stribling Avenue PUD, the applicant is also requesting waiver to the critical slope requirements. Per section 34-1120b and 34-516c, this request must be heard simultaneously with the rezoning request by the Planning Commission. 14.3% of the total site is designated as critical slopes per the city code. The applicant is requesting to disturb 41.7% of the slopes. The applicant is proposing to disturb these slopes to provide the public access to Moore’s Creek, public road connection to Morgan Court, building envelopes for two of the three multifamily buildings, five of the townhomes, and one of the private roads plus the stormwater infrastructure. Staff, Planning Commission, and City Council have received multiple comments related to this project. The applicant has held a number of community events. These comments can be found in the staff report. One of the main concerns is the pedestrian infrastructure of Stribling Avenue. Chris Engel, Director of Economic Development – I am here tonight for the City Manager. A couple of months ago, the City Manager and I were approached by the applicant and developer of the 240 Stribling PUD to determine if the city would be interested in considering any alternative funding approaches to address the pedestrian infrastructure needs on Stribling Avenue near this proposed PUD. The approach we’re going to outline for you today models a previous approach that the city has used for economic development projects. Mine and the City Attorney’s involvement is to negotiate this infrastructure funding agreement. This agreement is not part of the rezoning request. It does impact the nearby area. It is certainly of interest to many in the neighborhood. As proposed, it is a separate agreement entered into by the parties to help facilitate a solution to the needs in a timelier manner than the typical CIP process may allow. In its simplest form, this agreement stipulates that the developer provides up to $2 million in funds to construct the needed improvements. That is in a timeframe that is contemporaneous to the PUD development to create some efficiencies there. The city will repay those funds to the developer over a period of years based solely on the increment increase in real estate value generated by the PUD project. As the new units arrive and are assessed, that increase is used to pay back the developer for the $2 million that is essentially provided upfront to do the improvements in advance and in conjunction with the new PUD. This project has not been designed. It has not been engineered. It has not been bid by formal contractors. Many of the detail questions that people might have cannot be answered at this moment. There’s work to be done should this agreement and PUD move forward. 7 The agreement covers sidewalks and associated utility and stormwater infrastructure for approximately the length of Stribling Avenue from its intersection at JPA to the city boundary. A preliminary survey and engineering survey have been completed by the developer. Those are current and recent. Activities that have been done in preparation for this did result in a cost estimate for these improvements in the range of $1.5 to $1.6 million. This project has not been designed or engineered. These figures are likely to change up or down until that final design is in place. The agreement provides up to $2 million to be made available in conjunction with land disturbing activities related to the PUD. It is designed to happen in accordance with the PUD development to allow the improvements to take place along with that work to minimize the impact to the whole area and to do it in an efficient manner. Any amount over the $2 million would need to be sourced separately by the city and is not covered by this agreement. The city is obligated to repay only when the increment is realized. If the increment does not accrue, our obligation would be fulfilled at the end of this agreement. There is an incentive for the developer to finish this development and to have the increment accrue to get the full recuperation of funds that they have advanced. Our estimates are varying. Depending on how the buildout happens, if the buildout happens over a 4 year period, a full repayment of the $2 million could occur in 5 to 6 years. That is just an estimate. This agreement is in draft form. We did provide it yesterday to interested parties and the Planning Commission. The key elements have been agreed upon by the parties. Until it is approved by City Council, it is not final. It would have to be executed by both parties to be official. Should the rezoning proceed, this infrastructure funding agreement would also need to be approved by the city. The city would need to design the project, perform right of way acquisition, and engage a contractor to make the improvements. All of that would happen pending your activities tonight and Council’s future hearings on this project. Based on the concerns people in that neighborhood have had over the years about sidewalks and drainage and vehicular movements, this allows a project that has been needed for some time to happen at a quicker pace than what might be anticipated in a normal CIP in a manner that doesn’t impact that CIP directly but by using borrowed funds up front and returning those funds as the planned unit development yields additional tax increments Commissioner Mitchell – With the units that are available to be purchased for 30 years that are affordable, how do we enforce that? What happens if a person buys a house and sells their house 5 years later? Are they forced to sell it at an affordable rate or do they get market rate? Lisa Robertson, City Attorney – This is an issue that we’re seeing over and over particularly in relation to For Sale units. There is no internal consistency of policy with the city as to whether or not the city is looking for committed units at a particular location. A particular unit would remain affordable for 30 years or whether the city would like people, who purchase that unit for the first time, to be able to realize some benefit from it but later sell it for fair market value. Until we make some policy decisions and connection with the new zoning ordinance, we’re left with a bunch of different provisions. If the city’s current zoning ordinance and Section 34-12 requires a developer provide a certain number of units. Those required units are subject to the provisions of the city’s existing regulations and housing policies. The existing regulations do specify that deed restrictions be recorded. People don’t like those. People who favor allowing people who purchase the home to be able to sell it at a certain point in the future don’t favor restrictive covenants; at least one that does not allow for the property to be sold at something that resembles fair market value. To the extent we had regulations, those regulations require a covenant applied to the standard operating procedures. They are lengthy. Those regulations do require individuals to record a deed restricting the use of the property. That’s only in relation to the required number of units. 8 In a lot of developments that you see coming through, it might only be one or two units. If the developer, in addition to any required units, is voluntarily just offering an additional number of units, whatever promises you are receiving are only as good as what your application materials describe. If your application materials say “we’ll give you a recorded covenant,” that equates with the regulations. If the application materials say something else, you get whatever the applicant is proffering or offering you. What I will note with this particular application, is that if you look at the provisions of the proffer statement in paragraph 1C, the applicant is saying that the obligations set out in the proffers will be set forth within one or more written declarations of covenants. Everyone who buys property from the developer will be on notice, as a result of some declaration of covenants, that they will be purchasing a piece of property that has to remain usable as an affordable unit going forward consistent with what the proffer says. It is important that you all, in making your recommendations, are comfortable with what paragraphs 1a and 1b of those proffers say. To the extent there are units, which are subject to Section 34- 12, the applicant is setting forth in those paragraphs what they are willing to do. The provisions of paragraph 1b do make reference to your existing regulations. To that extent, the applicant is promising to administer all of the rental units in accordance with the provisions of your existing regulations. Commissioner Mitchell – It seems to me that it defeats the purpose if a long-term owner can’t build their wealth by, maybe after five years, marketing their property at a fair market rate. Ms. Robertson – I want to note that is a big policy decision that the city has to make relative to ‘for sale’ units. If you’re saying at the time of rezoning, that something is going to remain affordable for 30 years, that’s an area you just described, means the property is affordable during that 5 years. It will go away at the end of 5 years. That’s a legitimate policy choice if the city chooses to make it. It’s not real clear in any of our regulations or requirements, what preferences you may have depending on what type of unit it is and the goals of a particular applicant. Commissioner Mitchell – Long-term affordability in rental units is a good thing. Long-term restricting of a low-income person building wealth is problematic. Commissioner Dowell – One thing I was concerned about was that the staff, as far as housing types, recommended the plan. Staff also said that they didn’t recommend it because of the street safety and affordability. I wanted some clarification on the mixed recommendation. Mr. Alfele – What you’re seeing in that mixed recommendation is based on our current Comprehensive Plan. You’re not going to hit every point. There are points where this development hits and it meets the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. There are points where it falls short. . Commissioner Dowell – Per city staff recommendation, what points do you feel are more prevalent than others? Mr. Alfele – Safety is always going to be paramount. That’s the main thing. It is hard to judge the way our current comp plan is. It doesn’t weigh different goals. The Planning Commission can have a legitimate discussion on whether the goals can be reached through this plan. Commissioner Habbab – If it is slated for 60% AMI and that person gets a raise and makes 65%, does that mean they have to move out? How does that work? 9 Ms. Robertson – Within a rental unit, there is some leeway for a person to stay a certain amount of time. You want to allow some opportunity for a property owner to move around. On a rental unit, if they designate some units in the development as the affordable units and if they want to allow a person to stay in a particular unit, even when their income exceeds what is allowed, you want to allow some leeway to amend that designation so the required number of units can be maintained. You might want to designate a different unit instead of making someone move. I won’t say that rental units are easy to administer. The process is easier to set up and manage. The rental affordable units are the ones that everyone is more used to dealing with because of the voucher system. The ‘for sale’ units are very difficult. It is not going to be a workable arrangement to say that when somebody owns a house, they have to move out even though they’re the owner. Generally, your income would be established at the time of the sale to you as an affordable owner. With the ‘for sale’ units, you’re changing income over time doesn’t really matter as much. It’s what your income is at the time you become the owner. Commissioner Habbab – My other question was whether the traffic engineer had a chance to go over the proposed agreement on Stribling Avenue and if they had any comments. Jack Dawson, City Engineer – We saw the agreement the other day. My concern is that estimate is a little light. It just isn’t a sidewalk. It’s essentially a streetscape. When you touch a road, you have to bring it to code. That road is not 20 feet wide throughout. You have an 18 foot wide road and you need to bring it to 20 feet. You’re excavating to widen the road before you build the curbs. When you curb the road, you’re concentrating water. Even though there’s not a significant impervious increase, all of the water that diffuses through sheet-flow onto people’s various properties will be concentrated in various places. There’s no infrastructure to support that. We have a couple of different estimates. This has been lingering around primarily through the community CIP development process. It’s not a priority for the city regarding sidewalks. We only have $650,000 in our account now for sidewalks in the CIP and only $100,000 for the next couple of years. All of that money is tied up in multi-modal revenue share, which is a match with VDOT. It won’t hit the books for another 3 years. We literally cannot do any other sidewalks. The last estimate we conducted was $2.9 million. That was just at Sunset. There’s significant design and construction to facilitate this. I would be remiss if I didn’t say that the primary concern is the cost. We have not reviewed plans. If the sidewalk gets built, it would be to code with minimal variances based on existing conditions. The issue is how we get from where we are now to that. Commissioner Lahendro – I noticed that there are some very large, mature hardwood trees on the applicant’s land on Stribling Avenue. They are moved in the proposed plan. Is there something the city staff and city engineer know about or are requiring that is causing those trees to be removed? Is this a decision made by the applicant? Mr. Alfele – We’re not at site plan level. This is more at the land use level. Any decision would have been the applicant’s unless they were following a guideline in the zoning code. I don’t know of any reasons other than construction reasons. Mr. Dawson – From the engineering, I am sure there is a requirement that they build a sidewalk along the frontage of Stribling there and dedicate some right of way to increase that right of way to basic standards. If those trees are 8 feet beyond the existing property line, they will be removed for building the sidewalk there. 10 Commissioner Russell – I had a question about Morgan Court. In the pre-meeting, the question was ‘what is the threshold requiring two points of egress and ingress?’ It was communicated that 50 units triggers that requirement unless two access points would create an unsafe condition. Is it at 50 units that a development requires two points in ingress and egress? We have this proposed access along Morgan Court through Huntley. Presumably, a by right development would also require two points of access. Brennen Duncan, Traffic Engineer – A few years ago, we redid this code section. It used to say 15 dwelling units. We changed the code section to be at the discretion of the traffic engineer and fire marshal. The project that prompted that was a very narrow lot. It was 50 or 60 feet wide. Per the code, they were required to do 2 points of ingress. It was actually more dangerous having two access points that close together. That is why we changed the code. If it is going to be over 50 dwelling units, we would be looking for multiple access points. Commissioner Russell – I am curious if you had any thoughts on there being another option for achieving two points of access. I have concerns about Morgan Street capacity. It does have additional lots on it. There’s potential for 13 lots along that cul de sac. It doesn’t seem like a safe road. I am curious if there’s another option or if Morgan Street was constructed with an intent to be a connector. Mr. Duncan – It was constructed with the intent to be a public street. It was not constructed to be a connector road. We had some questions from the public. Even if you add in the units that have not been developed on Morgan Court at this point in time, take 240 Stribling out of the equation, the average traffic on that roadway fully developed is only 150 to 200 vehicles a day. With this development, it would still push up to 400 to 600 vehicles, which is still well within an acceptable capacity for a neighborhood street. It’s not until you get close to 1000 vehicles per day, that normal livability standards start to be noise and traffic. Even with this development, it would still fall below that. There might be an opportunity to do two access points coming out to Stribling. That might be an option for the developer to consider. In this particular instance, connecting to Morgan Court is appropriate for the value standpoint and connectability. Otherwise, you do force all of the vehicles out onto Stribling as opposed to letting origin destination dictate where they’re trying to get to. It essentially makes this a big cul de sac subdivision rather than an interconnected street network that a city should have. , Commissioner Russell –You’re making that assessment on capacity. Is that also taking into account the existing conditions (lack of sidewalk, multiple mailboxes that don’t have a sidewalk, etc.) Mr. Dawson – Brennen looks at it from traffic perspective. While it would be much better to have sidewalks there, the roads still serve the function of being a public city road with vehicular and pedestrian connectivity. While it is not an ideal situation, it was, in theory, designed to be a local street and carry those traffic loads. How it was built, designed does leave something to be desired. It is a local street. The purpose of a local street is to provide movability to large parcels within the city. Commissioner Stolzenberg – Was the second connection driven by staff asking the applicant for it? The last time, they were talking about it as an emergency connection and didn’t have strong opinions either way. Mr. Duncan – It was a request of staff. 11 Commissioner Stolzenberg – Looking at the 2013 Comprehensive Plan with how it talks about encouraging new street connections and increasing network connectivity. Is that the general theme? Is that driving us to ask for these additional connections here? Mr. Alfele – When you look at a by right development, the traffic engineer and city engineer are looking at it through their lens of their discipline. When you’re looking at a conditional rezoning or SUP, we’re looking at other factors like the Comprehensive Plan. There is that factor that the need for connectivity in the comp plan is also driving staff’s request to have these connection points in addition to the other requirements by the traffic engineer. Commissioner Stolzenberg – Is it unheard of in the city for a cul de sac turn into a connected street? I can think of several roads that look like they were cul de sacs and were extended. Is that something unusual? As I recall, the last line of the standard operating procedures schedule 2, which covers the ‘for sale’ units. It says the CIU commitment will describe how resales CIUs will be handled so that the term of affordability can be satisfied. Separately, it says a minimum of ten years. The applicant is saying 30 years. That creates this problem where most homes will be resold in 30 years. That proffer doesn’t explicitly say that they have to be resold at an affordable rate. If they aren’t, the developer has to provide an additional ‘for sale’ unit at an affordable rate somewhere else in the city. It’s a safe assumption that the developer is going to make the owner sell it affordably. Is that a reasonable interpretation of that? Ms. Robertson – I don’t know if it is that specific. The way I read those regulations is that it says the first sale always has to be affordable in accordance with the provisions of those regulations, which says 80% or less. The way I read that additional provision is that what it requires is that the developer will establish, at the time the development is approved, a document that actually describes what is going to happen for all subsequent sales at that property. That provision was specifically there to leave some flexibility. The developer can partner with a nonprofit and use their model. It leaves some room to say that ‘we want people to be able to sell and make some money but we would still like it to be a resale at a certain level.’ It leaves some room for people to make proposals for the city’s consideration. These regulations go with Section 34-12. By the time somebody is asking for a building permit, we want them to tell us what the plan is. You’re either going to keep them affordable for no less than 10 years. If somebody is proffering 30 years, that might be the commitment. You’re going to keep that specific unit affordable throughout that designated affordability period. At the very least you’re going to tell us what’s going to happen after the first sale. We have not been requiring people to identify how those resales will happen when the number of units required are ‘for sale’ units. Commissioner Stolzenberg – Help me understand why this performance agreement is better than the initial offer from the applicant to just give us half a million dollars in cash. If I understand this correctly, the city collects the tax increment regardless if there’s an agreement or not. If there’s any construction, the tax assessment will go up and we’ll collect more tax revenue. It’s then a matter of allocating money to make the sidewalk improvements happen. We could allocate that money in the CIP, take out bonds that will be 20 years with roughly the same interest rate, and pay off those bonds with the tax revenue we get. Instead, we’re essentially taking a loan from the applicant, and directing the tax increment. What are the 12 benefits? Even if they end up not constructing the project, we still get that money from them and basically never pay it back? Are there other benefits? Ms. Robertson – The first scenario you described just talks about the city’s Capital Improvements Process. That’s the definition of a CIP program. You prioritize and identity what projects that you want to do. You project what revenues you’re going to receive from tax revenues that year and apply those revenues to your priority list. In the first scenario, it is not a TIF. It’s how you’re normally supposed to do a CIP. Commissioner Stolzenberg – I was saying that we would ‘mentally’ earmark the extra money to pay for that in the CIP, which would move up in priority. We have this extra revenue. Nothing explicitly ties it together. That’s maybe an advantage. There’s a direct tie between these two things Mr. Engel – That’s part of it. The other part is the pressure on the CIP, with regards to its capacity. This circumvents that. The developer provides those funds up front. We get some time to pay it back and we get additional revenue from the development to help pay that back. If for some reason the development doesn’t materialize, our obligation would end with whatever increment does occur within the period of the agreement. Commissioner Stolzenberg – You said that we don’t have to allocate in the CIP. By email, I heard that we had to allocate in the CIP with this extra source of revenue. Are we saying that it doesn’t count against our bonding capacity for our debt rating? Mr. Engel – There are a couple of components to it. Part of the design work still has to be done by the city. There would still have to be a CIP project. The design component would have to be accommodated there. The funds that the developer is proposing are for the construction of the improvements. That’s where that would come from. We would have to time all of that out with respect to how the developer intends to develop. There’s a drop-dead date that the funding must be provided by in the agreement if land disturbance hasn’t happened sooner. We would have to time all of those out so that it works appropriately. That would impact at least one of our CIP budgets on some level. We don’t know what that number is for the design cost. Commissioner Stolzenberg – Eventually, cost overruns. If we’re saying the tax increment will pay it off in 5 or 6 years, based on what we expect it to be. If that cost goes a little high, even though we didn’t get that money from the developer, it reduces the amount of bonding capacity we have to use for it. That 7th and 8th year would pay it off? Mr. Engel – In theory, that’s correct. Commissioner Mitchell – I think we’re supposed to be talking about the critical slope and the actual application all at once. We didn’t talk much about the critical slopes. It looks like Mr. Dawson is very cautious about the application. It looks like the people from the other side are not as concerned. The environmental sustainability people are pretty happy that the applicant is going to be able to keep 73% of the phosphorous out of the water. On page 8 of the staff report, Mr. Alfele walks us through eight different recommendations that would make him comfortable. I want to 13 make certain those 8 recommendations, if implemented and embraced by the applicant, would make Mr. Alfele comfortable with the issues related to the critical slope. Mr. Alfele – Those recommendations really came out of engineering. Mr. Dawson – When I am in front of the Planning Commission, it is to talk about critical slopes. Last time, I was in front of you all, it was South First Street and the conversation on the difficulties of overlaying engineering review with the planning process prior to design. That was mid-project. This takes us back to a very general idea of how to safely handle the water here. These have evolved from my experience in doing this over a couple of years to a boilerplate. I believe there was a concept-level plan for erosion control in the package, which I did look at when I put this together. These are boilerplate advisements on how to manage a project like this to avoid detrimental effects to the critical slopes and the environmental realm. It’s not a guarantee. If you read the wording about the recommendations, it was carefully crafted with Mr. Alfele’s help. If you feel that it meets finding #1, this is the bare minimum. I don’t know how the project will be designed or built at this phase. Commissioner Mitchell – Typically, it is very difficult for you to say that this is going to be a good thing this early. We have to go on good faith that they do these things and done the best that they can, at least until the site plan review. ii. Applicant Presentation Charlie Armstrong, Applicant – You have seen this project before in three Planning Commission work sessions. It has been a very deliberate two year listening process to get to this point where we’re asking for your formal recommendation. The community’s feedback and your feedback helped us craft what we think is an excellent project now. When we first looked at the property, we first considered what could be done by right without coming to the Planning Commission or Council. It was smart for us to know what our baseline is. By right is a viable plan financially, but it is not what we want to do nor is it what we think the city needs. By right on this parcel would be about 46 lots, mostly large single-family detached homes. Some are nearly an acre in size. It would potentially trip up to that connection in Morgan Court. That was not something we analyzed in enough detail to look at. We considered an R-2 rezoning. This concept would roughly be 68 duplex lots. We looked at this. We think it is better than by right because of the density. It’s still a very urban feeling concept with no real design appeal. I first brought this to you feeling a little ‘sheepish’ about bringing it to you. You didn’t like it. We really didn’t like it either. The neighbors didn’t like it. This was in August, 2019. Through that, the Planning Commission told us very clearly that you wanted to see something denser and less suburban. We engaged Mitchell-Matthews Architects. They developed this early concept for a PUD. We brought this to the community and to you in January and February, 2020. The Planning Commission, unanimously, indicated they liked the PUD approach. You liked this concept. We showed you this high level comparison of by right versus PUD highlighting some pros and cons of each. We came back to the Planning Commission and the community a third time in September of 2020 with most of the project specifics you see tonight. At that work session, the Planning Commission showed support for the PUD but told us that the $500,000 we were offering at the time for Stribling Avenue improvements might not be enough. Mr. Lahendro, in that meeting, summed it up well talking about how 14 much he liked this PUD proposal because of its layout, design, and thoughtfulness. He could not approve it without ensuring Stribling gets sidewalks. That was a common theme at that meeting. Three main themes stood out prominently with the community feedback. Those themes were that most people are in favor of density and affordability. People are concerned about a road connection with Morgan Court. Improvements to Stribling Avenue are needed and are long overdue. I pulled out four example letters from community members. This first letter is for density. It notes the importance of improvements to Stribling Avenue. It comments on housing history and housing need. This next letter notes the need for housing affordability, mentions concerns about Morgan Court, and notes the need for improvements on Stribling Avenue. This next letter had the same themes. This final example is the formal letter of the project from the Fry Springs Neighborhood Association. The Fry Springs Neighborhood Association voted to support this PUD proposal with the caveat that the city figure out how to make improvements to Stribling Avenue prior to completion of the PUD. We have spent the last year figuring this out. Kevin Riddle, Architect – Mr. Armstrong approached our office a couple years ago to reconsider the design of this neighborhood. We began by evaluating the potential for more homes here. As we did, this goal could be coupled with the creation of a network of open spaces. We could increase the amount and variety of community greens or common ground. You would find a conventional development. We could go further and de-emphasize the presence of motor vehicles and exposed surface paving. We realized that more housing if thoughtfully arrayed, did not have to compromise the greater neighborhood environment. In fact, it might be essential to enhancing it. To accomplish this, we decided that a compact arrangement, more urban than suburban, had real potential and made sense. When you look at the following illustrations, we hope that you will see a few of the merits of this approach. In this birds-eye view, the proposed neighborhood is shown within the red property boundary. In this view, you can see that a significant belt of bottom land at the south and southeast side of the parcel is left largely undisturbed. On the west side (behind the 3 multifamily buildings), this belt continues around and to the north. By focusing street and building construction at the middle of the site and at the Stribling end, a large swath of woodlands remains. Compare the proposed development to the Eagle’s Landing Apartments to the south. Those are visible at the bottom left of the image. With Eagle’s Landing, large swaths of surface paving and parked cars separate buildings and tenants. In the proposed neighborhood at 240 Stribling, the majority of cars will be parked under the buildings. That leaves more room outside that can be set aside for yards, porches, paths, and greens. At the top of this image, you can see the close proximity of the proposal to Fontaine Research Park. It’s only a modest bike ride or walk from the proposed neighborhood. Next Slide You start to see the interior environments this PUD could encourage. This view is taken from what is called Road B on the civil plans. It’s adjacent to a large rectangular green. It’s looking down the site for a cascading band of narrower green spaces that separate townhomes. You can see our strategy, while compact and concentrated, is not overly rigid or continuous. It’s not arbitrary. We have intentionally designed openings in the built fabric to frame views and make visual connections. In this case, looking from the middle of the site down to the bottom. The inter-connected greens also potentially provide a recreational corridor. The very dimensions of these open spaces invite a variety of activities in a range of scales. The larger green might be good to throw a football or set up badminton courts. Another smaller 15 space is better for small family gatherings. The green spaces insinuate themselves in what would be a repetitious rank and file of townhomes. They contribute to a rich environment of outdoor space and common ground. Next Slide In this slide, you’re looking between townhomes toward one of the multifamily buildings. You’re standing in a muse arrangement. Another way to describe this is that it is like a garden apartment. In this case, it is townhouses that compose most of the dwellings around the garden. Here the scale is a little different than the last illustration. It’s tighter knit and more intimate within the muse space filled with more paths, plants, and porches. Here you can see the potential for a nice pedestrian environment as an alternative to a street running down the middle. We show this image and the previous slide in support of an argument of city staff’s concerns about the smaller, private roads are misplaced. Without these roads or lanes that access the backs of the townhomes, the project would require many individual driveways and curb cuts at the larger public streets; in many cases connected to garages that face onto the larger streets. As an alternative here, our proposal has very few driveways where the public walks, bikes, and drives. There are very few cars parked in front yards. In the place of cars and driveways, we have greater opportunities to create generous yard, garden, and pathways unobstructed by traffic. Without the private roads, what you see in this illustration would not be possible. It’s our position that private roads cause a negligible downside and instead allow multiple advantages that would make this community distinctive, cohesive, and comfortable. Mr. Armstrong – One of the staff concerns was private roads. It is very intentional to relegate those roads to a secondary status. They do meet city requirements. Two of the other concerns are things we resolve in final engineering. We just aren’t at the level of detail yet to precisely be placing water meter and sewer lateral connections. How those relate to street trees will be worked out in the final site plan. There are requirements in the code for that. We’re also considering adding ten foot maximum setbacks for townhomes from those roads. The other concern was about Morgan Court. Morgan Court is a secondary entrance. By design, it won’t be the most convenient or fastest way in or out of this PUD. We think a second entrance is good planning practice. If the city wants to restrict that entrance, we’re willing. One way traffic in whatever direction will create the least use and that is fine with us. It might be a good compromised solution that discourages daily use but allows it to be a good connection. Since it will be a city street, the city can make that decision. We’re very happy to leave that in the hands of the city engineers. Next Slide We have a robust affordable housing proffer. Fifteen percent below 60% AMI. The City Attorney answered the question earlier about what happens if a unit is allowed to be sold at a market rate. We want an affordable housing partner that will bring in a mechanism in their deed. In the event a homeowner sells at market rate, there are some equity recapture provisions in the covenants sufficient to create a new ADU elsewhere within the city. Paragraph 1c of the proffer (the bottom of that paragraph) deals with that. We want that low-income owner to be able to participate in an opportunity for wealth earning that comes with homeownership. Buying a home doesn’t mean much if you don’t get to participate in that. For rentals, as income increases, it was mentioned earlier that they may not qualify for a subsidized unit for people who are below 60% AMI. There is a grace period of a substantial amount of time to allow them to find a new 16 rental if they do get a raise or a new job or have an event that changes their income qualification for a rental unit. If a low-income person buys one of the homes, they own it. They can live in it as many generations as they want to. Next Slide Figuring out how to fund these improvements with Stribling Avenue was a major challenge for us. It’s the primary reason for the year gap between today and when we last presented this to you. There’s no question about the need for this. Funding has always been a barrier. City staff has requested funding from Council in each of the last two CIP cycles. Council has never been able to allocate it. Those numbers for the CIP and cost estimates directly from the CIP request are there on your screen now. If Council had been able to allocate that money, the sidewalks on Stribling would already be in the works but they prioritized other things. The dollar amount the agreement covers is the highest of any of the city’s CIP estimates. It’s 30% more than a third party engineers’ estimate. Both the CIP estimates and the third party engineers’ estimates covers all of the costs of the sidewalks and the needed drainage improvements. I can’t speak to cost overruns. We’re working with estimates that have been produced by the city and other engineers as well. Council will vote on this at the same time as the PUD. They run ‘hand in glove.’ They can’t be separated. One does not work without the other. The Stribling Avenue improvements can occur in concurrence with the PUD. We have, in our agreement, some language where we will help facilitate the contractor and make sure that happens. This is as important to us as it is to everybody else. We’re trying to craft it to make sure the language in the agreement does all of that. It does require some action from the city. If the money is there, I have to think the action will follow. We’re providing enough funding up front to fund this important CIP project. We’re creating the real estate tax revenue stream that repays it. Doing that sooner gets the sidewalk done sooner. If waiting for the CIP and then doing this project, we will have to wait longer for sidewalks. Having these funds out there for an undetermined amount of time does have significant costs to our project budget. We have to carry that on our books. We do borrow money for a living. The money for this would be money that we source and we pay interest on. I guarantee our interest rates are not nearly as attractive as the city’s bond rates. We’re really excited that we can make this happen. It’s been something we have been waiting to figure out before we came back and ask for a vote. Councilor Snook – When the sidewalks get built at the developer’s expense and it is to be reimbursed by tax breaks, when the ownership at that point is among many people, how are you going to distribute that? Mr. Engel – It is essentially one parcel right now. It’s really easy to determine that. We have determined the base value based on the value of the current parcel. Once it is platted and subdivided into multiple parcels, we’ll work with the city assessor to determine the collective value of the improvements. That will give us the difference between the base value and the improved value. That will be the basis for the repayment. That will change each year as more units are built. Councilor Snook – You’re allocating unit by unit. It could be 100 different parcels eventually that have some sort of tax break at some point. Mr. Engel – It is an improved value based upon the investment that they’re making. We will coordinate with the city assessor. Whatever he assesses that value at will determine the rate of payback. 17 Councilor Payne – Trying to assess the likelihood that there will be cost overruns in terms of the cost of these improvements. Will it be $2 million or will it be higher than that? I have walked the site. I am just curious if anything can be done to try to minimize the loss of mature trees, tree canopy, and greenspace? I think that is a serious risk for that site. Mr. Dawson – I can speak to the first question. There have not been any estimates made on that CIP request. I am sure that everyone is familiar with how our CIP process works. It may not be an exemplary example of functional level government. What we have was $2 million to get it started. We have to design this thing. The estimate to have this designed is somewhere around a quarter million dollars. This is not an insignificant effort. If it exceeded $2 million, it will not be overrun. There is no estimate put together at this point in time. I would not categorize drawing a sidewalk over a survey an estimate. It is very important that you understand there is not a solid estimate for this. The most solid estimate that my staff did came out at $2.9 million. That got us to Sunset. There is significant property stakes involved. I did see a piece of the proposed plan, which showed a 20 feet curb to curb. You can’t park on a 20 foot street, which would eliminate all of the ad hoc, Charlottesville style parking that people do there now. You can’t drive over a curb to park in your yard. While the community wants a sidewalk, they probably don’t want that design. It gets more expensive when you get away from just drawing lines on the plan to how this is going to work and where the stormwater is going to go. There is no estimate as far as I am concerned. My general estimate is higher than $2 million. It would almost be a certainty that amount would be exceeded. Trees are a shared responsibility with reviewers and city staff. If it is in the LOD (Limits of Disturbance), it is not going to be safe. That’s how it works. If you see any of those plans and there’s a tree in there, it is gone. There’s very little we can do about it. Commissioner Lahendro – What is the LOD? Mr. Dawson – LOD is Limits of Disturbance. At the start of a construction project, they stake that. That generally is where the perimeter controls are. If you look at the plan, it’s the little line around the development area. If you walk the site and looking at the plan and you’re inside of the development area, those trees are gone. Councilor Hill – Can the developer speak to some of the estimating that is going to understand this infrastructure need? Mr. Armstrong – The numbers I had in my presentation are from the CIP that was produced and presented to Council in the last two CIP cycles. That’s what staff was requesting be funded. The $2.9 million the city engineer referenced is new to me. That’s not a number we have ever seen publicly. We have been talking with the city and in this review process with the city for months and years. I would have hoped that would have come up. If that’s a published number or a private number, I would love to review it. What we did to make sure that we or the city CIP were in the ‘right ballpark,’ was to hire a third party engineer to do their own cost estimate. That involved a lot of survey work of the entire corridor over the past 6 months. We used that survey to come up with a preliminary plan. It is very preliminary. It’s not a design for construction at this point. It gives an idea of what we require with grading, new sidewalk area, new storm drainage, and what right of way amounts over the length of the corridor might be needed. The engineer put a cost estimate to that using whatever their industry standard is for estimating. 18 Clint Shiflett, Timmons Group – What we looked at as the basis of design is a minimum street with a street section that would meet The Streets That Work Guidelines as well as the Standards and Design Manual. In this case, we used a 20 foot wide pavement section, standard curb and gutter, and sidewalks on both sides of the street. To further form some of the cost, we incorporated estimated stormwater management costs, drainage improvements, and demolition. I would classify the plan as a 50% engineering plan to pull these figures together. Commissioner Mitchell – The presentation you did was pretty quiet as it relates to the critical slopes. I would like to talk about your thoughts to your mitigation strategy. The second question was whether you can ‘walk me through’ what it is you’re going to do to keep 73% of the phosphorous stuff out of our creeks. I am not certain what your ‘game plan’ is to do that. Mr. Shiflett – The general concept is to keep the bulk of the development away from the slopes up towards Stribling Avenue to minimize the impact and preserve as many of the slopes along Moore’s Creek as possible. To further to mitigate the impact, we have included some preliminary design elements that include bio-retention or rain guarded facilities that would capture and treat water before it leaves the site back towards Moore’s Creek. That is the primary way in which that 73% would be removed. Moving forward, the final site plan details would be homed in and further demonstrated. The city engineer would eventually need to further review. Mr. Armstrong – The closest any of this disturbance comes to the Moore’s Creek bank is about 150 feet. The one exception is where storm/sewer has to get down the hill. That stormwater, after it has been treated, goes through the buffer. The majority of the buildings are at least 250 feet away from Moore’s Creek. To provide an even larger buffer, the closest building is 175 feet. Commissioner Mitchell – I would ask you and the other developers not to treat the critical slopes as an afterthought. Please keep those on the front of your minds. I have seen a lot of good opportunities get derailed because it was an afterthought. Commissioner Habbab – My first question was on the rental affordable units. Are those expected to be sprinkled throughout the development? Mr. Armstrong – It is most likely the rental units would be in the apartment buildings. We have not decided that for sure. They would be sprinkled throughout and not concentrated in one corner of a building. Commissioner Habbab – You have 30% rental, 30% ownership, and the rest you have to decide what you are going to do with them? Mr. Armstrong – That’s correct. Commissioner Dowell – One of my questions is how are we going to mitigate the safety concern of the project? It was to have a split recommendation. We definitely need more affordable housing. We need mixed housing types. That’s a perfect place for density. I also will have an issue if we’re creating this new density and infrastructure. If we don’t have the infrastructure to maintain it, we don’t want to have unsafe 19 projects. If this was to pass, what are you going to do to be able to satisfy the safety components of the project as far as the roads are concerned? Mr. Armstrong – My interpretation of the safety concerns were because of Stribling Avenue. It has no sidewalks. The reason that staff had that concern in the staff report was because the funding agreement is not part of the zoning application that staff reviewed. Looking at just the zoning application, staff couldn’t say that Stribling would be made safer. Taking the sidewalk funding agreement into account, that decision is probably very different. Morgan Court is a little different. One of the reasons that traffic and fire/rescue staff are requiring that connection is for safety. That road is a narrow road. Anyone who lives on that road has safety concerns any time any additional cars are put on the road that they live on. That’s understandable. One of the things that we should discuss further now or at the site plan stage is whether that should be a one way road or whether staff wants to reconsider and make that emergency access. I am ‘at the mercy’ of the city ordinances and the staff requirements on that. We’re happy to go along with anything that they suggest as to how Morgan Court gets connected. Mr. Alfele – Staff reviewed this in the context of a land use decision. Different parts within the city were looking at the sidewalk agreement. I don’t think staff’s recommendation would change unless there’s a fully guaranteed project in place to upgrade Stribling Avenue. Commissioner Lahendro – I am looking at the tree survey. I am going to push back on what I have heard so far. There are 11 mature beautiful trees along Stribling Avenue: 48 inch ash, 28 inch beech, 28 inch maple, 24 inch oak, and 18 inch oak. What is being proposed now is that all of these are going to be torn out and put in saplings. I want to push back. I am starting my 8th year attending these meetings. I am sick and tired of having beautiful, large trees being torn down because of bureaucratic standards that get applied ‘cook-cutter’ without regard to the quality of the site and the uniqueness of these sites. Here we are with a PUD that by definition, is supposed to allow creativity and saving some of these aspects of the natural site. Why can’t we get creative and figure a way to keep these trees and run the sidewalk behind them, put in different materials for this sidewalk that doesn’t require the trees to be ripped out, and relocate the utilities? Do something to protect these trees. Keep that aspect of Stribling Avenue and move ahead with this project. Mr. Armstrong – I agree with you about this. The trouble with what you’re saying is that PUDs don’t allow modifications to the dimensional requirements of the code. We used to do that back in the early 2000s when the PUDs were first being tried out. That got tightened down. By doing a PUD, I can’t change what the required street width is. Even though I can set different setbacks on the lot, I can’t say the sidewalk will only be four feet and the utilities easement will only be eight feet. Those are not allowed changes through a PUD. A lot of the places we really love were places that were developed and replanted a long time ago. In the North Downtown, people see these big trees. If you look at historical photos, it was clear. Nobody wants to talk about waiting 50 years for mature trees because they’re beautiful right now. It is one of those tradeoffs to providing new housing in a dense form. You really do have to use the upland areas of the site to the greatest extent to put that density in there. I am not making a value judgement. Commissioner Lahendro – I am not attacking your engineers. I am asking both the city engineers and your engineers to work together to figure out a way to save these trees. 20 Mr. Armstrong – With the beech trees along the front, if you look at the Stribling Avenue right of way, it juts in our parcel. It is narrower on our parcel. Those trees, if you continue the right of way on that tree survey, those trees would be in the road if the road was consistent. I am not going to mislead you and try to save those trees. I don’t think we can. With the bigger trees, we will take an extra look at those before any final site plans. We will do everything we can to preserve those trees. Commissioner Lahendro – I would ask that staff work with the engineers for the project to do their best to save some of these trees. Commissioner Russell – I have a question about the connectivity. There’s a page and exhibit that talks about tying into the city path towards Sunset Avenue. Hopefully that will go through Huntley. Can you explain how that will be accomplished? Mr. Armstrong –We do not own the property that runs all the way up to Stribling along the Bike-Ped Master Plan proposed route for that trail. Everywhere we do own, we are putting that multi-use trail in the location that is called for in the Bike-Ped Master Plan and keeping to the property lines so that it can go directly to Stribling Avenue. In the meantime, we are connecting a paved path from that Bike-Ped Master Plan trail location up to our new streets so that connectivity will exist from Stribling Avenue down our new sidewalks to that new trail, going out the other way towards Sunset along Moore’s Creek that goes to the Huntley neighborhood. There’s the existing trail in various conditions. I don’t know if it is entirely complete. There is a trail going from our site all the way over to Sunset. Commissioner Stolzenberg – With private streets, there was concern about connectivity or a lack of connectivity. They’re stubbed out to give access. If the adjacent property owners in the future want to extend those streets, are you going to allow that? Or are there going to be spite strips prohibiting those private streets from being extended? Mr. Armstrong – I had not thought of that. The way the preliminary plat looks right now, the private road goes all the way to the property line. It would be private. There are physical opportunities to connect it. We would have to give some thought to making sure that there’s a reasonable way to deal with the ownership. If those could be converted to public at that time, that might be the best way to do that. Commissioner Stolzenberg – With the open space and central green, will those be public or limited only to the residents of the development? Mr. Armstrong – Right now, they’re envisioned as for the residents of the development. If that is something that the Commission and Council think that will be a good pocket park, we will have to talk about maintenance obligations. It wouldn’t be fair for the residents of this development who pay to maintain those to have 500 residents from the rest of the city come and use them and have their maintenance costs go up. If the city wanted to take on some parks maintenance of it, we would be open to that. That hasn’t been discussed with Parks and Recreation. Commissioner Stolzenberg – I would disagree that it would be unfair. People are going to come from across the city to visit a pocket park. Maybe some of the residents along Stribling Avenue might go take a look. To me, that seems reasonable despite it being privately owned. 21 With construction sequencing, we have heard concerns about construction traffic in relation to the development of these sidewalks. At what point do these sidewalks get developed in this plan? How much construction traffic is going to be going along before that happens? Is there any way to mitigate that? Mr. Armstrong – My hope is that the sidewalks could be done first, while we are building infrastructure in the PUD. While there are bulldozers on site creating roads and installing utilities. It is when construction starts, truck traffic really picks up. In order to do that, there is some reliance on the city to have a flow plan in place for those sidewalks and be ready when that time comes. We have plenty of time because it is going to take at least a year to year and a half to get a final site plan approved for this site. There’s plenty of time to get that site design done. It does rely on the city. Commissioner Stolzenberg – For affordable units, are you planning on collaborating with Habitat? Earlier you said that there would be equity recapture and you also said it didn’t exclude people from gaining that equity from homeownership. How do you spread those two things? Mr. Armstrong – We haven’t picked an affordable housing partner. There are two models that are predominant here for homeownership. One is the land trust model. The land trust, as I understand it, takes the land out of the equation. The land trust owns the land. The home buyer owns the home. They have a shared equity in the property whenever that buyer resells it. I believe that it is around 50-50. Habitat’s model is a little different. They do the same sort of thing with a forgivable second mortgage. They have one mortgage on the property for whatever the home buyer can afford based on their income and a second mortgage for the remainder. That second mortgage is forgiven gradually over the 30 years. If a person was to own a home for the full 30 years, all of that equity becomes the homeowners. If they sell it in 5 years, Habitat will get a large portion of the equity back. The homebuyer would get some of the equity. They would get any value appreciated. They wouldn’t get the forgivable mortgage forgiven. That also assures affordability is maintained, if not for that unit, it can be reinvested in another unit. Commissioner Stolzenberg – I see that you’re doing about 73% on site treatment and 27% nutrient credits. What is stopping you from making your buyer retention larger to get the rest of it? Mr. Armstrong – Potentially some sacrifice of usable open space. It may compromise some other recreation area to bio-filter. Those numbers are not fully engineered. We hope that we can do better than that. We have set that as a minimum. If we do over that, we don’t have to come back to you. There are opportunities to do better. We will do the best we can to not have to apply any nutrient credits. Commissioner Palmer – Going back to the sidewalk discussion on Stribling Avenue, the disparity in the cost estimates, did that estimate include right of way acquisition? Or is that strictly construction? Is that the disparity between what we heard from city staff? Mr. Shiflett – We did break down the acreage (square footage) of each of the right of way from each of the parcels. We did not include an estimate on that right of way. We did include a healthy contingency on our overall cost estimate, which we do think will cover that. iii. Public Hearing 22 Marga Bushara – If I am driving down Stribling Avenue to JPA and wanting to cross JPA on the pedestrian crosswalk, how many cars are not stopping there? It is an impossible situation and many near misses by many pedestrians. There’s never any police or police checking on speeding on Stribling. This cannot get better with a development of that size at 240 Stribling. Thank you Mr. Lahendro for your concern with the trees. I am walking by those properties on a daily basis. There are beech trees on the site. Jason Halbert – I am the President of the Neighborhood Association. We took a position with a 10 page letter to all of you on this matter in September of 2020. The concerns we raised then still stand today. I appreciate what the applicant has done. There is a potential to find a solution here. There is a big issue and it is safety on that street at the JPA intersection. It is a serious problem. We have tried for 6+ years to get City Council to recognize this. It has fallen on deaf ears. I want to see affordable housing. I want to see a good project developed. It’s not there if you’re going forward with this. This needs more time. We have the infrastructure agreement that hasn’t been vetted by anybody. You should delay this vote for 4 to 6 months to have further discussions. I am willing to invite all of you to the Fry Springs Neighborhood Association meeting to have more discussion on this. There are a lot of issues here. I saw some of the comments posted by the applicant in their presentation. That has not satisfied us. Chris Meyer – The Neighborhood Association Board has not taken a position on this most recent version. I am for the 240 Stribling Avenue development being improved. Our community and neighborhood need more housing and a mix of housing. This development of mixed housing types for different income levels is not only needed for middle-income homebuyers but also for these starter rental homes for low-income families. Middle income and workforce housing where current and future staff can live without having to commute 20 to 30 minutes one way is important for quality of life, the fight against climate change, and building intergenerational wealth. The potential of this development is to generate $445,000 per year. That’s more funding to fund our schools, make infrastructure improvements, improvement of the public transportation systems, and funding of other needs of our community. I realize there will be micro-level impacts to those living on Stribling because of traffic increases. The developers’ offer of $2 million and the property tax revenue should provide the funding necessary to make the pedestrian-road improvements to Stribling and mitigate additional traffic. The minor increase in traffic volume doesn’t outweigh the larger benefit to the community this development would provide. This development, alone, is not going to solve the lack of housing and workforce housing. It is definitely necessary in order to make an impact. No one project is going to solve it. My fear is that the developer will be denied and build by right homes that will be a third of the units and the street improvements on Stribling will not be done. Tom Cowgill – I live on Stribling Avenue and I have been a renter for three years and a homeowner for 14 years. I welcome affordable housing on a scale that will fit with the neighborhood. I believe a smaller, as currently provided for, could be feasible, especially with the small park, greenspace, along the Stribling Avenue frontage. It would show respect for the character of the neighborhood as well as preserve some of the beech trees. A by right development with road improvements might be able to handle moderately increased traffic. This request for a massive development on a small street is disrespectful and reckless. Safety is my concern. Stribling Avenue would effectively be the only access to a development that would double the current number of dwellings on the street. A traffic study was done in March, 2020 after the lockdowns began. Regardless of the motive of doing a traffic study at such a time, it would clearly be dishonest to make use of the results of the study. Stribling Avenue is over a half mile long with a few feet of sidewalk. It’s too narrow for two cars to pass each other. It has curbs and blind summits. In normal 23 years city and county school buses make their normal rounds. Many residents ride their bikes or walk to UVA. With the absences of parks, people use the street for recreation. I encourage you to visit and walk the street. Casey Gioeli – While I applaud the affordable housing initiative with this project, I am concerned about the number of rental units over a ten year period. In the long run, that will do little to impact the affordable housing issues within our community. I have concerns related to Stribling Avenue. We haven’t spoken about the intersection of Stribling and JPA. We know that it is very difficult for cars coming off of Stribling to make a left turn. I know this will become even more congested and more dangerous to cars and pedestrians. I believe that we have to see Stribling Avenue fully funded. I appreciate the city engineer saying the cost would be over the $2 million point. When we think about all of those vehicles moving heavy loads of cement up and down that street, that street is in poor condition to begin with. I am concerned that over time that street will even further degregate before we make any improvements. Kevin Flynn – My biggest concern for this project is the safety on Stribling Avenue. The road is narrow and does not have any sidewalk facilities, except for two parcels. Due to the location near UVA, it seems to have a higher number of pedestrians and cyclists than other roads in the city. Any project that would further the number of people using Stribling needs to address these concerns of the existing condition before adding to it. There are road safety hazards for motorists. The road is an uneven width. There are several blind curves and vertical curves due to the geometry of the road. Once it connects with the roadway network, there are big concerns at the intersection with Jefferson Park Avenue. It can be very difficult to make a left turn at that intersection. Even though I have heard proposals to do things along Stribling, I have heard nothing to address this intersection. I am not sure that it makes sense to have that sort of density at a dead end street. Even with an additional entrance onto Morgan Court, traffic will end up on Stribling. This dense development does not make sense with the existing infrastructure. If it is going to be approved, the infrastructure needs to be upgraded. Genevieve Keller – I support Mr. Lahendro’s suggestion that you find ways to require the protection of specimen trees, especially street trees. PUDs are for innovative plans of development. It is more than time PUDs are for innovative plans for preservation and protection. If you want the public to support new development and density, you must consider quality of life issues. It should not just be replacement of trees but tree preservation. Please find innovative ways to interpret or amend the PUD to accomplish this important initiative. I don’t know that much about this kind of development. I don’t understand how the ADUs will be offered for sale. I wonder if you could clarify that. Leighanna Midkiff – I have lived in this neighborhood for 30 years. I do worry about the trees. I love walking through there. It is beautiful. I can’t think of a single development in this area that has happened in the last ten years where all the trees haven’t disappeared. They don’t survive. They can’t survive with all of that digging at and around their roots. I do believe that people are trying. It doesn’t seem to be successful. There is nothing that can replace a 100 year old tree. I hope we can do things to keep them. My thought would be a smaller development. I do love the idea of affordable housing. There are no bus stops anywhere near this place for people who do have limited incomes. They’re going to have to go all the way down to the other end of JPA or down to Cleveland. William Abrahamson – There are really two applicants at the table tonight. One is Southern Development and the other is The City. As a resident, we have two partners we are looking to work with. 24 What is the process going to look like for this redesign? When was the last time the city did a half mile streetscape on its own without an outside consultant or VDOT money? The Comprehensive Plan is proposing medium density from JPA Extended to Sunset. Is that going to account for street side parking? What kind of traffic calming measures are we going to have? These are part of the discussion that we have many questions about. I would encourage you all to not just look at the application in front of your right now but to be optimistic and forward looking. What does this process look like for our community? The second thing I would like to raise is flexibility on the design team. The renderings show wonderful attention to the views and the heights of the buildings. The many rows of townhomes appear to be causing difficulty for preserving trees, some of the road design, and especially pushing that LOD farther and farther out to the critical slopes. Is it possible for additional levels of design? The last item is about access to the Moore’s Creek. Is that an easement in partnership with The Rivanna Trails or was that a public easement? Catherine Bruse – The scope is too large for this space. We’re all about affordable housing. If we’re not setting up our new residents for success, I think we’re failing the system. The last two affordable houses that were set aside in Huntley were just sold for over $500,000 this year. That was a plan that went wrong. It is impacting all of us. We want affordable housing. If the rules and regulations aren’t set in place, that is not going to be helpful. With traffic patterns, we have talked about Stribling and JPA. Ms. Russell has talked about Morgan Court. As you’re coming through Morgan Court to Huntley, that is a steep hill. There are blind spots everywhere. If traffic is going to be coming through Huntley, it is going to hit Sunset. It is extremely dangerous. I feel the suggestion of holding off the vote would be helpful. If we’re going to put affordable housing in where people need to get to work, even if with sidewalks, bus stops are not close by. After two years of negotiations, I don’t think we’re there yet. More consideration needs to be discussed. Paul Josey – I have lived on Stribling for 13 years. This is the last major site to be developed. It is a very steep site. There’s a reason it hasn’t been developed by right. There’s a reason they’re trying to get as much density as they can on this site. Where they propose trail connections are bottom of swales or over utility easements. It’s not a level trail. There are lots of issues with the site. I appreciate Ms. Keller’s comments about tree preservation and innovation. The tree preservation extents are not saving many trees. They’re cutting in as much as possible. The main point is the safety of the residents on Stribling Avenue. Most of Stribling Avenue is renter occupied. This is a low-middle income street of residents, who live there. Having watched Huntley develop over 15 years, there was endless construction traffic. This is supposed to be a community street. The people impacted the most are low income people, who are currently living on the street. My recommendation is to hold off until there is a clear sidewalk plan and a schedule and budget for that sidewalk. Sharon Stone – I haven’t heard anything about Stribling Extended. People, who live at the end of Stribling, take Stribling Extended as a shortcut. It has turned into an ‘island’ with a bunch of holes. Part of the road is collapsing. It is more like a golf cart track. I haven’t heard anything about a plan to address that. People who will live in this development will probably use this road. I would like to know more about the plan for that. Neal Goldborough – Only one person has spoken about the hill up Sunset Avenue. I try to avoid the intersection at Stribling and JPA. I take the hill up Sunset Avenue to get to JPA. It is a whole lot easier and safer. Traffic is going to quadruple when this development comes in. There will be others who will go 25 up the hill at Sunset Avenue. That is a very dangerous hill and curve. You may want to look ahead because there will be people who will take safest and easiest way and find themselves going up that hill at Sunset Avenue. Martin Quarles – The 240 applications refer to ‘silven character’ of the property and how they’re going to retain it. That is untrue. They’re taking down all of the significant trees. The trails down by Moore’s Creek are in terrible condition due to unmitigated erosion from Huntley. It seems that everyone is arguing fine points. In the big picture, it is the wrong product in the wrong location. It does not serve the community. It does not meet many of the bullet points of the Commission’s stated goals. It will not enhance the quality of life for the people who live in this neighborhood. Dawn Hunt – My question is about the current and proposed Comprehensive Plan. The current Comprehensive Plan has a density that is different and much lower than the proposed Comprehensive Plan for 240 Stribling which is confusing. Another issue is the difference in cost. We need to look at the higher cost for Stribling. I want to reference something the Fry Springs Neighborhood Association sent with their memo last September. They quote the EPA scores for 240 Stribling Avenue for walkability (19 out of 100), transit, accessibility (28 out of 100), and bikeability (33 out of 100). Those numbers are abysmal. If you quadruple the number of people using Stribling, those numbers will go down close to 0. Andrea Hawkes – I have started a folder titled Stribling Disasters. I am going to invite anyone who wants to contribute photographic or video content of what is happening on Stribling Avenue. I have a giant file of photographs that depict the hazards on Stribling Avenue. John Marshall – It sounds like we are aware for the need for a sidewalk on Stribling. I do want to reiterate how difficult it would be to install a sidewalk on Stribling and its likelihood to cost more than $2 million. The street is very narrow. Peoples’ houses are very close to the street. Peoples’ yards slopes slope steeply down from the street to their house. There could literally be nowhere to put a sidewalk without pushing people’s driveways into their houses or eliminating their parking areas all together. You also have to cut down several hardwood trees. You would also have to figure out what to do with stormwater. There is nowhere convenient for the water or plumbing to go. It is bit of a trick for the developer. Once you start engineering the sidewalk, you’re going to find that it is going to cost several more million dollars. The land drops off a cliff to the railroad track on one side of the street. There are critical slopes down to other neighborhoods on the other side. It may not be feasible to manage the storm water. I highly encourage and ask you to wait for a sidewalk to come first and consider the PUD. Steven Cole – My concerns mirror all of those here tonight. Mature trees are endangered. The proposed plans go against what the Tree Commission fights for, which is to maintain the tree canopy. With water drainage issues on Strbling, I had large amounts of water come into my basement due to water runoff. The traffic study was done during the lockdown due to the COVID lockdown. I agree that this vote should be delayed at least six months to discuss it and take careful consideration. iv. Motion and Discussion Commissioner Mitchell – There is much about this that I like. I like that we will get a significant amount of affordable housing. I like that we would get the infrastructure that we will not get if this is done by right. The density of the development doesn’t bother me. It could use a little more ‘baking.’ There would 26 be value in sitting with the engineers, the economic development people, and working out the details and logistics and details so we know what this is exactly going to look like when we’re ready to move on it. The PUD without the infrastructure won’t work. You have to have both of them. I would like a little more ‘baking’ to happen before we’re asked to make a decision. I would want more details on what the sidewalk is going to look like, what it is going to cost, the logistics of doing that, and when and how it is going to happen so the city staff and the developer can come back to us with a unified proposal. I believe that if a little more thought is given to this, the issue raised by Mr. Lahendro, can also be addressed. If more thought is given to this, my worry about what is going to happen to Moore’s Creek can be given a little more thought with a clearer articulation of the protection of environmental issues. This is significantly better than anything we have seen. A little more thought would be of value. I am not willing to wait six months to do this. I think we’re near. A little more thought and a unified proposal would make me feel a lot more comfortable about this. Commissioner Dowell – I have some of the same sentiments as Mr. Mitchell and the city residents who have spoken. I commend the applicant for the affordability of the PUD, giving housing at 60% AMI and lower. You are providing housing for people at 60% or lower AMI which is something we don’t really often see. I do want to commend them for that. My biggest concern is the safety that this PUD proposes. We definitely need affordable housing. Do we want to put the people at risk to give them affordable housing? They have done a pretty good job. I do think they can do better to find a way to come up with a proposal to get those sidewalks completed and to have a plan for that. I then can see this moving forward. Commissioner Habbab – My biggest concern would be with the Stribling completion of those improvements in relation to the project. I don’t know if it is by a certain phase of the project instead of the end of the project, or if there’s a way to get a better price estimate on that with more details that doesn’t end up driving up the cost. We don’t want to end up in a position where the city has to find money to finish the improvements of Stribling Avenue. I really appreciate the proposal. It accomplishes a lot. We need the density and affordability. I would like to see more of the ownership units be affordable than the rental ones. For the affordable rentals, we’re going to lose them after ten years. For the ownership ones, they tend to be more family oriented to house larger families. I understand there is more to come out from the site plan process in terms of the trees. There is maybe a way to highlight those trees that could be saved with the existing development that are currently there. The areas that are being preserved are the very steep areas. There could be more effort on that end. Commissioner Lahendro – There is a lot that I like about the project. It goes a long way towards satisfying comp plan guidelines or goals. I like the design. It is a great start for the PUD. I wish that they would take it a little farther and be a little more creative in figuring out how to use the PUD to the advantage of the site in saving more of these trees. I am not asking for them to spend another two years doing this. I would like to see them put their heads together, get creative, ask them to work with the city staff, and figure out how to do this in a way that everybody wins. Commissioner Russell – It was called appropriately that the existing Future Land Use Map will call for low density residential in this area. It is clear there is a lack of infrastructure in this area for the density. I am not convinced that we do get the affordability. That’s not due to the developers. We need to fix the system in order to ensure, track, and be accountable for and know what we’re asking for and that is being provided. The sidewalk numbers need some more study so we can get better aligned with what city staff and the developers/engineers ‘sharpen pencils’ on those numbers before moving forward. The traffic 27 study should be considered on Morgan Court. I do have some serious concerns about that road. Being flexible in the PUD process, I don’t know what degree we can tweak that. It would be great if we can get creative and retain those specimen trees if possible. Commissioner Stolzenberg – A couple of years ago in a work session with this Commission, I remember being told by the City Manager that it was very reasonable to cut our funding for new sidewalks by 75% because we had so much in the account that we could hardly spend it. We’re hearing from our engineer all of that money is for different projects. We still have just $100,000 a year for sidewalks in our CIP. There’s no way with this street, with a bad safety issue. The neighborhood needs these sidewalks, and the city needs this affordable housing. There is no way this thing is going to get funded in the next decades without this project. It’s good to see that there’s a coming together to get this agreement and make a real commitment to build this and build this badly needed infrastructure. The revenue from this project is clearly sufficient to fund it on top of many other city needs. It is frustrating to me the degree of dysfunction within the city where the economic development department is negotiation this agreement and isn’t even telling NDS about it until two days ago. That does justify this performance agreement where we commit to doing it and lock ourselves in. It would make more sense to take the cash and use the tax increment money to build it. It would be the same process except that we get free money out of it. If there are cost overruns, we’re getting $450,000 from this project per year. That’s at a pretty conservative $275,000 per unit. If these houses are going for $275,000, that is relatively affordable at around 80% AMI. I don’t expect it to be that. I expect it to be higher, which means even more tax revenue for the city. We can fund all of these things. The tradeoff is that we need to allow it. We need to legalize it being built. If we’re going to say ‘no’ to housing, this is one of our last big infill sites. We need to use it as well as we can. If we’re doing it in a way that gets us 42% of the site reserved for open space with plenty of homes on it, that’s reducing the pressure for change on built out sections of the city. We need to make the most use of green infill sites. We need to be planning for a lot more change in our built out areas. To me, that’s an obvious choice. The plan is pretty good. There have been some helpful suggestions made today. It would be great if we could save some more trees along the boundary lines. I am looking forward to seeing it come back. I hope it doesn’t take six months. Commissioner Palmer – UVA doesn’t have a position on this. I appreciate the questions answered. Councilor Snook – I really want to know, with greater certainty than what is available this evening, what the effect of a $2 million contribution would be and how much more is the city to be expected to have to contribute once we get down to it. One of the things that frustrates me is to be pondering things that ought to, in theory, be knowable. In theory, we ought to have some ability to have the people who know about cost estimating on projects get together and come up with some understanding. We need to get that figured out more precisely. If we are to say that the developer is going to start building sidewalks in a year and a half and we are supposed to have $900,000 more that we’re going to add into the pot in order to make that happen, I don’t know where that $900,000 would come from. Right now, every penny we’re going to have in capital funds, is going to be allocated to school reconfiguration. We better have a very solid idea of how we’re going to do this. I don’t think we have that yet. I like the idea for a whole lot of reasons. I do want to make it work. I don’t want us to be in a situation a year from now where they’re telling us ‘we can’t start this project until you commit to another X amount of dollars.’ We don’t have that figured out. 28 I have not thought about the problem of the intersection of Stribling and JPA. That’s a big issue. That’s probably going to require more city effort. Whatever funding source we might be looking at, it’s something we need to be willing to commit to solving within the scope of the next couple of years. I don’t know what that looks like. Councilor Hill – If this was placed in front of us by the Commission, I wouldn’t be prepared to vote on it without a lot more answers relative to this agreement. These cannot be decoupled. There’s no way to support this project without having a firm grasp of how we’re going to provide these infrastructure improvements to the neighborhood. Having walked this with neighbors, I share their concern around that intersection. I do see that as something that falls within the city’s scope. I recognize there are limits to what we can be asking from third parties in some of these things. It has to be a priority. They’re finding alternative ways to get to them. Those aren’t the best ways either to be getting around that intersection. It certainly wasn’t the intention the way these streets were designed. Right now, it is not working for that community. Overarching, it is about this agreement and making sure that we are on the same page with the applicant team. I really wasn’t feeling that tonight. Councilor Payne – I am seeing a lot to like and a lot of positives in the presentation tonight. This is one of our few remaining large undeveloped sites. To have a good project there that has affordable housing and is a solid, well-designed project, is very important. I would hate to see it be a by right subpar project of mansions or something that doesn’t have a lot of thought and community input. It has certainly been moving in a direction where there has been a serious effort to engage the community and a lot of positive changes made. There’s a lot to see that is positive. I would like more specificity in terms of the performance agreement in terms of a clear picture of how much money those sidewalk improvements would realistically cost, a timeline when it would happen, and what if any additional support work would be needed from the city in order to make it happen. Realistically, those sidewalk improvements are not going to happen without this project any time soon. That’s just the reality looking at our budget priorities. For the sidewalk improvements to solely come from the city budget is not something that would happen in a short timeframe. Getting them done is an important part of this project. I am definitely curious if there are opportunities to use the PUD process to try to preserve some of the mature trees and tree canopy. I have walked to the end of the site. The critical slopes seem very important as well. To get more specificity there and not overlook that piece of it will be very important. All of those things can be resolved. I hope that we’re able to work through those things and get to a solution here. I see a lot to like. It seems like something that we can get done. Chairman Solla-Yates – I have heard a lot of good thoughts here. Do we have some thoughts about a possible motion that we can vote on? I have been a very big fan of this project for a very long time. I see many important benefits. I do see some things that are not quite done. I found out about the agreement yesterday. I have not had a chance to read it. It sounds like a lot of good work has been done. I do understand that many are calling for more time. I do understand that there could be some benefits to that. Commissioner Mitchell – Based on the feedback, especially from Council, that the applicant would benefit by taking a pause and tightening the partnership that they have with staff to work through some more details. 29 Mr. Armstrong – I appreciate all of the feedback from all of those who spoke at the public hearing and from all of you. The biggest thing on my mind is how long we are going to wait. We have been at this for over two years. We have been involved in this plan in trying to get to a point where it is something that can move forward. We have been very diligent with that. To tell you that a $2.9 million thrown out tonight is a blindside would be an understatement. I can’t tell you how many phone calls and emails have been put into various city departments. I have asked what the estimates are. It has been on the CIP list for a long time. A sidewalk is something that has been demanded. The Bike/Pedestrian Plan has a number. The Bike/Pedestrian Coordinator gave me the background on that. The CIP has a number. The Engineering Department at Public Works gave me information on those as well. I am not sure where that is coming from. We heard that there was no estimate. We heard that it was $2.9 million. If I came to you tonight and said the number that we’re offering towards sidewalks was $3 million, which I am not, where would the goalposts be now? They do seem to keep moving. We have a lot of our capital tied up in this project. We have to produce something with that. We have 40 employees who depend on us bringing in revenue to pay their salaries. We can’t just kick this can down the road for the sake of making it perfect. At some point, we have to stop that. It is either good enough or it is not. We will then have a decision to make. I am not going to ask you for that tonight. I will ask you if you would be willing to defer with a condition. The condition is to ask staff directly and quickly to work with us in the most collaborative way we can to fix this neighborhood problem with our project helping. I have not felt like the city is as interested in solving the sidewalks problem as we are with the exception of the Economic Development Department and the City Attorney’s office with the backing of the City Manager. Those two departments have been very collaborative towards solving this problem. I haven’t felt it from anywhere else in the city. We desperately want to do this. If we’re talking about pushing this off for a month, I am in. If we’re talking about 6 months, I don’t think we can hang in there that long and we will have to change course. Ms. Creasy – It would be ideal for you all to do that deferral for procedural purposes. I don’t know if I can give a timeline at the moment. The people who have been involved in parts of this are going to have to gather more people together and have some further discussions. Ms. Robertson – Part of the problem is that it is not an easy task to scope a project and assign a dollar figure to it on a short term basis. Mr. Armstrong and his team did quite a bit of work. I think what needs to happen is that leadership needs to put ‘their heads together’ and talk about what is realistic in terms of whether or not (from inside City Hall) a number can be developed that builds upon the work that Mr. Armstrong’s team has done or clarifies it. After tonight, leadership within City Hall needs to put ‘their heads together.’ I also think that this part and parcel of another function is something that really needs to be updated. That is the process by which we develop the city’s capital improvements program. It can’t be just a wish list with aspirational numbers or guesses. This is a prime example of having a ‘shovel ready’ project that was on our CIP with estimates that we were confident in, we could have known whether having $500,000 cash in hand would have been enough to move it up on the priority list. In terms of what can be done in the next 30 days, I don’t really don’t think anyone on this call at this meeting tonight can verify whether or not 30 days is enough. Mr. Engel and I will offer our assistance to Mr. Freas, the Public Works Director, and to Mr. Sanders to see if there is a way to work with Mr. Armstrong as well as the City Engineer to get more information out to everyone. Mr. Dawson – Thirty days is not enough. This is a streetscape. This is not a sidewalk. Our CIP process needs a lot of work and it should not be relied upon for developing cost estimates. When I said that there 30 was not an estimate, I meant there was not a real estimate present. We have two CIP tasks which we use to build those funds because we never get enough money. That’s not reflective of an estimate. The estimate ($2.9 million) that I did reference was put together by someone in my office 6 weeks ago to follow up on the $500,000 offer. Had I been asked about that, I would have provided it. There is also a staffing issue. We have two review engineers working at the city. We review all of these projects. Both the developer and engineer referenced how they weren’t going to consider how trees and utilities interface at this point and the city would help to resolve that during the review process. That’s not the role of how engineer of record process works. We’re happy to facilitate anything. There needs to be cooperation. We can’t be given a survey and a picture of a sidewalk and ask to finalize within 30 days. It takes years to do this. You need to negotiate right of way acquisition, which is its own process. There are a lot of compliance issues involved in this (environmental, research, etc.). Thirty days is quite a task for our staff to develop a cost estimate. That’s not feasible. Mr. Armstrong – I think a sidewalk along one side of the road is a much more doable thing here. I don’t know if the city has any estimates on that. What the right of way needed is less. The impact to the residents is less. The cost is less. It doesn’t solve all of the problems. It puts a sidewalk in place to get that safety concern resolved. Is that something that could be worked out? Would that be enough that it got people on the Commission and Council comfortable with the safety aspect? We can also work on other things that were mentioned as well. Commissioner Stolzenberg – What we’re considering here is the very high level land use. There’s nothing in this performance agreement that prohibits down-scoping to one side of the street. It even says ‘one or more sides.’ That is something that will be worked out during the design process that would have to happen as part of a CIP item. There’s nothing that would prohibit more discussion of preservation of trees, especially boundary line trees that fit within the overall PUD arrangement as part of a site plan review. It will come back to us. There’s nothing that would prohibit more details of erosion sediment control. We have heard from our engineers in the past that the PUD step is far too early in the engineering process to have any serious look at what that means. We have an Erosion and Sediment plan that will be added later and approved by the city engineer. We have broad authority to recommend significant leeway for the engineer to add additional requirements as we did with South First Street. Basically, we will approve this waiver but you have to do what the engineer says. We have talked a lot about a lot of minor tweaks that will make this better. We all agree that the general concept of the PUD makes sense. Disturbing the slopes in order to preserve 40%+ of open space, get lots of housing, and get lots of affordable housing makes sense. Does it make sense to kick this can down the road until this is fully ‘baked’ or to let the process kick off and have it fully ‘baked’ through the yearlong site plan review? Commissioner Mitchell – I absolutely agree that this should not take six months to do. There is much work to be done on the infrastructure that is with the city and the developer. Many details, timing, and logistics need to be worked out. I would like to give Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Sanders and team to confirm. Commissioner Lahendro – Going to one sidewalk is some of the creativity that needs to be applied to this. I would hope that city staff muster the creativity to do that and to be open to that. Motion to Accept Deferral from Applicant – Commissioner Mitchell (Second by Commissioner Dowell) – Motion passes 6-1. 31 The meeting was recessed for five minutes. IV. COMMISSION’S ACTION ITEMS 1. Cville Plans Together – Implementation Chapter and Topic Specific Chapters Jennifer Koch, Cville Plans Together – Tonight, we are planning to ‘walk through’ a couple of things. What we’re looking to do tonight is go through a few things listed here. The first thing we will do is a give brief overview of the topic specific chapter updates that we have made. It is a high level overview. We have revised chapters that you will review. After we go through the revisions and the topic specific chapters, I will give an overview of the implementation chapter. I would like to get your thoughts on that. The Future Land Use Map is a really important part of The Land Use Urban Form and Historic and Cultural Preservation chapter. We don’t intend to discuss it in detail tonight in terms of revisions that we’re considering. Next Slide – Chapter Overview As far as the process for how we consider updates to these chapters, we received comments between May and June. We had a lot of feedback. A lot of that was focused on the Future Land Use Map. We also received a lot of comments directly related to the chapters. We took all of that into consideration. There were some comments that were not incorporated. We tried to find ways to address all of the comments that we received. We have coordinated with staff on this. We’re continuing to coordinate with staff from all of the departments as we go along. As you might recall from the May version of the chapters, each strategy had an implementation section of a potential timeline, implementation partners, and each goal had a measure of progress. We have taken those pieces and moved them into the implementation chapter. They are in the matrix of that chapter to be tracked and used with implementation. Next Slide – Land Use, Urban Form, and Historic & Cultural Preservation I talked with you the last time about changes to The Land Use, Urban Form, and Historic & Cultural Preservation chapter. One thing we tried to do was to further strengthen the connections between the land use map itself and the goals and strategies in the chapter. We expect, as we continue to work with you on the Future Land Use Map, that we will tie any further changes in the Land Use Map to the chapter. We do expect revisions as we go along. We have also worked on this chapter to emphasize the prioritization of infill, retention, and reuse of existing structures above demolition. One thing we clarified in this update was that demolition is not a measure of progress in terms of wanting more demolition. We did not do a good job of clarifying in the measure of progress in the last chapter. We have tried to make that clear here. Our priority is to retain structures where we can. We have also added additional details to this chapter. I believe that goal 4 is related to the zoning ordinance rewrite. We have added some greater detail there in terms of how that should get started, frameworking out the development of the land use/zoning ordinance rewrite. There is also additional detail about considerations in the zoning ordinance related to design principles, context, and transitions. We have heard a lot about that in terms of the land use map. We want to make sure that was really clear. The talking points we use when we talk about the land use map are reflected in the actual chapter. We have also identified some potential future small area plan locations. We have also identified some refinements to the process for a small area plan development. A lot of that was included in the 32 previous version of the chapter. In addition to these clarifications, we have added a few things. One is an urban development area designation for the city. The city has several different urban development areas. When we have the final version of the future land use map, there will be an introductory section to this chapter that will include a description of the future land use map. Up to now, that has lived or continues to live mostly in the discussions we have had in presentations. That will be a part of the document as well. There are some appendices that come with some of the chapters. We are working to finalized updates on those as well. Next Slide – Housing In terms of the housing chapter, we made major revisions to that chapter to get the May version to incorporate the Affordable Housing Plan recommendations. There were some major changes made at that point. You can see the changes made since May, which were largely minor. We added some explicit support for a range of housing typologies, supporting a range throughout the city. We did work to update some of the language around unhoused citizens and how the plan can support them including not only providing housing for people where they would like it and making sure that housing is available. We have added greater emphasis on the need for staffing support and sustained funding. These are things that come out of the Affordable Housing Plan. They are things that you are familiar with. We wanted to make sure it is clear in the document and it is prioritized. As we continue talking with all of you, we do expect there might be some continued tweaks to this chapter. The other thing we added was an introduction to this chapter that had some additional information about connections between The Affordable Housing Plan, The Future Land Use Map, and affordability in the city. We thought it was an important piece to have there and not just leave in an appendix but have it be prominently located. We do anticipate as we move forward, making it even clearer in the document how those three pieces (Affordable Housing Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and the Zoning Rewrite) work together. They are also connected ongoing processes within the city. Next Slide – Transportation We have heard a lot about transportation in our process as well. It continues to be a topic of conversation. That’s something we want to make sure continues to be reflected in this plan. We have added additional emphasis beyond what was in there with the May version to consider implementation of the Future Land Use Map in terms of where development is happening and considering that when it comes to prioritizing transportation improvements. We have added some clarification around parking considerations. We have added some additional coordination with the forthcoming zoning rewrite. We had heard some desire for additional potential public involvement related to planning for non-motorized travel. Particularly, we heard about bus travel. We also recognize the local interest in bicycle and pedestrian facilities. We have added those as well. We added a couple of other things. One is the idea of potentially tracking areas of concern not reflected in crash data. The previous versions called for identifying areas of need based on crash data. That might not be completely reflective of where issues are; issues where people don’t try crossing a road because they know they can’t. We have added an appendix to this chapter. It has a list of priority projects from the Bike/Pedestrian Master Plan and Streets That Work Plan. That is a large part of what is effectively The Transportation Master Plan for the city. Next Slide – Environment, Climate, & Food Equity 33 In terms of clarifications, we added some increased emphasis on the need to consider impervious surface changes and green infrastructure throughout the city. That’s reflective of what we have been hearing. The city already does list that. I just want to make sure that it is clear in the plan if we’re thinking about development and climate change or addressing current stormwater issues. We did hear some recommendations about additional strategies for financing or other initiatives related to green banks. We have added those as sub-strategies. In coordinating with city staff, they have been considering these initiatives as well. We heard some comments about that. In addition to the existing food equity/access strategies, we added strategies that are already in the document. We have added some coordination related to thinking about food regionally. Next Slide – Economic Prosperity & Opportunity In the Future Land Use Map when we showed both General Residential, Medium Intensity Residential, and High Intensity Residential, we have included some description that there are some areas within those land use categories that would be appropriate for commercial uses on a neighborhood supported scale. We wanted to reflect that in this Economic Prosperity & Opportunity chapter. When the city is working with people to identify sites that might be appropriate for commercial uses, those residential areas might be appropriate for that. We have added some focus on diversifying and broadening the current economic bases partnering with workforce development strategies. These are things the city has focused on in many ways. Next slide – Community Facilities & Services This includes utility infrastructure, parks, recreation, and schools. Some of the clarifications we made to this chapter, in terms of natural gas infrastructure, we have removed a component of that goal that called for expansion of gas infrastructure. We have added a strategy of reducing overall natural gas consumption. That was something we had received a petition on. We have also added some considerations related to the future Park and Recreation Master Plan process. Some additions to this chapter include adding a sub-strategy to consider the amount of population within walking distance when citing new public facilities as a consideration to further support the Walkable Community goals that we have been talking about. We have added considerations for having a larger community conversation about stormwater management in the context of climate change. We have added some considerations related to urban agriculture for public parks and open spaces. Next slide – Community Engagement & Collaboration This is a new chapter based on the 2013 plan. We did add some sub-strategies, which are supportive of the overall strategies related to community training and education around planning issues, related to fostering ongoing communication with residents and other stakeholders, and a sub-strategy considered for reinstating the community survey to gauge community sentiment. We have added a couple of things. One is potentially calling for regular updates to the community about regional coordination with planning issues. That happens through these Planning Commission meetings. A lot of these are regional issues. Next Slide – Draft Implementation Chapter 34 This is an overview of the pieces of the Implementation Chapter. We have identified 6 priority draft areas and 28 related priority strategies. In the full document, as drafted, there are about 300 strategies. Our goal with this was based on the needs to prioritize those strategies and give some emphasis to some of the things that we have been hearing about most. We wanted to create these priority areas and priority strategies. We identified these based on the public feedback we have been getting in all of the phases of engagement. It was based on the conversations with all of you and others in the community. This chapter starts with the overview of the draft priority areas and related priority strategies. The other piece of this is the implementation table. There is a main table within the main document that has the implementation measures of progress, timeline, and the lead and supporting departments and partners for those priority strategies. It does not have in the main body of the chapter that implementation information for all strategies. We have that in a separate implementation matrix that we have pulled out. We also included in this chapter, in accordance with the state requirements around transportation planning, a map and list of priority transportation projects in coordination with staff. We have the implementation table for each topic specific chapter. That is linked at the beginning of the chapter separately from the main body of the chapter. Next Slide – Priority Areas These are the six priority areas that we have identified in the current draft. The first area is that this plan should support the development of more housing throughout the city with a focus on creation of more housing that is affordable to more people, especially those with the greater need. We have identified in the Housing Chapter, affordability means paying no more than 30% of their income on housing. What we’re looking to in this process is to identify ways to support housing that is affordable to people who make different amounts of money, different amounts of income. That is supported by the strategies we have identified as well as The Affordable Housing Plan. The second priority area that we identified is making sure that all people have access to opportunities and the tools they need to thrive and succeed. This is a varied priority in terms of the types of strategies that are included. We have included strategies that are related to housing, strategies that are related to economic opportunity, and strategies related to food equity. We think those all support this idea of making sure people have access to the opportunities and tools that they need. This plan should work to mitigate and prepare for the impacts of climate change. What those strategies look to pull out are not only support the climate action plan process that is ongoing in the city but also the climate hazard risk assessment as well as some of those green infrastructure improvements. The fourth priority is making it safer, easier, and more desirable to walk, ride a bike, or use non-vehicular transportation options. When we say non-vehicular, it does need to explicitly include public transportation in this priority area. Under this strategy, we are looking to support the implementation of projects from the city’s Bike/Pedestrian Master Plan, The Streets That Work Plan, and Safe Routes to Schools, and those other plans that make up the Transportation Master Plan. We’re also looking to support these changes to the zoning ordinance to make sure that we’re incentivizing and requiring urban scale and walkable communities that further support this priority area. One of the strategies does call for participation in the regional transit partnerships. There is support for public transportation there. There is also further supporting housing redevelopment and infill that supports bike/pedestrian infrastructure and robust public transportation. That is something that needs to be required. It is a requirement to think about a transit oriented development with housing. The fifth priority area is to keep Charlottesville green and protect the natural environment and the benefits it provides. There are only two strategies here. We don’t want to downplay the importance of this. This includes strategies related to tree canopy, as well as some strategies related to parkland, public open space, and 35 green infrastructure in those spaces. The final priority area is to focus on continuing to evolve and improve communication and collaboration. With that we have identified those strategies that all come from the community engagement and collaboration chapter. They include establishing and using metrics and guidelines to make sure city-led processes are as inclusive as possible. That also includes strategies about fostering partnerships, not only within the city, but also with UVA and the county. The third strategy is to evaluate the need for a new community engagement staff or staff dedicated time to focus on those relationships moving forward. Planning Commission Discussion Commissioner Mitchell – There is nothing significant. I read through the written document. There’s one section that I wanted to ask you to be a little more intentional about. It is in the Implementation chapter in the environmental section. It says Strategy 24. This relates to the thing we’re always talking about: canopy equity. There’s a lack of tree canopy in low-income areas. I would just ask that when we get to Strategy 24, that we’re a little more intentional about canopy equity in these sensitive areas. We speak to that in the environmental chapter. I think we do a pretty good job of that. We reference Strategy 4.6. You do reference underserved areas in the Environmental chapter. It would be of value to be more intentional in the Implementation chapter. Commissioner Dowell – Thank you for the updates. One thing that might be ‘far-fetched,’ I would like it to be mentioned in that Implementation chapter how you guys came on board. It actually started with the process of the Planning Commission doing this first and it then evolved into hiring you to pick up and try to fill in the pieces where we left off. I don’t want that to not be captured. This has been a long process. I feel that we have tried to get it right. It should be reflected in that. Commissioner Habbab – It looks great. I am going to be reaching out to Ms. Koch regarding space equity. Commissioner Lahendro – I spent a great deal of time studying the land use chapter, in particular the Historic Preservation components or impacts of the goals, objectives, and strategies. There is clearly a stated intent to look for additional housing and development including the historic areas. That is certainly possible in ADC Districts to be able to add housing units and additional density. I would like to see where it is stated to do that as long as the historic status is protected for those buildings. Our ADC Districts are generally in the National Register of Historic Districts that have been identified and designated here in the city. For every one of those districts, there are contributing members and non-contributing members in those districts. The non-contributing members are great opportunities for providing additional housing and for redevelopment. For the contributing members, I want to make sure that their contributing status is protected. If enough of those contributing members are compromised, that will jeopardize the designation of the historic district. It can be delisted and taken away. The city has, by virtue of identifying these historic districts, has indicated that is important to the city and to city residents. That is important because that represents the uniqueness of Charlottesville. Where that happens in the land use map, I would like to make sure that it is clear that the historic designations for places that are being considered for additional housing, that historic designation is protected and preserved. Commissioner Russell – I had two comments/reactions to the implementation matrix. One is under this tracking the metric of the $10 million annual spending towards affordable housing programs. The 36 measure of progress indicator is stated as ‘how are we measuring that towards that goal?’ in the dollars of city funding committed to affordable housing per year. We need to be more granular in that. I don’t know what funding committed means. Does that mean it goes into an account? Does it mean units being built? That needs to be more detailed. I think you’re indicating that you’re going to get there. The other thing I reacted to was under strategy 2-1, which is Land Use Urban Form and Historical Preservation. The priority is to promote context instead of planning to maintain and enhance distinct identities of Charlottesville’s neighborhoods and corridors. What does ‘promote’ mean? How are we doing that? I do appreciate the revisions. I looked through the chapters and noted a lot of really good revisions. Commissioner Stolzenberg – I echo Commissioner Russell’s point about the granularity of those tracking metrics. I know that HAC has its own recently implemented set of ways they’re tracking the implementation of the Affordable Housing Plan. I would like to better understand how those work together. We’re putting in $10 million a year. There are also housing goals about creating more housing units for our buck; leveraging outside funding sources to make more units. It seems like it should be something that is in there. There’s a housing goal about percent of first and second year students living on Grounds. A better goal there is for students living within traditional student areas including off Grounds. If they live off Grounds, we get tax revenue from them. The problem is when they spill out of those areas that they have been in for 100 years and start moving into traditionally non-student neighborhoods. With the climate mitigation adaptions, it sounds like climate change is an inevitability that we’re not going to do anything about. At this point, it is an inevitability. We need to do something about it or it is going to be even worse. Part of the problem is that the way the Environmental Chapter is framed, that is the overarching goal. There actually isn’t a strategy to get our carbon footprint down to zero. That doesn’t get reflected in the priority area because it only includes goals. There is another one: “It is more desirable to walk, ride a bike, or use other non-vehicle transportation options.” We want to encourage other small vehicles that are not single occupancy cars. With the transportation map materials we pulled from the older plans, I wonder if it is worth updating those at this point given that several of those projects are underway or funded. Councilor Payne – A lot of the changes are positive. I am definitely happy to see the change related to the natural gas utility and the longer term goals with that. My one thought is in the Economic Prosperity and Opportunity Chapter. I wonder if there’s an opportunity to have as a goal community wealth building in thinking about housing, part of an economic development strategy. We can think about how community land trusts, community gardens, co-ops, community development corporations, and Section 3 of HUD’s program with a redevelopment of public housing can all be part of a strategy of opening up wealth building to more people in the community. In particular, an economic development strategy aimed at reducing the racial wealth gap in our community. Community wealth building can be part of the chapter topic. I wonder if there is an opportunity to have that there more explicitly. . Councilor Snook – I appreciate the continued refining. I get a lot of emails from people who seem to think the latest draft is a final draft. I keep telling them that it is a draft. There are more drafts coming. It’s a process. I appreciate the progress. I am sure there will be further drafts before it gets to Council. Chairman Solla-Yates – I am very pleased with what I am seeing. It all makes sense, especially the connection between land use and transportation. 37 Commissioner Stolzenberg – A couple of other minor things. We talk about unhoused citizens. We prefer to use unhoused residents, with 7.1 in reviewing LI HTC applications, with land use 1.2, we talk about transitions in a way that is not specified. In transportation 5.4, we’re talking about a web based application to make transit easier. I know there is already a web based application to track buses. I wasn’t sure if that was the sort of thing or if we were talking about something else. 4.3 seemed like a big one in defining soft density as duplexes up to 8-plexes. Ms. Koch – The way soft density is defined is that there might be some confusion in the text about a missing middle, which would encompass general residential and medium intensity versus soft density. I am going to make sure that is clear. We will discuss next week with the Future Land Use Map. We are considering ways to adjust these descriptions. We may want to revisit some of these pieces when we talk about the map next week. Commissioner Stolzenberg – In 4.1, consider zoning classifications based on form and intensity of use as defined by height and maximum size of structures. “Of use” was the weird part. Ms. Koch – That’s a wording thing that we can make clear. Commissioner Dowell – One thing I wanted the consultants to know when it comes to our Future Land Use Map is given clear delineation if we’re going to move forward with the overlay district for our affordable housing and if we are going to implement that, I would like to see it clearly spelled out. Commissioner Mitchell – In the meeting you had with the HAC representatives, there was concern about subdivisions and a loophole in subdivisions that would allow developers not to embrace the affordability component. Please hear that. Please make certain we build that into anything we write. They left that meeting not certain if you agreed or heard it. Ms. Koch – We will make sure that is clear. Commissioner Habbab – On the affordable housing overlay with strategy 1.4, there should be more clarity. Do we want to go with require ‘instead’ of ‘consider’? Ms. Koch – That’s something that needs be refined after we speak next week. We have had this strategy in the plan since the May version to consider: overlay in the zoning rewrite. We have heard from all of you and others that you would like to see more certainty around that at this phase. It needs to be clarified as we move forward. Chairman Solla-Yates – I have a thought about small area plans. I definitely urge that kind of thinking in selecting small area plans. Public Comments James Groves – I have provided suggestions regarding the city’s natural gas supply not included in the current draft. The city provides gas to the community and has a constrained supply. Each winter, UVA burns 10,000 pounds of coal because the city cannot keep its residents warm. If you allow new gas hookups, the city will either expand its fossil fuel infrastructure or UVA will burn more coal. If you 38 eliminate R-1, you need to end new gas hookups. Our constrained gas supply is another reason to abandon medium intensity residential zoning. Such zoning will lead to climate damaging teardowns and delivery of waste to the dump. It risks destruction of tree canopy and significant stormwater problems the city may not be able to address. If you vote for medium intensity zoning and allow new gas hookups, you should delete goal #1 from the Environment and Climate chapter. There’s no way we will cut greenhouse gas emissions by 45% this decade. The chapter mentions the possibility of implementing C pace and green bank financing. Both are authorized by the General Assembly. The chapter states that Charlottesville will explore C pace and consider green banks. The city should have explored and considered it the last 4 years. The city has not produced a climate action plan. Green banks are known to ‘super-charge’ climate action with private capital. With C pace and green banks, Charlottesville needs to do it. Diane Dale – I would like to address the environmental issues. It is interesting you have spent tonight talking about the impact of infill off of JPA. Some of the issues were mature trees being taken down. In the Comprehensive Plan update, there will be many instances of such discussions over the impact of taking down trees. At the last work session, the consultants showed a diagram of hypothetical infills of various ways to put in 4 to 12 units per acre. That slide did not include the parking that would go with it. We will have many lots with pretty dense coverage. It is disappointing to not have strong intentional language in this plan about environmental issues and about climate change. I would like to see the environment and climate change have equal footing as equity. If we don’t deal with climate change, the result will be inequity to all. I would like to see discussion about overlays for preservation of sensitive neighborhoods. The meeting was adjourned at 10:16 PM.