Agenda PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DOCKET TUESDAY, February 14, 2023 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) 1. Minutes – October 11, 2021 - Work Session 2. Critical Slopes Waiver – Buford Middle School 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 None scheduled IV. COMMISSION’S ACTION ITEMS Continuing: until all action items are concluded. 1. Entrance Corridor – 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue 2. Discussion - Zoning Ordinance Update V. FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE/ADJOURN Tuesday February 28, 2023 Work Zoning Ordinance – Module 1 Session Tuesday March 14, 2023 – 5:00 PM Pre- Meeting Tuesday March 14, 2023 – 5:30 PM Regular Minutes Meeting Rezoning and SUP –1120 Avon Street ZTA - PUD Ordinance 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 Rezoning and SUP – 0 Carlton Road Presentation - Charlottesville Tree Commission Site Plan –Flint Hill PUD, 240 Stribling Ave, Belmont Heights (1000 Monticello), Hillsdale Place, 1613 Grove Street Extended Future Entrance Corridor • 1801 Hydraulic Road – revised Comp Sign Plan, revised design review (Hillsdale Place, Riverbend) PLEASE NOTE: THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PRIOR TO THE MEETING. PLEASE NOTE: We are including suggested time frames on Agenda items. These times are subject to change at any time during the meeting. Individuals with disabilities who require assistance or special arrangements to participate in the public meeting may call the ADA Coordinator at (434) 970-3182 or submit a request via email to ada@charlottesville.gov. The City of Charlottesville requests that you provide a 48 hour notice so that proper arrangements may be made. Planning Commission premeeting and regular meetings are held in person with limited seating and by Zoom webinar. Instructions for meeting attendance is located here: https://www.charlottesville.gov/1552/Reserve-a-Seat-for-Planning-Commission-M. 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 1/1/2023 TO 1/31/2023 1. Preliminary Site Plans 2. Final Site Plans a. 250 Bypass Waterline Extension 3. Site Plan Amendments a. 901 Rose Hill Drive – Burley MS – Walk of Fame – January 6, 2023 b. 1000 West Main – Pool/Patio conversion – January 18, 2023 c. 402 Park Street – January 27, 2023 d. East McIntire Park Grove – January 26, 2023 4. Subdivision a. BLA – 811 Rives Street and 1310 Florence Road – January 24, 2023 b. BLA – 1032 Carlton Avenue – January 24, 2023 October 21, 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 REGULAR MEETING APPLICATION FOR A CRITICAL SLOPE WAIVER APPLICATION NUMBER: P22-0132 DATE OF MEETING: February 14, 2023 Project Planner: Matt Alfele, AICP Date of Staff Report: January 25, 2023 Applicant: City of Charlottesville Applicant’s Representative(s): Michael Goddard (City of Charlottesville, Facilities Development Manager) Current Property Owner: City of Charlottesville Application Information Property Street Address: 1000 Cherry Avenue Tax Map & Parcel/Tax Status: 230192000 (real estate taxes exempt) Total Project Area (Limits of Disturbance): 9.05 acres Total Area of Critical Slopes on Parcels: 1.55 acres | 8.22% Area of Proposed Critical Slope Disturbance: 0.13 acres | 6.16% of total critical slopes area Comprehensive Plan (General Land Use Plan): Education Current Zoning Classification: R-1S (Single-family Small Lots) Overlay District: None Applicant’s Request (Summary) Michael Goddard, City of Charlottesville Facilities Development Manager is requesting a waiver from Section 34-112(b) of the City’s Critical Slope Ordinance as part of the renovations and reconfiguration to Buford Middle School. The City is in the process of upgrading the public education facilities and infrastructure on the campus of Buford Middle School, The Boys and Girls Club, and Smith Aquatic Center. This is a multiyear project that will be phased dependent on funding. As part of the renovations, disturbance to Critical Slopes around the athletic field will be required (Attachment A). Page 1 of 6 P22-0132 Buford Middle School Critical Slope Existing critical slopes areas located on this Property include 1.5 acres or 8.2 percent of the site. The applicable definition of “critical slope” is as follows: Any slope whose grade is 25% or greater, and (a) a portion of the slope has a horizontal run of greater than 20 feet, and its total area is 6,000 SF or greater, and (b) a portion of the slope is within 200 feet of a waterway. See City Code Sec. 34-1120(b)(2). Based on the information presented within the application materials, Staff verifies that the area for which this waiver is sought meets all the above-referenced components of the definition of “critical slope”. Vicinity Map Critical Slopes per the Zoning Ordinance Page 2 of 6 P22-0132 Buford Middle School Critical Slope 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%. 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; Page 3 of 6 P22-0132 Buford Middle School Critical Slope (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 and #2: The City’s Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan calls for the Subject Property to be Education. This category includes both Charlottesville City Schools and non-city schools. No form, height, or use/affordability are specified for this category. Nothing in the application indicates the proposed development would not conform to the City’s Future Land Use Map or the Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Finding #1 (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.) Staff finds that nothing in the application materials suggest development of the site would not meet the minimum requirements for stormwater and erosion & sediment controls, but final determination can not be made until a final site plan has been reviewed (currently under review). It should be noted that regardless of any information submitted for a Critical Slope Waiver, all development plans over 6,000 square feet must meet VSMP minimum requirements and additionally, any project over an acre must obtain a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) . 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 Page 4 of 6 P22-0132 Buford Middle School Critical Slope 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.) Staff believes the existing Critical Slope are manmade and the product of grading for the existing athletic field. The proposed renovations and reconfiguration of the site calls for keeping the athletic field in the same location, but enlarging it to provide more activities, allow room for the new bus route, and facilitate ADA circulation. Staff supports Finding#2 under unusual topography as it relates to manmade slopes. 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: Loss of tree canopy and wildlife habitat that contribute to the natural beauty and visual quality of the community. Staff supports approving the request for a Critical Slope Waiver as the slopes being impacted are manmade and the public benefit of granting the Critical Slope Waiver will outweigh the public benefits of the undisturbed slope. Staff is concerned that some mature trees will be lost due to grading and the addition of the basketball courts and parking. Staff would like to see the City’s Parks Department, Urban Forester, work with the applicant to ensure the least impact to trees as feasible posable and the addition of new trees to offset ones removed. Recommended Conditions: Staff recommends approval with the following condition: 1. The applicant will work with the City’s Urban Forester on tree preservation and replanting. Suggested Motions 1. “I move to recommend approval of the critical slope waiver for Tax Map and Parcels 230192000 as requested, with no reservations or conditions, based on a finding that [reference at least one finding]: • Finding #1: 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) Page 5 of 6 P22-0132 Buford Middle School Critical Slope • Finding #2: 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 approval of the critical slope waiver for Tax Map and Parcels 230192000 as requested, with conditions, based on a finding that [reference at least one finding]: • Finding #1: 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) • Finding #2: 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) Recommended Conditions: 1. The applicant will work with the City’s Urban Forester on tree preservation and replanting. 2. … 3. … 3. “I move to recommend denial of the critical slope waiver for Tax Map and Parcels 230192000. Attachments A. Application, Narrative, and Critical Slope Exhibit Page 6 of 6 Attachment A Attachment A Application for a Critical Slope Waiver Department of Neighborhood Development Services P. O. Box 911, City Hall Charlottesville, VA 22902 Telephone: (434) 970-3182 Critical Slopes Wavier and Modification Supplement Requirements Please review City Zoning Ordinance Section 34-1120(b) and submit a completed Application using this form, Supplement, and *Critical Slope Exhibit. *Critical Slope Exhibit: Survey indicating location and area of critical slopes and what portion of critical slopes are proposed to be disturbed. Survey shall be prepared, sealed, signed, and dated by a professional engineer or land surveyor licensed to practice within the Commonwealth of Virginia. Project Narrative and Description of Proposed Development: _____________________________________________________________________ This plan proposes renovations to Buford Middle School, construction of a sports _____________________________________________________________________ court, a soccer field, additional parking, a garden area, and associated site work. _____________________________________________________________________ Two existing buildings are proposed to be demolished. _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ Existing Conditions: _____________________________________________________________________ There are 4 one-story brick buildings, 1 two-story brick building, garden areas, and _____________________________________________________________________ parking associated with the existing Buford Middle School. A Boys & Girls Club _____________________________________________________________________ facility and fitness center are also located on the property. _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ Total Site Area: Acres__________ Parcel: 18.86 Ac.Square Feet__________ Parcel: 822,000 SF Disturbed: 9.05 Ac. Disturbed: 394,000 SF Current Zoning__________ R-1S Proposed Zoning (if applicable)__________ 7.6 Exempt Educational Any SUP or other Waivers being requested: _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ Note: Incomplete applications will not be processed. Date Received:_________________________ Received by:______________________________ Revision Date: May 19, 2022 Attachment A Application for a Critical Slope Waiver Department of Neighborhood Development Services P. O. Box 911, City Hall Charlottesville, VA 22902 Telephone: (434) 970-3182 Percentage of Area that is made up of Critical Slopes– meets criteria set forth in Section 34-1120(b)(2) Definition of Critical Slope: greater than or equal to 25% slopes and (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: Total Critical Slope Area: Critical Slopes make up__________ 1.55 acres of the site’s__________ 18.86 acres, or__________% 8.22 of the site area. *If critical slopes extend beyond property line, quantify total critical slope area as well as pro- vide area of critical slope that falls within site area. An additional 0.56 acres of critical slopes are off-site, for a total of 2.11 acres. Critical Slope Area Disturbed: __________ 0.13 acres of the total critical slope area identified above will be disturbed, or_________% 6.16 of the total critical slope area. Proposed critical slope area to be dis- turbed is__________% 0.69 of the site area. This application should be used to explain how the proposed project meets some or all of the requirements as described in Section 34-1120(b)(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 follow- ing findings: Note: Incomplete applications will not be processed. Date Received:_________________________ Received by:______________________________ Revision Date: May 19, 2022 Attachment A Application for a Critical Slope Waiver Department of Neighborhood Development Services P. O. Box 911, City Hall Charlottesville, VA 22902 Telephone: (434) 970-3182 Finding #1: The public benefits of allowing disturbance of Critical slope outweigh the public bene- fits 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 adja- cent or environmentally sensitive areas; groundwater recharge; reduced stormwater ve- locity; minimization of impervious surfaces; and stabilization of otherwise unstable slopes) _____________________________________________________________________ This project provides thoughtful design to minimize critical slopes disturbance, while _____________________________________________________________________ providing the necessary infrastructure to support the proposed public school _____________________________________________________________________ renovations. The impacts of this project provide public facilities for the local _____________________________________________________________________ community, including an expanded middle school, a soccer field, and sport courts. _____________________________________________________________________ Additionally, two bioretention facilities are utilized on-site for stormwater quality _____________________________________________________________________ treatment. 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 provi- sions would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use, reuse or redevelop- ment of such property of would result in significant degradation of the site or adjacent properties. _____________________________________________________________________ The subject parcel in its existing condition contains Buford Middle School, Boy's and _____________________________________________________________________ Girl's Club Facility, Smith Aquatic and associated access ways, parking lots, utilities, _____________________________________________________________________ and recreation facilities. The minimal impacts proposed are necessary due to the _____________________________________________________________________ constraints of providing and maintaining adequate infrastructure, vehicular access _____________________________________________________________________ and ADA/PROWAG compliant pedestrian to the existing buildings on site and the _____________________________________________________________________ proposed Buford Middle School additions. Note: Incomplete applications will not be processed. Date Received:_________________________ Received by:______________________________ Revision Date: May 19, 2022 Attachment A Application for a Critical Slope Waiver Department of Neighborhood Development Services P. O. Box 911, City Hall Charlottesville, VA 22902 Telephone: (434) 970-3182 Please address how Finding #1 and/or Finding #2 will be met utilizing the “Critical Slope Provisions” noted in 1—6 1. Erosion affecting the structural integrity of those features: _____________________________________________________________________ Erosion and sediment control measures will be employed as necessary to protect _____________________________________________________________________ undisturbed areas during construction. Downhill structural practices, silt fence, _____________________________________________________________________ sediment trap, sediment basin, and inlet protection will capture sediment. _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 2. Stormwater and erosion-related impacts on adjacent properties: _____________________________________________________________________ Stormwater and erosion-related impacts are limited by the detention of site run-off _____________________________________________________________________ within the proposed bioretention and underground storage facilities. E&SC measures _____________________________________________________________________ will be employed to ensure adjacent properties are not impacted by stormwater runoff _____________________________________________________________________ during construction. _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 3. Stormwater and erosion-related impacts to environmentally sensitive areas such as stream and wetlands: _____________________________________________________________________ Wetlands disturbance is not proposed. Additional Erosion Control measures are being _____________________________________________________________________ proposed upstream of the existing wetland area to ensure the wetland is protected during _____________________________________________________________________ construction. Minimal intermittent stream disturbance is being proposed. Applicable ACOE permits will be obtained as needed. The project proposes no disturbance to the _____________________________________________________________________ existing Perennial Stream on the west end of the site. Applicable Erosion Control _____________________________________________________________________ measures are being proposed to protect the Perennial Stream during construction. _____________________________________________________________________ Note: Incomplete applications will not be processed. Date Received:_________________________ Received by:______________________________ Revision Date: May 19, 2022 Attachment A Application for a Critical Slope Waiver Department of Neighborhood Development Services P. O. Box 911, City Hall Charlottesville, VA 22902 Telephone: (434) 970-3182 4. Increased stormwater velocity due to loss of vegetation: _____________________________________________________________________ Detention is being provided through the use of bioretention and underground storage _____________________________________________________________________ facilities which limits the volumetric flow rate and velocity of stormwater runoff which _____________________________________________________________________ discharges from the site. Outlet protection will be placed at the site's outfall as an _____________________________________________________________________ energy dissipater to protect against erosive flow. _____________________________________________________________________ 5. Decreased groundwater recharge due to changes in site hydrology: _____________________________________________________________________ Decreased groundwater recharge is being mitigated by the proposed bioretention _____________________________________________________________________ facilities which promote infiltration. Additionally, large areas of green space are _____________________________________________________________________ being maintained and/or proposed. _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 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: _____________________________________________________________________ Removal of trees has been minimized. There is no disturbance within the 100-year _____________________________________________________________________ floodplain. _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ List all attachments supporting this application and Provisions 1—6: _____________________________________________________________________ Critical Slopes Exhibit _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ Note: Incomplete applications will not be processed. Date Received:_________________________ Received by:______________________________ Revision Date: May 19, 2022 475 GX (29-3) Attachment A LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE CRITICAL SLOPE REFERS TO THE PORTION OF A LOT THAT HAS A GRADE IN EXCESS OF X 480 47 TWENTY-FIVE (25) PERCENT. INCLUDES SLOPES AS DEFINED BY CHAPTER 34, ZONING P UG OH 0 ORDINANCE. P DISTURBED CRITICAL SLOPES 46 W 2.91 AC OF EXISTING CRITICAL SLOPE ON SITE 5 UGP UFO 0.90 AC OF CRITICAL SLOPE DISTURBANCE 46 0 (34-1120(b)(2)) 460 EXISTING CRITICAL SLOPES 455 SAN DEFINITION OF CRITICAL SLOPE. A CRITICAL SLOPE IS ANY SLOPE WHOSE GRADE IS 25% OR GREATER AND: 455 5' PER ORD. (34-1120(b)(2)) X A. A PORTION OF THE SLOPE HAS A HORIZONTAL RUN OF GREATER THAN TWENTY (20) 450 FEET AND ITS' TOTAL AREA IS SIX THOUSAND (6,000) SQUARE FEET OR GREATER; AND 445 EXISTING CRITICAL SLOPES B. A PORTION OF THE SLOPE IS WITHIN TWO HUNDRED (200) FEET OF ANY WATERWAY 440 PER ORD. (29-3) UGP AS IDENTIFIED ON THE MOST CURRENT CITY TOPOGRAPHICAL MAPS MAINTAINED BY 5 9' G THE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. 44 450 48 1.55 AC OF EXISTING CRITICAL SLOPE ON SITE UGP 0.13 AC OF CRITICAL SLOPE DISTURBANCE 455 0 NOTE: 5 44 X W THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE SHALL BE STAKED BY A LICENSED SURVEYOR. TREE 460 UGP UFO PROTECTION FENCING SHALL BE APPLIED 1' OFF OF LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE WITH WIRE SUPPORTED SILT FENCE 3' OFF OF THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE. ENERGY DISSIPATER OUTLET SHALL NOT RELEASE FLOW ABOVE CRITICAL SLOPES. PROPOSED LIMITS OF SAN DISTURBANCE = 9.05 AC. 440 X 435 P 460 44 UG G X UFO X 5 X 5' UGT X W G W 40' 430 0 48 455 W (4 SPACES) UGP 5' 460 5 4 425 45 UFO 42020 475 G UGP SAN 425 465 X 0 12/5/22 46 470 5 430 46 47 0 UGP 435 475 SS 45 5 440 X 445 468.1' W 480 4 50 SAN G 5 460 45 5' UGP SAN 440 475 D X 430 5 460 43 465 425 470 S X 5 475 47 G SAN 5 46 47 SAN 0 SAN G 470 470 0 5 0 5 445 475 440 45 42 43 480 42 43 480 5 X X X X 470 47 0 SAN X OHP X X 465 D CRITICAL SLOPES EXHIBIT - ZONING & SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE SCALE 1"=100' Buford Middle School- December 5, 2022 0 100' 200' NAD 83 S:\103\48668-WalkerBufordReno\DWG\Sheet\Exhibit\Buford_CritSlopesExhibit.dwg | Plotted on 12/5/2022 3:42 PM | by Catherine Gayner City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services Staff Report Entrance Corridor Review Board Review of Certificate of Appropriateness for 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue Planning Commission Regular Meeting Date of Planning Commission Meeting: February 14, 2023 Project Planner: Matt Alfele Date of Hearing: February 14, 2023 Application Number: P22-0133 Zoning: R-3 Residential with Entrance Corridor Overlay (Fontaine Ave/JPA; Sub-area C.) Tax Parcels: 17-104, 17-103, 17-103.1 (Note: 17-104 is not within the EC Overlay.) Site Acreage: 1.7 acres (74,531 sq ft) ERB Staff report prepared by: Jeff Werner, AICP, Preservation and Design Planner Submittal: Mitchel/Matthews Architects & Planners drawings for 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue Entrance Corridor Review Application, dated December 20, 2022: Sheets 1 (cover) through 76. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Relevant Code Section The Planning Commission serves as the Entrance Corridor Review Board (ERB), responsible for administering the design review process in entrance corridor overlay districts (EC). This development project requires a site plan, and therefore also requires a Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA), pursuant to the provisions of Section 34-309(a)(3) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The ERB shall act on an application within 60 days of the submittal date, and shall either approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. Appeal would be to City Council. Standards for considering certificates of appropriateness Per Section 34-310, in reviewing a CoA application the ERB must consider certain features and factors in determining the appropriateness of proposed construction, alteration, etc. of buildings or structures located within an EC. The five primary criteria in Section 34-310 are: 1) Overall architectural design, form, and style of the subject building or structure, including, but not limited to: the height, mass and scale; 2) Exterior architectural details and features of the subject building or structure; 3) Texture, materials and color of materials proposed for use on the subject building or structure; 4) Design and arrangement of buildings and structures on the subject site; and 5) The extent to which the features and characteristics described within paragraphs (1)-(4), above, are architecturally compatible (or incompatible) with similar features and 2005 JPA – ERB Review Feb 14, 2023 (Feb 3, 2023 - final) 1 characteristics of other buildings and structures having frontage on the same EC street(s) as the subject property. Links to EC Design Guidelines EC Design Guidelines Chapter I - Introduction EC Design Guidelines Chapter II - Streetscape EC Design Guidelines Chapter III - Site EC Design Guidelines Chapter IV - Buildings EC Design Guidelines Chapter V - Corridors Summary of CoA Request Applicant requests a CoA to construct a brick and stucco building composed of a five-story, U- shaped, two-wing building surrounding a central courtyard and set atop a two-story brick foundation [or podium] of approximately 150-ft (at JPA) and 312-ft (at the sides). Each wing is approximately 62-feet wide separated by a roughly 30-ft wide courtyard. The site slopes downhill, approximately 30-feet, from the NW corner on Observatory Avenue to the SE corner at JPA and Washington Avenue. As such, the seven-story primary façade (at JPA) is reduced to a five-story elevation at the NW corner and a six-story elevation at the NE corner. Viewed from JPA, the primary facade is composed of a two-story, brick foundation with punched windows. (Set behind sidewalk-level, walled patios, this elevation forms the primary entrance.) At the east corner, the foundation continues along Washington Avenue, receding into the grade to a single story. At the west corner, the foundation continues along Observatory Avenue, receding into the grade completely. Above the foundation, the primary facade of the east wing features a three-story, brick tower extending from the foundation below. Setback from this façade, the wing rises to five-stories, featuring brick and stucco sections with punched windows. The primary façade of the east wing also features a three-story, brick tower, but setback from the foundation wall, behind an elevated terrace and pool area. The side elevation mimics the east wing, but being lower into the grade than the east wing allows for a series of first-floor entrances with low-walled porches. The two wings enclose an inner courtyard, which, elevated two stories above JPA, conceals the interior parking area below it. At the rear wall (north), the two wings join, completing the U. (The rear wall continues the same design; however, it is not visible from the EC.) [Staff note: Plan view shown on sheets 44 and 49 are for context only re: landscaping and site lighting. The plan view on sheet 13 is the formal plan relative to the footprint and architectural elements. If, during site plan and/or building permit review, there are minor variations re: wall locations and architectural elements, staff will defer to the elevations on sheets 15, 18, 21 and 24.] 2005 JPA – ERB Review Feb 14, 2023 (Feb 3, 2023 - final) 2 Building materials: • Foundation/Podium: Red brick (Sheet 42) • Walls: o Red brick (Sheet 42) o Stucco, painted (Sheet 42) • Windows: PlyGem PVC, single hung, 1/1, insulated glass. Color: Black units and white units; varies per wall section. (Sheet 43) • Panels and mullions between windows: Cement board, painted. • Large windows and entry doors: Commercial, metal-framed storefront with clear glass. [Staff note: Recommend condition that the glass will be clear for all glazed entries and windows on: the podium (front and side elevations); the three-story brick towers on each wing (front, east, and west elevations); and the four porch-level entrances on the west elevation. Re: clear glass, refer to the attached August 2018 memo.] • Railings, entry canopies, entry door surround: Metal, painted (Sheet 42) [Staff note: Recommend condition that any new railings—i.e., at low walls, if required during code review, etc.—will match railings at podium terrace.] • Parapet coping: Metal cap Landscaping: • Plantings: (all on City tree list) o Willow Oak o London Plane Tree o Witch Hazel o Sweetbay Magnolia o Kentucky Coffeetree (alt Honey Locust) o Black Gum • Landscape/terrace walls: Red brick with bluestone cap. Fieldstone with bluestone cap. (Sheets 42-45) • Paving: o Entry plaza, porches on Observatory Ave., path at rear: Scored concrete, buff colored. o On-site walks/terraces at Observatory Ave. and Washington Ave.: Brick • Micro-bio-filters along Observatory Avenue. (Sheet 45) Site Lighting: • Illuminated bollards, planting accent lights, inset wall lights and surface mounted wall lights. Per sheet 50, the noted fixtures and locations are conceptual and may vary during construction. [Staff note: Recommend a condition that the lamping for exterior lighting be dimmable, have a Color Temperature not exceeding 3,000K, and a Color Rendering Index not less than 80, preferably not less than 90. Additionally, should there be concerns expressed later related to glare, the owner will work with NDS to find a reasonable solution. Also, to prevent bright light and glare emanating from the garage, specifically at/near the Washington Avenue entrance, lamping for the garage lights will comply with the above.] 2005 JPA – ERB Review Feb 14, 2023 (Feb 3, 2023 - final) 3 Screening: • Mechanical equipment: Rooftop units will be screened behind the parapet. • Sheet 44 indicates an area near the garage entrance designated for Mech Equip. [Staff note: It is unclear what might be placed here or the precise location and dimensions of the brick wall; however, if used for mechanical units, utility/service boxes, storage, trash containers, etc., it will be appropriately screened. If not by the wall, then appropriate fencing or plantings.] • Dumpsters/trash: It is understood these will be located within the garage and pulled to the curb on collection days. (Near the garage entrance, a low wall will enclose the area noted on sheet 13, so this not intended to serve as a screened enclosure.) [Staff note: Recommend a condition establishing that dumpsters and trash and/or recycling bins will be located within the garage and pulled to the curb only on collection days.] Public Comments Received No public comments regarding this CoA request have been received to-date. Staff Recommendation Staff finds the proposed improvements are appropriate and recommends approval of the CoA with the conditions noted in the motion below. Per the approved Special Use Permit—approved September 19, 2022, link below—the proposed building height is permitted on this site and within the modified rear setback, therefore the maximum height and footprint have been established. CC memo - Sept 19 2022 SUP for 2005 JPA Staff concurs with the applicant’s comments: • Exterior material selections are predominantly brick and stucco, consistent with other buildings along the JPA corridor. The color palette falls in a compatible range. Building massing is varied, not monolithic. The scale evident in fenestration, entrances, site stairs, canopies and porches is appropriate for this district. The landscape design along JPA-- consisting of multiple terraces and plantings-- has the potential to enhance the corridor’s character, creating opportunities for pedestrian comfort and interaction in a shaded environment that is a marked improvement over other student housing that fronts this corridor. • Material, textures and colors are varied. Brick veneer is used both to establish a building base and to emphasize smaller scale building faces within the longer facades, an effort to differentiate volumes within the mass. Attached is a comprehensive review of the design guidelines, reflecting both the applicant’s and staff’s comments. Also attached are staff’s comments from the SUP request (2021), which addressed many of the issues related to height, massing, and scale, and also clarified how staff approached the apparent conflict between the vision for this EC adopted in 2011 and the 2005 JPA – ERB Review Feb 14, 2023 (Feb 3, 2023 - final) 4 Comprehensive Plan updated in 2021. Attached SUP memo also includes the section from the design guidelines, Chapter V, re: the Jefferson Park Avenue Entrance Corridor. Suggested Motion Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed design for 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue is consistent with the Guidelines and compatible with the goals of this Entrance Corridor, and that the ERB approves the Certificate of Appropriateness application as submitted, with the following conditions of approval: o Glass will be clear, at the locations noted in the staff report. o New railings, if required, will match the metal rail at the podium terrace. o All exterior lighting and interior lighting visible at the garage entrance will have lamping that is dimmable, has a Color Temperature not exceeding 3,000K, and has a Color Rendering Index not less than 80, preferably not less than 90. Additionally, the owner will address any reasonable public complaints about light glare by either dimming the lamp or replacing the lamps/fixtures. o Dumpsters and trash and/or recycling bins to be located within the garage and pulled to the curb only on collection days. If they cannot be located within the garage, they will be contained within an area near the garage entrance and will be appropriately screened. That location and screening will be subject to approval by design staff and must be memorialized as an amendment to the site plan. o If used for mechanical units, utility/service boxes, storage, trash containers, the Mech Equip area noted on sheet 44, at the west elevation, will be appropriately screened. That screening will be subject to approval by design staff and must be memorialized as an amendment to the site plan. o Any ground-level mechanical equipment and/or utility boxes will be appropriately screened. That screening will be subject to approval by design staff and must be memorialized as an amendment to the site plan. o Meters and panel boxes for utility, communications, and cable connections will be located preferably within the garage; if not, then in non-prominent locations on the side elevations only and appropriately screened. That screening will be subject to approval by design staff and must be memorialized as an amendment to the site plan. Alternate Motions Deferral: I move to defer [or, to accept the applicant’s request to defer] the Entrance Corridor Certificate of Appropriateness application for 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue. Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed design for 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue is not consistent with the Guidelines and is not compatible with the goals of this Entrance Corridor, and that for the following reason(s) the ERB denies the Certificate of Appropriateness application as submitted... 2005 JPA – ERB Review Feb 14, 2023 (Feb 3, 2023 - final) 5 Attachments 1. Applicant’s submittal. Mitchel/Matthews Architects & Planners drawings for 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue Entrance Corridor Review Application, dated December 20, 2022. 2. Review of the EC design guidelines re: CoA request for 2005 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue. 3. May 10, 2022 Staff report ERB Review of Special Use Permit Request for 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue. 4. July 17, 2018 Summary of BAR Discussion re: Clear Glass. 2005 JPA – ERB Review Feb 14, 2023 (Feb 3, 2023 - final) 6 2005 JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE C H A R L O T T E S V I L L E , V A E N T R A N C E C O R R I D O R R E V I E W A P P L I C AT I O N M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S A R C H I T E C T S DE CE MB E R 20, 2022 REQUEST FOR ENTRANCE CORRIDOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS INTRODUCTION: 2005 JPA is a proposed multi-family residential development on Jefferson Park Avenue. The project consists of residential units over parking and is situated in close proximity (walking distance) to the University of Virginia’s central grounds. The project is within an entrance corridor. LOCATION: 2005, 2007 Jefferson Park Avenue and 104 Observatory Avenue, an assemblage of 3 lots, with frontage on Jefferson Park Avenue between Observatory Avenue and Washington Avenue. ZONING: The property is currently zoned R-3 in the City of Charlottesville. PROPOSED USE: Multi-Family Residential #R-22-117 RESOLUTION Granting a Special Use Permit (SUP) for Property Located at 2005/2007 Jefferson Park Avenue and 104 Observatory Avenue WHEREAS Norman Lamson, as Trustee for the Gadient JPA Land Trust twenty-five (25) foot buffer shall be provided within the rear yard, to include mature (“Landowner”) is the owner of certain land identified within City real estate assessment trees and shrubs at the time of planting consistent with the plant materials prescribed records by Parcel Identification numbers 170104000, 170103100, and 170103000, respectively, for an “S-3” buffer (as listed in City Code §34-871, as in effect on the date of approval currently addressed as “2005/2007 Jefferson Park Avenue” and “104 Observatory of this SUP). The S-3 buffer, and plant materials, shall be detailed within the final Site Avenue” (collectively referred to as the “Property”), and the Landowner, proposes to redevelop Plan. Within the rear setback Landowner shall consider construction of a multipurpose the Property to accommodate a 119-unit multifamily building with underground parking, and path (for bicycles and pedestrians) linking Washington Avenue and Observatory Avenue within the rear setback, in order to establish the block-level scale of the Project WHEREAS to facilitate this redevelopment, the Landowner seeks City Council’s approval as represented within the Application Materials. of a Special Use Permit to increase allowable residential density to 70 DUA, to increase building height from 45 feet to 75 feet, to reduce the rear-yard setback from 75 feet to 36 feet, and to reduce (lower by 22%) the amount of on-site parking required by City Code Sec. 34-984 (the (3) The Landowner shall construct within the Project, along Jefferson Park Avenue, a new “Project”); and seven (7) foot sidewalk with a three (3) foot curbside buffer in accordance with the standards set forth within the City’s Streets that Work Plan. WHEREAS the Applicant seeks a Special Use Permit under City Code Secs. 34-420, 34-353(3), and 34-162(a), which collectively,allow the increased residential density, (4) The Landowner, in consultation with the City’s Traffic Engineer, shall develop a additional building height, and modified [reduced] setbacks and onsite parking requirements for Master Parking Plan for the site related to the reduction of onsite parking by 22% from the Project; and what is required by Sec. 34-984 (in effect on the date of Council’s approval of this Special Use Permit). The Master Parking Plan shall indicate how available parking WHEREAS the Property is located within the R-3 zoning district, a district in which, spaces will be distributed within the Project, how residents of the Project are informed according to the Use Matrix set forth within City Code §34-420, the Project as proposed may be of their parking opportunities, any offsite parking options for residents, and other authorized by City Council by means of a special use permit; and potential issues associated with parking. The Master Parking Plan shall be provided as a component of the final approved site plan for the Project, and any subsequent WHEREAS the Project is described in more detail within the application materials amendments approved to the Master Parking Plan shall be made in consultation with submitted by the Landowner in connection with SP22-00001( “Application Materials”); and the City’s Traffic Engineer and a copy maintained along with the final approved site WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council conducted a joint public hearing plan, within the zoning file for the Property. on May 10, 2022, after notice and advertisement as required by law; and (5) The Landowner shall upgrade the pedestrian crossing of Jefferson Park Avenue at WHEREAS following the joint public hearing, the Planning Commission considered and Harmon Street during construction of the Project, to provide residents within the recommended approval of this application at their May 10, 2022 meeting; and Project safe access to public transit options. The Landowner shall work with the City’s Traffic Engineer to determine the scope of improvements. WHEREAS upon consideration of the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the City Staff Report, comments received at the joint public hearing, and the factors set forth within Sec. (6) The arrangement of the buildings within the Property shall be generally consistent with 34-157 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, this Council finds and determines that granting the the layout and design presented within the Application Materials for SP22-00001. 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 for the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, THAT a Aye No Approved by Council Special Use Permit is hereby granted to allow the Project to be established on the Property, subject to the following conditions: Magill _absent___ September 19, 2022 Payne _x__ ____ (1) Not more than seventy (70) dwelling units per acre (DUA) shall be permitted within Pinkston _x__ ____ the area of the Property. Snook _x__ ____ Kyna Thomas, MMC (2) The rear-yard setback applicable within the Property shall be thirty-six (36) feet, and a Wade _x__ ____ Clerk of Council 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA PROJECT SUMMARY + SUP RESOLUTION Architects & Planners 2 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 Contents (1) Overall architectural design, form, and style of the subject building pages 16 - 44 or structure, including, but not limited to: the height, mass and scale; (2) Exterior architectural details and features of the subject building or pages 12 - 41 structure; (3) Texture, materials and color of materials proposed for use on the page 42 -43 (additionally 12 - 41) subject building or structure; See accompanying graphic materials. (4) Design and arrangement of buildings and structures on the subject see all site plans, landscape plans, sections and elevations distributed within site; (5) The extent to which the features and characteristics described pages 4 - 11 (additionally appendix a) within paragraphs (1)-(4), above, are architecturally compatible (or incompatible) with similar features and characteristics of other buildings and structures having frontage on the same EC street(s) as the subject property. (6) Provisions of the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines. appendix a (7) A complete application shall include all plans, maps, studies, distributed throughout reports, photographs, drawings, and other informational materials which may be reasonably required in order make the determinations called for in an particular case. (8) Building elevations shall be provided, unless waived by the director. pages 14 - 25 (9) Each application shall include a landscaping plan as outlined in the pages 44 - 51 ordinance. (10) Each application shall include information about proposed lighting page 49 - 50 as outlined in the provisions of Article IX, Division 3, Sec. 34-100, et seq. 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ERB APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: SECTION 34-306 Architects & Planners 3 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 SECTION 1 ERB GUIDELINES Highlights of the proposal’s response to the city’s Entrance Corridor Review Guidelines Exterior materials are brick and stucco, consistent Multiple terraced spaces along JPA have the potential In its current state, the site’s presence along the corridor with other buildings along the corridor. Building to enhance the public realm. The entry plaza-- planted is undetermined. With only a modest, unremarkable massing is varied, not monolithic. The scale-- evident throughout with a rich diversity of native species-- building at the corner of JPA and Observatory Ave and in fenestration, entrances, site stairs, canopies and results in a kind of expanded sidewalk with places to sit, few street trees-- none of these deliberately arranged-- porches-- is appropriate for this district. rest, eat and talk. The opportunities here for pedestrian passersby have little to identify as a street wall or street comfort and interaction in a shaded environment edge. The proposed architecture and landscape will represent a distinct improvement over most of the engage the street corners and create a legible street student housing that fronts this corridor. edge. Design for a Corridor Vision Create an Inviting Public Realm Create a Sense of Place 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ERB GUIDELINES DESIGN PRINCIPLES Architects & Planners 5 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 Street Trees + Native Species Avoid Excessive Curb Cuts Design Sidewalks appropriate for the Site 515 520 525 510 505 A varied selection of plantings-- from large trees to Following city guidelines, the sidewalk along JPA will be medium trees to shrubs-- will benefit the environment 7’ wide with a planted buffer. Along the side avenues, around the building, encouraging people to gather and continuous sidewalks will be installed. This will be a 503 socialize within the color, comfort and shelter of the big improvement over present conditions, in which 510 507.66 landscape. In addition to street trees, multiple planting sidewalks along both Washington and Observatory beds-- as buffers along JPA, in transitional spaces Avenues are missing for significant stretches adjacent 509.66 509.5 509.5 510 between sidewalks and entrance terraces/porches, and 510 to this site. 509.66 529 along the building edge-- will host smaller plantings. 510 509.85 525 525 530 The combination of plantings will enhance a sense of 510 scale around the building, both emphasizing edges and enclosing outdoor space. Plant selections prioritize 510 native species, most recommended by Charlottesville’s The proposed project requires only one curb cut Tree Packet. on Washington Avenue, zero on Observatory Ave. Currently, there are seven curb cuts on both side avenues, typically including cars parked at all hours 539 in front yards. 510 535 Corner of JPA and Observatory Avenue 519.5 523 525 539 540 Observatory Avenue 513 540 525 SCALE: 1" = 30' Washington Avenue 2005 JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE MITCHELL / MATTHEWS © 2021 ASPEN HEIGHT S PARTNERS ARCHITECTS & PLA NNERS Tuesday, December 7, 2021 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 434-979-7550 Washington Avenue 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ERB GUIDELINES STREETSCAPE Architects & Planners 6 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 Orient Building Facades to Front on the Prioritize Building Facades that Face Locate most open space at the Perimeter Corridor Street Corners The JPA facade includes not only a prominent entry A secondary-- but still visually significant-- entry is Open space is purposefully designed along the site’s portal but an entry plaza. The brick base and brick around the corner on Washington Avenue. The two edges. New sidewalks, an array of plantings and volume that extend up at the entry are prominent along entries-- combined with site stairs and the brick-face bioretention will all liven the perimeter and improve the the Corridor frontage. corner volume-- help mark this important intersection, environment. On Observatory Avenue, open space is the one which pedestrians and cyclists traveling from punctuated by neighborhood scaled porches, where UVA westward will encounter first. tenants can see and be seen. 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ERB GUIDELINES SITE Architects & Planners 7 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 BIOFILTER OBSERVATORY AVE. Plant Along Site Boundaries Use Different Scales of Plantings Stormwater Treatment as an Element of Landscape Boundaries will be extensively planted with native Plantings in a range of sizes are proposed Biofilters are designed into the landscape along species. portions of the rear of the site and along Observatory Avenue. 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ERB GUIDELINES SITE Architects & Planners 8 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 Reduce the Visibility of Garages Lighting to Provide Appropriate Illumination Choose High Quality Materials for Site Walls Parking is concealed beneath the building, accessed Brick and stone-- durable materials not uncommon in by a single point of entry on Washington Avenue, over ULE-40601 this district-- are proposed for site walls. Legend 2 Recessed 200 feet from its intersection with JPA. Construction Rectangular time-honoured wall recessed accent range. Efficient, flexible and tough Aluminum Casting Less than 0.1% copper content – Marine Grade 6060 extruded family in the classic brick-light proportions. & LM6 Aluminum High Pressure die casting provides excellent mechanical strength , clean detailed product lines and excellent heat dissipation. A range of vandal resistant rectangular wall recessed luminaires. Suitable for indoor or outdoor applications in Pre paint 8 step degrease and phosphate process that includes residential, shopping and pedestrian areas as a decorative over 200’ deoxidizing and etching as well as a zinc and nickel phosphate guide light. Available in a variety of frame and LED light process before product painting. source options, including turtle friendly amber LED. Wash. Ave. parking entry Aluminum Finish Memory Retentive -Silicon Gasket Provided with special injection molded “fit for purpose” long life high temperature memory retentive silicon gaskets. The Legend 1 and 2 is available with powdercoated aluminum Maintains the gaskets exact profile and seal over years of use or stainless steel frames. This luminaire is provided with a and compression. powdercoated high pressure die-cast aluminum back box and Jefferson Park Ave. Thermal management can be pre shipped to the jobsite for concrete pour or LM6 Aluminum is used for its excellent mechanical strength masonry applications. and thermal dissipation properties in low and high ambient temperatures. The superior thermal heat sink design by Ligman used in conjunction with the driver, controls thermals As an option, this luminaire can be provided with a special below critical temperature range to ensure maximum luminous flux output, as well as providing long LED service life wall clamp bracket that provides a clamping option when and ensuring less than 10% lumen depreciation at 50,000 installing in drywall or wood panel walls. hours. Stainless Steel Finish BUG Rating Available in amber and white 2700K, 3000K, 3500K and B0 - U1 - G0 4000K. Consult factory for additional colors. The Legend Surge Suppression steplight range can be provided with colored lenses to Standard 10kv surge suppressor provided with all fixtures. provide a decorative architectural touch to the building, 11w COB 155 Lumens Finishing please see options. IP65 • Suitable For Wet Locations All Ligman products go through an extensive finishing process that includes fettling to improve paint adherence. IK07 • Impact Resistant (Vandal Resistant) All Ligman fixtures can be manufactured using a special Paint pre-treatment and coating process that ensures the fixture Weight 4.1 lbs UV Stabilized 4.9Mil thick powder coat paint and baked at 200 Deg C. This process ensures that Ligman products can can be installed in natatoriums as well as environments with withstand harsh environments. Rated for use in natatoriums. high concentrations of chlorine or salt and still maintain the 5 Inspired by Nature Finishes year warranty. For this natatorium rated process please The Inspired by nature Finishing is a unique system of specify NAT in options. fixture can be installed in natatori- decorative powder coating. Our metal decoration process can easily transform the appearance of metal or aluminum product ums as well as environments with high concentrations of into a wood grain finish. chlorine or salt and still maintain the 5 year warranty. For This patented technology enables the simulation of wood grain, this natatorium rated process please specify NAT in and even marble or granite finish through the use of decorative powder coating. options. 10.2” The wood grain finish is so realistic that it’s almost undistinguishable from real wood, even from a close visual inspection. The system of coating permeates the entire thickness of the coat and as a result, the coating cannot be Additional Options (Consult Factory For Pricing) removed by normal rubbing, chipping, or scratching. The Coating Process 0.31” 0.19”-1.0” After pre-treatment the prepared parts are powder coated with a specially formulated polyurethane powder. This powder This allows a heavily planted pedestrian environment provides protection against wear, abrasion, impact and 3.6” 3.9” corrosion and acts as the relief base color for the finalized metal decoration. The component is then wrapped with a sheet of non-porous along the Corridor. Contrast this with present condi- film with the selected decoration pattern printed on it using 3.8” .2” (-S), special high temperature inks. .3” (-A) SMB DWC This printed film transfer is vacuum-sealed to the surface for a complete thermo print and then transferred into a customized Surface Mount Box Dry Wall Clamp tions, in which multiple nearby properties prioritize as- oven. The oven transforms the ink into different forms within the paint layer before it becomes solid. Finally, the film is removed, and a vivid timber look on aluminum remains. Wood grain coating can create beautiful wood-looking products of any sort. There are over 300 combinations of designs phalt and parked cars abutting the Corridor. currently in use. Wood grains can be made with different colors, designs, etc. Our powder coatings are certified for indoor and outdoor applications and are backed by a comprehensive warranty. These coatings rise to the highest conceivable standard of performance excellence and design innovation. Added Benefits • Resistance to salt-acid room, accelerated aging • Boiling water, lime and condensed water resistant • Anti-Graffiti, Anti-Slip, Anti-Microbial, Anti-Scratch • Super durable (UV restant) • TGIC free (non-toxic) Hardware Provided Hardware is Marine grade 316 Stainless steel. Anti Seize Screw Holes Tapped holes are infused with a special anti seize compound designed to prevent seizure of threaded connections, due to electrolysis from heat, corrosive atmospheres and moisture. High Impact Acrylic Lens Manufactured with Ultra High Impact, Naturally UV Stabilized Injection Molded Acrylic. Optics & LED Precise optic design provides exceptional light control and precise distribution of light. LED CRI > 80 Lumen - Maintenance Life L80 /B10 at 50,000 hours (This means that at least 90% of the LED still achieve 80% of their original flux) Ligman Lighting USA reserves the right to change specifications without prior notice, please contact factory for latest information. Due to the continual improvements in LED technology data and components may change without notice. Lighting choices-- locations and provisional selections of which are described on pages 49-50-- will enhance safety without creating unnecessary illumination. Following BAR guidelines, the color temperature will not exceed 3000K and the color rendering index will not be lower than 80. 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ERB GUIDELINES SITE Architects & Planners 9 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 Use Step Backs at Upper Stories Use Varied Wall Surfaces Use Massing Reduction Techniques Step backs are used in prominent locations, including Avoid Large Expanses of Blank Walls the JPA facing corners of each building wing. At the rear corner on Observatory, the volumes step back to mitigate massing where the building is closest to the smaller scale neighborhood. corner of JPA and Washington Ave. Wall surfaces do not extend for long stretches in the A variety of massing reduction techniques are employed, same plane. Facades are distinguished by projections among them step backs, variations in color and changes and interrupted by recesses at regular intervals. Brick of materials. Along the side avenues-- where existing facades are typically less than 40’ wide, and windows houses tend to be smaller than they are along JPA-- occur at regular intervals-- even in stair towers-- brick facades, limited to threes stories tall above the avoiding blank, undifferentiated vertical surfaces. rear and middle-rear ground level are intended to draw attention away from the building’s upper stories, which are finished in darker, subdued materials. These brick faces do not extend continuously and monotonously, but are spaced apart, typically vertically proportioned, rear corner along Observatory Ave. creating an impression not unlike a series of rowhouses. 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ERB GUIDELINES BUILDING Architects & Planners 10 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 Opening with Traditional Vertical Proportions Use Storefronts or Large Display Windows at Use Material Changes to Improve Massing Preferred Street Level Windows and doors are all vertically proportioned At the plaza along JPA and Washington Avenue Material and color changes are used on all building storefront is used at the two points of entry. At the facades to improve massing. opposite corner, it’s also used at a commons space with visibility on the Corridor. 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ERB GUIDELINES BUILDING Architects & Planners 11 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 SECTION 2 PROPOSED DESIGN Illustrations of the previous design + the current pro- posal 515 520 525 510 505 WASHINGTON AVENUE PROPERTY LINE 503 510 507.66 509.66 509.5 509.5 JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE 510 510 20’ SETBACK 509.66 529 510 509.85 525 525 530 510 505 510 36’ PROPOSED SETBACK PROPERTY LINE 26.35’ SETBACK PROPERTY LINE 539 75’ SETBACK 25’ BUFFER 510 535 510 20’ SETBACK 519.5 523 525 539 540 513 540 PROPERTY LINE OBSERVATORY AVENUE 525 2005 JPA SCALE: 1" = 30' SITE M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA 2005 JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE SITE PLAN, refer to page 44 for updated landscape plan Architects MITCHELL / MATTHEWS © 2021 & Planners 13 12.20.2022 ASPEN HEIGHT S PARTNERS All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 ARCHITECTS & PLA NNERS © 2022 SK-153 Tuesday, December 7, 2021 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 434-979-7550 OBSERVATORY AVENUE WASHINGTON AVENUE 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ELEVATION JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE PREVIOUS DESIGN Architects & Planners 14 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 593’ +/- Roof OBSERVATORY AVENUE WASHINGTON AVENUE 574’ +/- Top of Brick Facades 524’ +/- Average Grade 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ELEVATION JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE Architects & Planners 15 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 Brick facades limited to three stories above podium to reduce perceived massing OBSERVATORY AVENUE WASHINGTON AVENUE 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ELEVATION JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE Architects & Planners 16 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ELEVATION OBSERVATORY AVENUE PREVIOUS DESIGN Architects & Planners 17 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE 593’ +/- Roof 574’ +/- Top of Brick Facades 524’ +/- Average Grade 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ELEVATION OBSERVATORY AVENUE Architects & Planners 18 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE Brick facades limited to three stories above podium to reduce perceived massing 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ELEVATION OBSERVATORY AVENUE Architects & Planners 19 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ELEVATION WASHINGTON AVENUE PREVIOUS DESIGN Architects & Planners 20 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE 593’ +/- Roof 574’ +/- Top of Brick Facades 524’ +/- Average Grade 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ELEVATION WASHINGTON AVENUE Architects & Planners 21 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE Brick facades limited to three stories above podium to reduce perceived massing 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ELEVATION WASHINGTON AVENUE Architects & Planners 22 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 OBSERVATORY AVENUE WASHINGTON AVENUE 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ELEVATION REAR FACADE PREVIOUS DESIGN Architects & Planners 23 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 OBSERVATORY AVENUE WASHINGTON AVENUE 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ELEVATION REAR FACADE Architects & Planners 24 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 Brick facades limited to three sto- ries above podium to reduce per- ceived massing OBSERVATORY AVENUE WASHINGTON AVENUE 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ELEVATION REAR FACADE Architects & Planners 25 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA PERSPECTIVE JPA & OBSERVATORY AVE CORNER PREVIOUS DESIGN Architects & Planners 26 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA PERSPECTIVE JPA & OBSERVATORY AVE CORNER PREVIOUS DESIGN Architects & Planners 27 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 Previous massing in red 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA PERSPECTIVE JPA & OBSERVATORY AVE CORNER CURRENT DESIGN + PREVIOUS OUTLINE Architects & Planners 28 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA PERSPECTIVE JPA & OBSERVATORY AVE CORNER Architects & Planners 29 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA PERSPECTIVE JPA FACADE PREVIOUS DESIGN Architects & Planners 30 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA PERSPECTIVE JPA FACADE PREVIOUS DESIGN Architects & Planners 31 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 Previous massing in red 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA PERSPECTIVE JPA FACADE CURRENT DESIGN + PREVIOUS OUTLINE Architects & Planners 32 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA PERSPECTIVE JPA FACADE Architects & Planners 33 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA PERSPECTIVE JPA & WASHINGTON AVE CORNER PREVIOUS DESIGN Architects & Planners 34 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA PERSPECTIVE JPA & WASHINGTON AVE CORNER PREVIOUS DESIGN Architects & Planners 35 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 Previous massing in red 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA PERSPECTIVE JPA & WASHINGTON AVE CORNER CURRENT DESIGN + PREVIOUS OUTLINE Architects & Planners 36 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA PERSPECTIVE JPA & WASHINGTON AVE CORNER Architects & Planners 37 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA PARTIAL STREETSCAPE WASHINGTON AVENUE Architects & Planners 38 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA PARTIAL STREETSCAPE OBSERVATORY AVENUE Architects & Planners 39 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA PARTIAL STREETSCAPE JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE Architects & Planners 40 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA PARTIAL STREETSCAPE JPA ENTRY TERRACE Architects & Planners 41 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 OR 1 1 Triangle Cape Cod (or similar) Meridian Brick - mix of Red Wire- cut Flashed & Flat Set (or similar) 2 3 4 4 6 Metal Railings & Canopies (dark gray color similar to Pantone 2 3 4287C) Stucco Color Stucco Color 1 (Pantone 417C or sim.) (Pantone 447C or sim.) sand or float finish -- vertical scoring aligned at window roughcast or montalvo finish, 5 edges + horizontal scoring at window headers and sills minimal scoring 2 5 3 6 7 7 White Window Color Black Window Color White Metal (based on Ply Gem standard color) (based on Ply Gem standard color) at entry portal & podium level canopies 9 8 8 9 Fieldstone Wall Bluestone wall caps (Western Maryland Thin or similar) 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA BUILDING MATERIALS Architects & Planners 42 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA BRICK & WINDOW SERIES Basis of Design Architects & Planners 43 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 LEGEND APARTMENT COMPLEX ENTRANCE/ EGRESS WASHINGTON AVENUE PRIVATE APARTMENT ENTRANCE/ EGRESS JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE PUBLIC SIDEWALK MECH. EQUIP SLOPED WALK STEPS TABLES + CHAIRS TRY GE EN EGRESS ONLY GARA BIKE STORAGE STEPS LANDSCAPE STEPS 25’ SETBACK JPA SITE SECTION 1 PLANTED BUFFER: S-3, CANOPY, EVERGREEN, EAST BOUND LANE WEST BOUND LANE STREET PARKING BIKE LANE PUBLIC WALK UNDERSTORY TREES, SHRUBS TABLES + CHAIRS EGRESS ONLY BIOFILTER PORCH PORCH PORCH PORCH RAMP SCALE 1”=5’ BIOFILTER BIOFILTER BIOFILTER BIOFILTER 0 5’ 10’ PUBLIC SIDEWALK SCALE 1”=10’ 0 10’ 20’ OBSERVATORY AVENUE 0 SCALE 1”=20’ 20’ 40’ SCALE 1”=30’ 0 30’ 60’ 2005 JPA M0I T C H E L L 80’ / M AT T H E W S SCALE 1”=40’ Charlottesville VA LANDSCAPE PLAN 40’ Architects & Planners 44 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 4 3 4 . 9 7SCALE 9 . 71”=60’ 550 © 2022 0 60’ 120’ STORMWATER CONCEPT: BRICK SITE WALLS: STONE SITE WALLS: MICRO-BIOFILTERS ALONG OBSERVATORY AVE.; NATIVE ALONG OBSERVATORY + WASHINGTON AVE, ALONG JPA STREET FRONTAGE AND LANDSCAPE PLANTING AND WEIR WALLS/ TIERS TO SLOW THE ARCHITECTURAL FACADE AND TERRACES TERRACES MOVEMENT OF WATER Entry Elevation (behind) Pool deck podium level PROPOSED EXISTING 2005 JPA AVENUE RESIDENCES west bound bike parking east bound existing parking bike existing lane lane lane lane power line sidewalk 3.5’ 7’ 12.5’ 5.5’ + planted 8.5’ median Outside of survey extents 37’ 1 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA LANDSCAPE JPA SECTION + HARDSCAPE MATERIALS Architects & Planners 45 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 Willow Oak Quercus phellos London Plane Tree Platanus x acerfolia 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA LANDSCAPE PALETTE Architects & Planners 46 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 Witch Hazel Hamamelis virginiana Sweetbay Magnolia Magnolia virginiana 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA LANDSCAPE PALETTE Architects & Planners 47 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 Kentucky Coffeetree Gymnocladus dioicus ‘Espresso” alternative: Honey Locust (Thornless) WASHINGTON AVE STREET TREES Black gum Nyssa sylvatica OBSERVATORY AVE. STREET TREES (STORMWATER) 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA LANDSCAPE PALETTE Architects & Planners 48 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 LEGEND PEDESTRIAN BOLLARD SITE WALL LIGHT WASHINGTON AVENUE WALL MOUNTED JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE TRY GE EN GARA BIKE LANE SCALE 1”=5’ 0 5’ 10’ SCALE 1”=10’ 0 10’ 20’ OBSERVATORY AVENUE 0 SCALE 1”=20’ 20’ 40’ 1. See notes on cut sheet page for additional information SCALE 1”=30’ 0 30’ 60’ 2005 JPA MITC H E L L / M AT T H E W S SITE LIGHTING PLAN SCALE 1”=40’ Charlottesville VA 0 Architects 40’ 80’ & Planners 49 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 4 3 4 . 9 7SCALE 9 . 71”=60’ 550 © 2022 0 60’ 120’ ULI-10022 ULE-40601 ULI-30012 Light Linear PT 1 Single Head Bollard T E C H N O L O G Y Legend 2 Recessed Light Linear PT 12 Surface T E C H N O L O G Y Area distribution bollard-integrated projectors. Construction Area distribution wall-mounted projectors. Construction Construction Rectangular time-honoured wall recessed Stylish but technically precise area lighting solutions Stylish but technically precise area lighting accent range. Efficient, flexible and tough Aluminum Aluminum as part of a large flexible family. Aluminum Casting solutions as part of a large flexible family. Less than 0.1% copper content – Marine Grade 6060 extruded Less than 0.1% copper content – Marine Grade 6060 extruded family in the classic brick-light proportions. Less than 0.1% copper content – Marine & LM6 Aluminum High Pressure die casting provides excellent & LM6 Aluminum High Pressure die casting provides excellent Grade 6060 extruded & LM6 Aluminum High mechanical strength , clean detailed product lines and Light Linear PT Bollard is an elegant minimalistic bollard that is mechanical strength , clean detailed product lines and excellent heat dissipation. suitable for both modern and classic architecture. Ideal for excellent heat dissipation. A range of vandal resistant rectangular wall recessed Pressure die casting provides excellent Light Linear PT wall light is an elegant wall mount luminaires. Suitable for indoor or outdoor applications in mechanical strength , clean detailed product fixture suitable for both modern and classic Pre paint creating visual guidance with exceptional visual comfort. The dual Pre paint residential, shopping and pedestrian areas as a decorative lines and excellent heat dissipation. architecture. Ideal for creating visual guidance, TURTLE FRIENDLY 8 step degrease and phosphate process that includes sealed optical chamber with integrated heat sinks houses a range 8 step degrease and phosphate process that includes TURTLE FRIENDLY deoxidizing and etching as well as a zinc and nickel phosphate deoxidizing and etching as well as a zinc and nickel phosphate guide light. Available in a variety of frame and LED light process before product painting. of field interchangeable optically controlled LED’s, providing Type with exceptional visual comfort. process before product painting. Pre paint II, III, IV & V distribution, as well as variations of this for precise source options, including turtle friendly amber LED. Memory Retentive -Silicon Gasket light distribution requirements. Aluminum Finish Memory Retentive -Silicon Gasket 8 step degrease and phosphate process that Provided with special injection molded “fit for purpose” long An example of this, is using a combination of Type II and Type IV Provided with special injection molded “fit for purpose” long includes deoxidizing and etching as well as a The dual sealed optical chamber with integrated life high temperature memory retentive silicon gaskets. life high temperature memory retentive silicon gaskets. The Legend 1 and 2 is available with powdercoated aluminum zinc and nickel phosphate process before Maintains the gaskets exact profile and seal over years of use distribution optics inside the same fixture. Maintains the gaskets exact profile and seal over years of use or stainless steel frames. This luminaire is provided with a product painting. heat sinks houses a range of field interchangeable 55w LED 6240 Lumens and compression. This product range is available in 29w and 55w options, as single and compression. powdercoated high pressure die-cast aluminum back box and & double head styles. 54w LED 6193 Lumens optically controlled LED’s, providing Type II, III, IV & IP65 • Suitable For Wet Locations can be pre shipped to the jobsite for concrete pour or Thermal management LM6 Aluminum is used for its excellent mechanical strength Thermal management IP65 • Suitable For Wet Locations Memory Retentive -Silicon Gasket V distribution, as well as variations of this for IK08 • Impact Resistant (Vandal Resistant) LM6 Aluminum is used for its excellent mechanical strength masonry applications. Provided with special injection molded “fit for precise light distribution requirements. An example and thermal dissipation properties in low and high ambient Customer specific wattages can be provided, contact the factory and thermal dissipation properties in low and high ambient temperatures. The superior thermal heat sink design by for more information. temperatures. The superior thermal heat sink design by IK08 • Impact Resistant (Vandal Resistant) purpose” long life high temperature memory Weight 26 lbs Ligman used in conjunction with the driver, controls thermals Ligman used in conjunction with the driver, controls thermals As an option, this luminaire can be provided with a special retentive silicon gaskets. Maintains the of this, is using a combination of Type II and Type below critical temperature range to ensure maximum below critical temperature range to ensure maximum Weight 17 lbs 12.6” luminous flux output, as well as providing long LED service life Bollards can be provided with GFCI boxes positioned to specific luminous flux output, as well as providing long LED service life wall clamp bracket that provides a clamping option when gaskets exact profile and seal over years of IV distribution optics inside the same fixture. 7.87” 9.5” 6” and ensuring less than 10% lumen depreciation at 50,000 heights specified by the customer. and ensuring less than 10% lumen depreciation at 50,000 installing in drywall or wood panel walls. 19.8” use and compression. hours. hours. 2.5” Internal house side shields are available as an option. Stainless Steel Finish This fixture is unique as it has a IP68 driver housing Surge Suppression BUG Rating Available in amber and white 2700K, 3000K, 3500K and Thermal management Standard 10kv surge suppressor provided with all fixtures. To meet International Dark Sky criteria, 3000k or warmer LEDs B0 - U1 - G0 4000K. Consult factory for additional colors. The Legend 3.5” LM6 Aluminum is used for its excellent container that is housed within the IP65 rated light BUG Rating must be selected. Surge Suppression steplight range can be provided with colored lenses to mechanical strength and thermal dissipation fixture. B1 - U0 - G1 16.7” 13” Standard 10kv surge suppressor provided with all fixtures. provide a decorative architectural touch to the building, properties in low and high ambient 3.14” x 7.87” Optional: Security Bollard: 11w COB 155 Lumens Finishing Finishing please see options. temperatures. The superior thermal heat This product range is complemented with high 7.88” All Ligman products go through an extensive finishing process The Light Linear Bollard is available as a traffic rated security IP65 • Suitable For Wet Locations All Ligman products go through an extensive finishing process sink design by Ligman used in conjunction 40” that includes fettling to improve paint adherence. performance optics in the bollard and streetlight 1.18” 3.15” bollard. that includes fettling to improve paint adherence. All Ligman fixtures can be manufactured using a special with the driver, controls thermals below 5.52” IK07 • Impact Resistant (Vandal Resistant) luminaires, to provide a consistent range of design Paint This security bollard provides restraint of vehicular traffic in Paint pre-treatment and coating process that ensures the fixture ø .4” critical temperature range to ensure UV Stabilized 4.9Mil thick powder coat paint and baked at 200 unauthorized areas. Weight 4.1 lbs UV Stabilized 4.9Mil thick powder coat paint and baked at 200 maximum luminous flux output, as well as aesthetics for any project. Deg C. This process ensures that Ligman products can can be installed in natatoriums as well as environments with ø0.6 Impact calculations shows this bollard will stop a 5,500lb/2.75 Deg C. This process ensures that Ligman products can providing long LED service life and ensuring 7” withstand harsh environments. Rated for use in natatoriums. withstand harsh environments. Rated for use in natatoriums. high concentrations of chlorine or salt and still maintain the 5 4” tons vehicle, travelling at 30mph. less than 10% lumen depreciation at 50,000 1.58” Inspired by Nature Finishes The galvanized pole must be filled with concrete up to the Inspired by Nature Finishes year warranty. For this natatorium rated process please To meet International Dark Sky criteria, 3000k or specify NAT in options. fixture can be installed in natatori- hours. The Inspired by nature Finishing is a unique system of decorative powder coating. Our metal decoration process can waterproof driver housing to provide a solid concrete barrier. The Inspired by nature Finishing is a unique system of decorative powder coating. Our metal decoration process can 16.7” 15.1” warmer LEDs must be selected and luminaire fix Mounting Detail ums as well as environments with high concentrations of easily transform the appearance of metal or aluminum product easily transform the appearance of metal or aluminum product Surge Suppression mounted (+/- 15˚ allowable to permit leveling). into a wood grain finish. into a wood grain finish. chlorine or salt and still maintain the 5 year warranty. For Standard 10kv surge suppressor provided This patented technology enables the simulation of wood grain, This patented technology enables the simulation of wood grain, this natatorium rated process please specify NAT in with all fixtures. 4.3” and even marble or granite finish through the use of decorative Additional Options (Consult Factory For Pricing) and even marble or granite finish through the use of decorative options. powder coating. powder coating. 10.2” 6” BUG Rating Additional Options (Consult Factory For Pricing) The wood grain finish is so realistic that it’s almost The wood grain finish is so realistic that it’s almost undistinguishable from real wood, even from a close visual B1 - U0 - G1 undistinguishable from real wood, even from a close visual inspection. The system of coating permeates the entire Mounting Detail inspection. The system of coating permeates the entire thickness of the coat and as a result, the coating cannot be Additional Options (Consult Factory For Pricing) thickness of the coat and as a result, the coating cannot be removed by normal rubbing, chipping, or scratching. Finishing removed by normal rubbing, chipping, or scratching. All Ligman products go through an extensive finishing process that includes fettling to T E C H N O L O G Y The Coating Process 0.31” The Coating Process 0.19”-1.0” After pre-treatment the prepared parts are powder coated with After pre-treatment the prepared parts are powder coated with a specially formulated polyurethane powder. This powder improve paint adherence. 34.67” a specially formulated polyurethane powder. This powder provides protection against wear, abrasion, impact and provides protection against wear, abrasion, impact and 3.6” 3.9” corrosion and acts as the relief base color for the finalized metal Ligman’s micro Variable Optical System provides the ability corrosion and acts as the relief base color for the finalized metal decoration. Paint decoration. UV Stabilized 4.9Mil thick powder coat paint to interchange, mix & rotate optics to provide specific light The component is then wrapped with a sheet of non-porous distributions for optimized spacing and uniformity. and baked at 200 Deg C. T E C H N O L O G Y The component is then wrapped with a sheet of non-porous film with the selected decoration pattern printed on it using film with the selected decoration pattern printed on it using 3.8” .2” (-S), special high temperature inks. This process ensures that Ligman products special high temperature inks. SMB DWC .3” (-A) can withstand harsh environments. This printed film transfer is vacuum-sealed to the surface for a Surface Mount Box Dry Wall Clamp Ligman’s micro Variable Optical System provides the ability This printed film transfer is vacuum-sealed to the surface for a complete thermo print and then transferred into a customized Rated for use in natatoriums. SAM complete thermo print and then transferred into a customized oven. The oven transforms the ink into different forms within to interchange, mix & rotate optics to provide specific light Small Adjustable Arm oven. The oven transforms the ink into different forms within the paint layer before it becomes solid. Finally, the film is distributions for optimized spacing and uniformity. the paint layer before it becomes solid. Finally, the film is A13391 GFCI removed, and a vivid timber look on aluminum remains. Hardware Type I Type II Type III removed, and a vivid timber look on aluminum remains. Security Bollard GFCI Box Provided Hardware is Marine grade 316 Wood grain coating can create beautiful wood-looking products Wood grain coating can create beautiful wood-looking products of any sort. There are over 300 combinations of designs Stainless steel. of any sort. There are over 300 combinations of designs currently in use. Wood grains can be made with different currently in use. Wood grains can be made with different colors, designs, etc. Anti Seize Screw Holes colors, designs, etc. Our powder coatings are certified for indoor and outdoor Type I Type II Type III Tapped holes are infused with a special anti Our powder coatings are certified for indoor and outdoor applications and are backed by a comprehensive warranty. seize compound designed to prevent seizure applications and are backed by a comprehensive warranty. These coatings rise to the highest conceivable standard of performance excellence and design innovation. of threaded connections, due to electrolysis These coatings rise to the highest conceivable standard of performance excellence and design innovation. from heat, corrosive atmospheres and Added Benefits Type IV Type V • Resistance to salt-acid room, accelerated aging moisture. Added Benefits • Boiling water, lime and condensed water resistant • Resistance to salt-acid room, accelerated aging • Anti-Graffiti, Anti-Slip, Anti-Microbial, Anti-Scratch • Boiling water, lime and condensed water resistant Crystal Clear Low Iron Glass Lens The variable optic system allows for the designer to create • Super durable (UV restant) • Anti-Graffiti, Anti-Slip, Anti-Microbial, Anti-Scratch • TGIC free (non-toxic) Provided with tempered, impact resistant hybrid distributions for precise lighting requirements. • Super durable (UV resistant) Type IV Type V • TGIC free (non-toxic) crystal clear low iron glass ensuring no green Hardware Provided Hardware is Marine grade 316 Stainless steel. The variable optic system allows for the designer to create glass tinge. Hardware Provided Hardware is Marine grade 316 Stainless steel. hybrid distributions for precise lighting requirements. Anti Seize Screw Holes Tapped holes are infused with a special anti seize compound Optics & LED Anti Seize Screw Holes designed to prevent seizure of threaded connections, due to Precise optic design provides exceptional Tapped holes are infused with a special anti seize compound designed to prevent seizure of threaded connections, due to electrolysis from heat, corrosive atmospheres and moisture. light control and precise distribution of light. electrolysis from heat, corrosive atmospheres and moisture. High Impact Acrylic Lens LED CRI > 80 Manufactured with Ultra High Impact, Naturally UV Stabilized Crystal Clear Low Iron Glass Lens Injection Molded Acrylic. Provided with tempered, impact resistant crystal clear low iron Lumen - Maintenance Life glass ensuring no green glass tinge. Optics & LED L80 /B10 at 50,000 hours (This means that at RGBW or Static Color Laser Cut Lettering, Logos & Designs Precise optic design provides exceptional light control and least 90% of the LED still achieve 80% of their Optics & LED (LLVT Bollard shown for visual reference) precise distribution of light. Precise optic design provides exceptional light control and LED CRI > 80 original flux) precise distribution of light. Ligman can provide custom logos and signage in the Light Linear Bollard HYBRID LED CRI > 80 Lumen - Maintenance Life The images above show this feature in the Light Linear VT Bollard TYPE I & TYPE IV L80 /B10 at 50,000 hours (This means that at least 90% of the HYBRID Lumen - Maintenance Life LED still achieve 80% of their original flux) L80 /B10 at 50,000 hours (This means that at least 90% of the TYPE I & TYPE IV LED still achieve 80% of their original flux) Ligman Lighting USA reserves the right to change specifications without prior notice, please contact factory for latest information. Due to the continual improvements in LED technology data and components may change without notice. Ligman Lighting USA reserves the right to change specifications without prior notice, please contact factory for latest information. Due to the continual improvements in LED technology data and components may change without notice. Ligman Lighting USA reserves the right to change specifications without prior notice, please contact factory for latest information. Due to the continual improvements in LED technology data and components may change without notice. PEDESTRIAN BOLLARD SITE WALL LIGHT WALL MOUNTED EXTERIOR LIGHT LITESTICK LED IP66 RATED DATE: PROJECT: TYPE: CATALOG NUMBER LOGIC: 1. Outdoor lighting shall conform to the City of Charlottesville Cod eof CATALOG NUMBER LOGIC Example: LT - 18 - B - LED - e71 - VER - 1 - PP-TRe20 - SF MATERIAL (Blank) - Aluminum B - Brass S - Stainless Steel Ordinances Chapter 34 - Zoning Article IX Division 3, Sec, 34-1000 et. SERIES LT - Litestick STEM LENGTH seq. 3”, 6”, 12”, 18”, 24” STYLE A 2. The selected luminaires and layout may differ from site plan and the the B, C, D, E F SOURCE LED - with Integral Driver* luminaire manufacturers and types listed; cut sheets provided to convey LED TYPE e70 - 3W LED/2700K e72 - 3W LED/4000K lighting concept only. PLANTING ACCENT OR UPLIGHTING IN e71 - 3W LED/3000K e73 - 3W LED/Amber *Designed for use with 12 VAC. LED transformer. FINISH (See page 2 for full-color swatches) 3. Photometrics to confirm adherance to local lighting requirements and **Not available with style ‘C’. Standard Finishes (BZP, BZW, BLP, BLW, WHP, WHW, SAP, VER) TERRACED PLANT BEDS (TBD) ***For use up to 24” maximum overall height. Premium Finish (ABP, AMG, AQW, BCM, BGE, BPP, CAP, CMG, CRI, CRM, HUG, MDS, NBP, OCP, RMG, SDS, SMG, TXF, WCP, WIR) finalize fixture spacing and orientation Also available in RAL Finishes Brass Finishes (MAC, POL, MIT) Stainless Steel Finishes (MAC, POL) OPTICAL OPENING 1 - Single Optical Opening 2 - Dual Optical Opening** MOUNTING PP18B - 18” Power Pipe Stake with ‘B’ Cap 2005 JPA A18 - 18” Power Pipe with 18” Adjustable Stem (Must be specified with 18” stem) M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S PP-TRe20 - Power Pipe T with 18” Stake, TRe20 Electronic Transformer (105-300 VAC. 50/60 Hz. SITE LIGHTING CUT SHEETS non-dimming)*** 50 OPTION Charlottesville VA GS - Adjustable Glare Shield (Only available with Style ‘A’) SF - Stability Flange (For use with Power Pipe) Architects & Planners 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 MADE IN THE USA 559.438.5800 | INFO@BKLIGHTING.COM | BKLIGHTING.COM SCALE 1”=5’ 0 5’ 10’ SCALE 1”=10’ 0 10’ 20’ SCALE 1”=20’ 0 20’ 40’ SCALE 1”=30’ 0 30’ 60’ SCALE 1”=40’ 0 40’ 80’ 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA PAVING PLAN SCALE 1”=60’ A r0 c h i 60’ tects 120’ & Planners 51 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 SCALE 1”=80’ 0 80’ 160’ APPENDIX a ERB GUIDELINES (DETAILED) Full response to all published guidelines (reference Charlottesville’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines) Response Design for a Corridor Vision: New building design should be compatible-- Exterior material selections are predominantly brick and stucco, consistent with other buildings along the JPA corridor. The color palette falls in in massing, scale, materials and colors-- with neighboring structures that a compatible range. Building massing is varied, not monolithic. The scale evident in fenestration, entrances, site stairs, canopies and porches is contribute to the overall quality of the corridor. Site designs should contain appropriate for this district. The landscape design along JPA-- consisting of multiple terraces and plantings-- has the potential to enhance the corridor’s some common elements to provide continuity along the corridor. New character, creating opportunities for pedestrian comfort and interaction in a shaded environment that is a marked improvement over other student development should compliment the city’s character and respect those housing that fronts this corridor. qualities that distinguish the city’s built environment. Preserve History: Preserve historic buildings and distinctive architecture There are no historically designated buildings on this site. The property is in an Entrance Corridor, but it does not fall within any of the city’s Historic from earlier periods. Encourage contemporary design that is respectful of Districts. historic building design. The potential pedestrian experience along JPA represents a significant improvement over streetscapes found elsewhere on the corridor. The existing Facilitate Pedestrian Access: Encourage compact, walkable sidewalk will be rebuilt to current city standards with a narrow planted buffer between parked cars and pedestrians. On site, easily accessible plaza developments. Design pedestrian connections from sidewalk and car spaces adjacent to the sidewalk will give pedestrians a kind of wayside where they can relax and socialize in the shade and beauty of new plantings. to buildings, between buildings and between corridor properties and At the rear of the property, a paved walk is proposed, available for public use, allowing nearby residents a second, alternative connection between adjacent residential areas. Washington and Observatory Avenues. The building height is similar to multiple nearby structures along the corridor. Buildings at 1725 JPA, 1815 JPA and 1800 JPA are five to nine stories Maintain Human Scale in Buildings and Spaces: Consider the impact of tall. Mass and form of the proposed building is varied. Multiple walks and terraces provide usable spaces, traversable by visitors and passers-by. Street building design-- especially height, mass, complexity of form, architectural trees will provide screening, shade and beauty. The dimensions and arrangements of windows, openings and entries are consistent with neighboring details and exterior spaces-- on the people who will pass by, live, work or apartment buildings. shop here. The size, placement of doors, windows, portals and openings define human scale. The landscape plan proposes a variety of native plantings in a variety of sizes-- from smaller shrubs to large trees. Preserve and Enhance Natural Character: Encourage plantings of diverse native species. In addition to the multiple terraced areas along JPA, several of the apartments fronting Observatory Avenue have porches and walks connected to the Create a Sense of Place: In corridors with substantial pedestrian activity, sidewalk. Not only will these benefit the scale of the project, they provide outside spaces from which tenants can easily see and communicate with one goal is to create a sense of place. Building arrangements, uses, other students and city residents as they move to and fro. In its current state the site makes little contribution to the street wall. It lacks architectural natural features and landscaping should contribute, where feasible, to presence on the corridor. Very few buildings front the street to contribute to a sense of place. The proposed development will engage the street corners create exterior space where people can interact. and contribute to the existing street wall-- one defined by variation more than uniformity. A generous array of plaza spaces and planting beds will create a comfortable, shaded environment along the public realm, creating a kind of expanded Create an Inviting Public Realm: Design inviting streetscapes and sidewalk with places to sit, rest, eat and talk. At the corner of Jefferson Park and Observatory Avenues, a corner space is proposed with the potential public spaces. Redevelopment of properties should enhance the existing to serve future commercial use, connected to an outside terrace convenient to passers-by. streetscapes and create an engaging public realm. All on-site parking is concealed under the building. Access to the basement parking is located on Washington Avenue, over 200 feet away from JPA. Mask the Utilitarian: Provide screening from adjacent properties and Storage areas, refuse areas and mechanical equipment will all be concealed within the building or on rooftops behind parapets. public view of: parking lots, outdoor storage and loading areas, refuse areas, mechanical and communication equipment and other uses that have adverse impacts. Relegate parking behind buildings. By and large, traditional materials are proposed, but the building’s architecture does not rely on historic references deployed superficially or romantically. Respect and Enhance Charlottesville’s Character: Architectural It does not indulge vernacular details associated with places outside Charlottesville. transplants from other locales or shallow imitations of Jeffersonian architecture are examples of building designs that are not appropriate. 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ERB REVIEW CRITERIA Architects & Planners 53 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 (reference Charlottesville’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines) Response II. Streetscape Guidelines Plantings & Open Space Use street trees to provide shade, a sense of enclosure and to define Many street trees are proposed along Jefferson Park, Observatory and Washington Avenues. In the site’s current condition, street trees are uncommon. edges. Include appropriately scaled trees, shrubs and other plantings to A varied selection of plantings-- from large trees to medium trees to shrubs-- will benefit the environment around the building, encouraging people to gather provide beauty as well as shade within a pedestrian gathering place and and socialize within the color, comfort and shelter of the landscape. In addition to street trees, multiple planting beds-- as buffers along JPA, in transitional as screening for parking, utilities and service areas. spaces between sidewalks and entrance terraces/porches, and along the building edge-- will host smaller plantings. The combination of plantings will enhance a sense of scale around the building, emphasizing the edges of and enclosing outdoor space. Use hardy native species that require minimal maintenance. Avoid over- Most planting selections come from the Charlottesville Tree Packet of recommended species. Over-used species-- Bradford Pear and Crepe Myrtle, for used species. example-- are not proposed. Use larger species where appropriate to space and function. Certain species-- London Planetree, Honeylocust and Kentucky Coffeetree, among them-- will attain significant height when mature. They are proposed along the streets, where in time they will provide abundant shade and an ever-changing screen of the upper stories of the new building. Expand use of seasonal color in plantings. Multiple species-- blackgum, ? and ? among them-- will provide potentially great colors in fall and spring. Use plantings to promote visual order and help integrate buildings into In time, the varied scale of plantings will create a layered environment from which the building emerges, avoiding abrupt or stark transitions. the corridor. Refer to the Tree Planting and Preservation BMP Manual in the Yes. Charlottesville Standards and Design Manual. II. Streetscape Guidelines Pedestrian Routes Where feasible, provide unbroken pedestrian routes between The continuity of sidewalks will be significantly improved with this project. Currently sidewalks along both Observatory and Washington Avenues are developments. Place paths in a logical pattern where people will want discontinuous on both sides, with stretches of more than 200 feet without sidewalks at all. Where there are sidewalks currently, they are frequently to walk. Separate sidewalks from the curb by a five feet wide landscape crossed by parking drives and aprons. After this project is complete, the sidewalks will continue, without break, along all three street edges. Only one buffer if possible. vehicular drive-- at the Washington Ave. entry to the parking deck-- will cross the new sidewalks. At JPA, a landscape buffer is proposed. Because of utility limitations it will be three feet wide, sufficient for smaller plantings. To compensate, we propose a sufficiently wide planting bed for larger street trees to be located on the building side of the sidewalk. Within developments, identify a complete pedestrian pathway system All building entries, porches and plazas are connected to public pathways, often in multiple locations. At the rear of the property, there is currently a linking all buildings, parking and green spaces. Ensure this network surface parking lot with few trees. For years this lot has served an informal, but illicit, function as a pedestrian connection between Washington and connects to public pedestrian pathways. Observatory Avenues. With this project, a new pedestrian path behind the building-- and open to public use-- will replace the parking lot. The new path will enjoy screening and shade from a wide planted buffer along the north property boundary. 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ERB REVIEW CRITERIA continued Architects & Planners 54 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 (reference Charlottesville’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines) Response II. Streetscape Guidelines Pedestrian Routes, cont. Add designated pedestrian pathways through larger parking lots. No visible surface parking lots are proposed in this project. Provide crosswalks at intersections, between major pedestrian destinations A crosswalk will be provided where the Washington Ave. sidewalk intersects with the vehicular drive accessing the parking levels. and in front of building entrances that link to parking. Design crosswalks to highlight their visibility by slightly raising them, At the entrance to the under-building parking, the crosswalk will not be paved in asphalt, and it will be wider than the sidewalk. making them wider, constructing them of materials other than asphalt and using bulb-out corners than reduce their length. Provide breaks in large building masses to allow pedestrians to pass The concealed parking levels do not permit accessible passage across the full site within the building’s perimeter. However, at the rear of the property, through, particularly through shopping centers. not far from JPA, a public pathway is proposed that crosses the entire property. Currently, it’s unusual for people to walk between Observatory and Washington Avenues except at the rear parking lot and at JPA. Connections at these locations will be retained and improved. Avoid excessive curb cuts for vehicular access across pedestrian ways. The project requires only a single curb cut, marked with a change in material, at the entry to the under-building parking on Washington Ave. This is a Where curb cuts are necessary, mark them with a change in materials, significant reduction to existing curb cut conditions. Currently, there are at least eight curb cuts or driveway crossings located along Observatory and color, texture or grade. Washington Avenues accessing this site. Design sidewalks appropriately for the site and the expected amount In this largely residential district, a seven foot wide sidewalk is proposed along Jefferson Park Ave. of foot travel. Use brick or patterned concrete or a combination of these materials that Currently, there is little precedent in this corridor for brick or patterned concrete walks... however, we propose brick and stone for numerous low site relates to the existing architectural vocabulary of the corridor. walls contiguous to walks and plazas. Avoid concrete curbing poured in continuous strips. We will. Avoid excessive variation in sidewalk and curb material. We will. 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ERB REVIEW CRITERIA continued Architects & Planners 55 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 (reference Charlottesville’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines) Response II. Streetscape Guidelines Bicycle Routes Provide for bicycle traffic along major corridors and between major Currently there is a dedicated bike lane along JPA adjacent to the site. This will remain. destinations, with particular emphasis on connecting residential areas to schools, recreation areas and commercial centers. Provide new bike paths to connect to planned or existing municipal paths NA or paths of adjoing developments. Provide facilities to store or lock bicycles at appropriate sites. Indoor, secure storage for up to XX bicycles will be provided on site. Develop an easily identifiable graphic system of signs and road markings NA to designate bicycle routes and crossings. II. Streetscape Guidelines Lighting Use full cutoff luminaires in accordance with city lighting requirements Full cutoff luminaries will be used. to provide better lighting and prevent unwanted glare. Where appropriate, replace modern cobra-head type lamps and poles NA with painted metal, traditionally designed fixtures that have a base, shaft and luminaire. Consider using a different but compatible style of fixture for each of the NA corridors. Light pedestrian areas with appropriately scaled poles. NA Provide pedestrian lighting at transit stops and along paths to parking lots NA and other destinations. Provide lighting of intersections in high traffic areas. NA Include any lighting upgrades as a part of an overall streetscape plan for NA each corridor. 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ERB REVIEW CRITERIA continued Architects & Planners 56 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 (reference Charlottesville’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines) Response II. Streetscape Guidelines Street Furniture Develop and use a common palette of colors, materials and design. The furniture materials, colors and design will be coherent. Coordinate street furniture along corridors. While they need not match, There is little presence or continuity of street furniture along JPA now. We do not anticipate furniture choices for this project to clash. they should be compatible and not clash. Place benches at key locations such as transit stops. Use traditional No transit stops are currently located along the site’s JPA boundary, but built-in benches and tables are planned to be included on the front entry plaza. designs constructed of wood and/or painted metal. These are very close and convenient to the sidewalk. They will allow a place to wait, rest and meet with friends. If a transit stop is placed here in the future, the project’s benches have the potential to create alternative waiting areas close-by and within sight of it. Avoid placing too many elements on narrow sidewalks. NA II. Streetscape Guidelines Public Signs Develop a system of public way finding and informational signs to reflect NA the character of Charlottesville to be used on all corridors. Coordinate the colors and design of signs within a corridor. The color scheme and design of signs will be consistent and coherent. Keep signs to the minimum number and size necessary for the use. The number of signs will not be excessive. Scale and place signs for both automobile traffic and pedestrians. NA Avoid placing signposts in locations where they can interfere with the NA opening of vehicle doors. Consider using decorative color banners within a specific corridor. NA II. Streetscape Guidelines Public Art & Monuments No public art or sculpture is being replaced by or proposed within this development, so none of the criteria in this section is applicable. 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ERB REVIEW CRITERIA continued Architects & Planners 57 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 (reference Charlottesville’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines) Response II. Streetscape Guidelines Utilities & Comm. Equip. Locate and screen utilities to limit their visibility from the street and Power and communication cables will remain above ground and suspended from utility poles. but transformers and meters will be located out of view from nearby development. from JPA. Place existing and proposed utilities underground. Utilities will not be buried, as is typical of almost all other buildings along this corridor. Consider integrating cellular communication towers into building NA design so as to appear visually unobtrusive. Connectivity Between Entrance III. Site Guidelines Corridor area & neighborhoods Maintain or provide a strong sense of community by providing pedestrian Pedestrian connections to the neighborhoods on Observatory and Washington Avenues are enhanced by improved continuous sidewalks that are and vehicular links from a corridor site to nearby neighborhoods, parks, minimally interrupted by vehicular crossings. schools and other public destinations. Use common streetscape elements, materials and designs to visually Materials typical of the surrounding neighborhoods-- brick, stone, concrete-- will be used in walks and site walls. link the corridor areas and neighborhoods. Provide continuous pedestrian routes along corridors where feasible. Pedestrians routes along the corridor will be enhanced and expanded. Site grading should promote connectivity with adjacent sites. Site grading will not affect adjacent sites. 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ERB REVIEW CRITERIA continued Architects & Planners 58 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 (reference Charlottesville’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines) Response Connectivity Between & III. Site Guidelines Within Sites Create a complete pedestrian pathway system within a site and between All building entries, porches and plazas are connected to public pathways, often in multiple locations. At the rear of the property, there is currently a adjacent sites, linking all buildings, parking areas and green spaces. surface parking lot with few trees. For years this lot has served an informal, but illicit, function as a pedestrian connection between Washington and Ensure that this network connects to any nearby public pedestrian pathway. Observatory Avenues. With this project, a new pedestrian path behind the building-- and open to public use-- will replace the parking lot. The new path will enjoy screening and shade from a wide planted buffer along the north property boundary. Design pedestrian and vehicular circulation to maximize the quality At the entrance to the under-building parking, the crosswalk will not be paved in asphalt, and it will be wider than the sidewalk. The change in materials and safety of the pedestrian experience through: and wider dimension will call attention to pedestrians where the garage entry/exit crosses the sidewalk at Washington Ave. “shared space” approaches that slow vehicle speeds and enhance pedestrian experience; designated, separate sidewalks with planted areas through large parking lots; crosswalks at points of vehicular access routes and in front of building entrances; crosswalk designs that highlight their visibility by slightly raising them, making them wider, by constructing them of materials other than asphalt and by using bulb-out corners that reduce their length. Ensure the new paving materials are compatible with area character. At the entry plaza, associated walks and the corner terrace at the intersection of Jefferson Park and Washington Avenues, paving materials will be Scored concrete with broom finishes, colored, exposed aggregate concrete scored concrete in a buff stain. The walks leading to the Observatory Ave. porches will be paved in brick. and brick or unit pavers are examples of appropriate applications. Avoid large expanses of bright white or gray concrete surfaces. Provide passageways within large building masses to allow pedestrians The concealed parking levels do not permit accessible passage across the full site within the building’s perimeter. However, at the rear of the property, to pass through, particularly through shopping centers. not far from JPA, a public pathway is proposed that crosses the entire property. Currently, it’s unusual for people to walk between Observatory and Washington Avenues except at the rear parking lot and at JPA. Connections at these locations will be retained and improved. 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ERB REVIEW CRITERIA continued Architects & Planners 59 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 (reference Charlottesville’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines) Response III. Site Guidelines Building Placement Orient the facade of new buildings to front on the corridor. The main building entry and entry plaza front Jefferson Park Avenue. Limit setbacks of new buildings according to the zoning of the particular The front yard is between 20 and 30’ deep, which is consistent with multiple other similar buildings along the corridor. corridor. Limit setbacks at major intersections so that the architecture can help While the intersections may not be regarded as major, they are not insignificant. The architecture-- both in the street-level terracing and prominent entry define the area. areas-- serves to define the corners. Use compact building arrangements to reduce the feeling of seas of No exposed, surface parking is proposed. The building is not sited too far from rights-of-way, but enough to allow expanded pedestrian spaces and parking, encourage pedestrian activity and define space. ample plantings. Strive for contiguous building arrangement along the street face and We seek a balance in the building arrangement. While the base of the building is contiguous along JPA, the residential wings above step back avoid large breaks between buildings in identified development sites. independently of one another-- one offset from the other-- to introduce varied massing and temper the impression of formality that a more symmetrical form might impose. Ensure that larger developments orient their design to any adjoining The introduction of brick facades along Washington and Observatory Avenues creates the impression of independent attached dwellings-- not unlike neighborhoods and side streets. townhouses-- fronting on the side streets and their associated neighborhoods. Porches at multiple ground level apartments along Observatory reinforce this perception. Orient service areas to limit their impact on the development and any The building will be serviced largely at the entrance to the under-building parking on Washington Ave. This will help minimize the presence of service neighboring areas. vehicles like trash trucks along the JPA corridor. Each side of a corner building that faces a street should be considered Building corners, especially at Washington Ave., turn to face side streets with prominent entry points and fenestration. a facade for design purposes. 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ERB REVIEW CRITERIA continued Architects & Planners 60 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 (reference Charlottesville’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines) Response III. Site Guidelines Parking Reduce the scale of parking lots... NA (This project does not include surface parking lots.) Reduce the visibility of residential garages by: Not allowing a garage to become the primary architectural feature The garage entry is on the project’s east side yard, over 200 feet from the JPA corridor. when a development is viewed from the street; Placing garages behind the building setback, preferably facing to The entry drive to the garage is not in the front yard. the side or rear of attached housing; Placing garages and parking in the rear with alley access. Because of grading concerns and to prevent vehicle access from conflicting with rear yard pedestrian use and planted screening, we elected not to access the garage from the rear yard. Accommodate pedestrian needs within parking areas by: Providing clear pedestrian paths and crossings from parking Ways from parking spaces to building entrances will be clearly marked. spaces to main entrances and to the street; Planning parking so that it least interferes with appropriate Primary building entrances are connected directly to public sidewalks, away from subterranean parking. pedestrian access and connections to adjoining developments; Construct parking lots that reinforce the existing street wall of buildings NA and the grid system of rectangular blocks. The number and width of curb cuts should be the minimum necessary Only one curb cut for vehicular access is proposed. This will be on Washington Avenue, over 200 feet up from the corridor. for effective on- and off-site traffic circulation. Design any detached parking structure to be architecturally compatible NA (No detached parking structure is proposed.) with its setting... Bicycle parking facilities should be provided within areas where significant Bike storage will be located securely inside the building, convenient to an exterior entry along Washington Avenue with continuous sidewalk access to bicycle traffic is anticipated. They should be located in designated areas JPA. close to buildings and pedestrian paths. 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ERB REVIEW CRITERIA continued Architects & Planners 61 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 (reference Charlottesville’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines) Response III. Site Guidelines Plantings & Open Spaces Provide landscaping within parking areas by... NA (This project does not include parking lots outside of the building under open sky.) The majority of open space should be located at the perimeter of the Most open space is located along the perimeter. Planting zones vary. Some are linear and narrow, creating an edge along walks. Others are more site where it is visible, and it should be of sufficient width and depth to spacious, allowing generous green areas suitable for larger tree species. Planting zones are designed deliberately to help define and shade public provide adequate contrast to any adjoining site parking. Planting zones sidewalks. At the rear of the site, a broad swath of mixed plantings will provide a buffer between this project and smaller scaled neighboring houses to should be consolidated into areas large enough to give natural character its north. to a site rather than randomly distributed in small and narrow open spaces that do not match the context and scale of the project. Planted areas should be located along the site boundaries, within Plantings are proposed in all of these locations (with the exception of parking areas, because all parking is under the building). parking areas, along drainage or stormwater management areas, around buildings and at building entries. The existing topography should be preserved intact as much as Outside the building perimeter, significant regrading is not proposed. possible to minimize disruptions in drainage. Different scales of plantings (trees, shrubs, flowers) should be A variety of plantings of different sizes and colors are proposed. incorporated into site design to the extent possible and such features as mature woods and riparian areas should be retained. Use species appropriate for site conditions including available sunlight, Selected species are appropriate for site conditions. water and root and canopy space. Use trees, shrubs and other landscaping features to provide screens for Plantings will be used to screen utilities where necessary. service areas, parking and utilities. Use large specimen street trees along pedestrian routes to provide Large trees, selected from Charlottesville’s Tree Packet of recommended species, are proposed along all sidewalks. shade and to define edges. In the core of larger commercial and office centers, street trees and NA more formal urban plantings organized around public open spaces are recommended. Consider using landscaping areas that also provide storm water Planted Bioretention is planned along parts of Observatory and Jefferson Park Avenues. treatment such as rain gardens. 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ERB REVIEW CRITERIA, CONTINUED Architects & Planners 62 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 (reference Charlottesville’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines) Response III. Site Guidelines Plantings & Open Spaces, cont. Refer to the Tree Planting and Preservation BMP Manual in the We have. Charlottesville Standards and Design Manual Encourage day lighting of streams where appropriate. NA III. Site Guidelines Lighting Use cutoff luminaries in accordance with city lighting requirements to All relevant lighting will follow the city’s cutoff luminary requirements. provide better lighting and prevent unwanted glare. Lighting should at all times be designed to prevent light pollution in the form of light transmission laterally beyond site boundaries or upward to the sky. Coordinate the lighting plan with the landscape plan to ensure Lighting is being coordinated with the landscape design. pedestrian areas are well-lit and that any conflict between trees and light fixtures is avoided. Lighting should provide for appropriate and desirable nighttime LED lighting at levels and temperatures recommended by BAR guidelines will be specified. Most exterior lighting will be motion-activated. illumination for all uses on and related to the site to promote a safe environment. Light pedestrian areas with appropriately scaled poles and luminaries. Most lighting of pedestrian areas will not be mounted on poles. Those lights that are will not be mounted above appropriate heights. Their heights are typically ten to fourteen feet. Avoid using building accent lighting that is too bright and draws too Accent lighting will be subtle and used only around building signs. much attention to the building. Reasonable levels of accent lighting to accentuate architectural character may be appropriate in individual instances when it is shielded and is not aimed towards neighboring properties, sidewalks, pathways, driveways or public right-of-ways in such a manner as to distract travel. Gasoline station/convenience store aprons and canopies should NA utilize full shielded lighting fixtures... 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ERB REVIEW CRITERIA continued Architects & Planners 63 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 (reference Charlottesville’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines) Response III. Site Guidelines Walls and Fences Choose high quality materials and designs using materials such as brick, Site walls will be built out of quality, durable materials. stone, metal and wood. Avoid untreated wood, vinyl, chain-link fences, wire fences or concrete block walls. Consider materials used elsewhere on the property or structures within the site. Use a scale and level of ornateness of the design of any new walls and In detailing and scale, the site walls will be compatible with the building. fences that relate to the scale and ornateness of the building within the site. Use simpler designs on smaller lots. Avoid exceeding the average height of other fences and walls of Site walls will typically be low-- in many cases, seat wall height-- especially along the JPA corridor. surrounding properties. Fences should be set back form the street right-of-way to allow a clear NA -- no fences proposed area for utilities and landscaping. When walls or fences stretch longer than 50 feet, use designs with The brick wall around the upper terrace at Jefferson Park and Observatory Avenues is punctuated by recesses that keep the wall face from being too texture and modulation to provide a regular rhythm without being monotonous. Where other site walls stretch more than fifty feet without interruption, these are typically low, seat-height walls where modulation is of monotonous. negligible value. Use paint or opaque stains on pressure treated or unpainted wood fences. NA Fence stringers (the structural framing of the fence) should be located NA facing the interior of the subject lot, with the finished side facing out away from the subject property. Fence at intersections or driveways should comply with city NA requirements for site distance (see Article IX, Division 7 of the Zoning Ordinance for detailed site triangle requirements.) 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ERB REVIEW CRITERIA continued Architects & Planners 64 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 (reference Charlottesville’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines) Response III. Site Guidelines Signs Place signs so that they do not obstruct architectural elements and Signs will not obscure architecture. They will be well integrated. details that define the design of the building. Respect the design and visibility of signs for adjacent businesses. Signs on the subject property will not obscure or clash with signs on properties elsewhere. Use colors and appropriate materials that complement the materials Sign materials and design will enhance building materials and design. and color scheme of the building, including accent and trim colors. Use a minimal number of colors per sign where possible. Avoid jarring Signs will not have a busy color palette. Bold colors may be selected in special cases, but we believe these are potentially interesting choices. or overly bright color schemes. Exterior illumination of signs shall comply with the city’s outdoor Sign lighting will adopt the city’s BAR’s recommendations for exterior lighting. lighting requirements. Exterior neon is discouraged. Illumination of any sign shall not be directed toward any residential Sign lighting will be discreet and indirect, not shining outward toward the property edges. area or adjacent street. Consider using a comprehensive signage plan for larger developments. Signs will be compatible with one another. Encourage the use of monument signs with accent landscaping at the Large signs may be used along the corridor with or without associated landscaping. base along corridors. Internally lit signs should use an opaque background so only letters Sign lighting will be indirect, illuminating only the text/numbers. are lit. Flashing lights are prohibited. None proposed. 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ERB REVIEW CRITERIA continued Architects & Planners 65 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 (reference Charlottesville’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines) Response III. Site Guidelines Utilities, Comm. Equip. & Service Areas Locate utilities to minimize their visual impact from the street and Utilities will be away from or screened from the JPA Corridor. adjoining developments. Screen and landscape dumpsters with wood board or solid barrier wall NA. (Trash dumpsters/bins will be stored in the building, out of sight.) when multiple sides of the a building are highly visible. Place utilities underground if possible or located behind buildings. NA Screen service areas and loading docks that are visible from streets or NA adjoining development with berms, landscaping, structures or fences. Site noise generating features away from neighboring properties, The pool deck-- the only potential generator of noise-- is located at the already busy and active JPA thoroughfare rather than facing the houses on the especially residences. quieter side avenues. Screen rooftop communications and mechanical equipment. Rooftop equipment will typically be screened behind parapet walls. 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ERB REVIEW CRITERIA continued Architects & Planners 66 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 (reference Charlottesville’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines) Response IV. Building Guidelines Architectural Compatibility Charlottesville seeks new construction that reflects its unique The building’s architecture does not rely on historic references deployed superficially or romantically. It does not indulge vernacular details associated character, history and cultural diversity. Architectural transplants with places outside Charlottesville. from other locales or shallow imitations of historic architectural styles, for example, are neither appropriate nor desirable. A distinctive identity for each corridor should be created through a Exterior material selections are predominantly brick and stucco, consistent with other buildings along the JPA corridor. The color palette falls in combination of materials, forms and features that create a coordinated a compatible range. Building massing is varied, not monolithic. The scale evident in fenestration, entrances, site stairs, canopies and porches is and inviting mix of buildings and spaces. appropriate for this district. The landscape design along JPA-- consisting of multiple terraces and plantings-- has the potential to enhance the corridor’s character, creating opportunities for pedestrian comfort and interaction in a shaded environment that is a marked improvement over other student housing that fronts this corridor. Encourage a diversity of architectural materials, forms and styles that Exterior material selections are predominantly brick and stucco, consistent with area traditions. The flat roof with parapets is common among the city’s respect the traditions of architecture in the Charlottesville area, including larger apartment buildings, including older ones (see 300 Fourth St SE, the Altamont Circle Apts, 39 University Circle, the Preston Court Apts, etc...) gable or hipped roof forms, standing seam metal roofing, brick and wood siding. New developments should strive to implement the intended vision Currently there are multiple examples of buildings along JPA that do not present engaging facades along the corridor (1909, 1905, 1801, 1721, 1719, rather than repeat existing inappropriate development patterns. 1715, 1713, 1709 and 1712 JPA, among them). On these properties, surface parking is prominent and visible in the front yards. Pedestrian walks are negligible and typically connect front doors not to public sidewalks but to asphalt parking. Street trees are uncommon, in many cases nonexistent. Trash cans are visible throughout the week. These properties do little to contribute to a sense of a street edge. Architectural character is often indistinct. The proposed project will not perpetuate any of these patterns. It represents a design that aspires to a better vision for this Corridor. New development should respect existing historic buildings and No buildings on the property are historically designated. excellent examples from the recent past. NA Existing development should be upgraded as opportunities arise. 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ERB REVIEW CRITERIA continued Architects & Planners 67 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 (reference Charlottesville’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines) Response IV. Building Guidelines Building Mass, Scale & Height Break up the front of a large building by dividing it into individual bays, Along the side avenues, brick facades at three stories above the base stories are less than 30 feet wide and are intended to create the impression of 25 - 40 feet wide. individual dwellings attached to one another, not unlike townhouses. Use variation in materials, textures, patterns, colors and details to Material, textures and colors are varied. Brick veneer is used both to establish a building base and to emphasize smaller scale building faces within the break down mass and scale of the building. longer facades, an effort to differentiate volumes within the mass. Avoid an unmodulated mass. Perspective views reveal modulated massing. Use stepped-back height. Stepbacks occur frequently at upper stories. Use varied wall surfaces. Wall surfaces do not extend for long stretches in the same plane. Facades are distinguished by projections and interrupted by recesses at regular intervals. Use varied heights with regular width. Parapet walls are taller over some locations, creating both variation in wall heights and places to screen mechanical equipment. Use building mass appropriate to the site. Place buildings of greatest NA (This is not an office or commercial development.) footprint, massing and height in the core of commercial or office developments where the impact on adjacent uses is the least. Follow setback requirements for upper story according to zoning classification of the corridor. When making transitions to lower density areas, modulate the mass Because the grade rises from JPA to the rear of the site, the lower parking levels of the building can be submerged. This results in fewer stories above of the building to relate to smaller buildings. Heights can be greater if grade at the rear half of the site, where the proposed building is closer to the smaller scale houses along Observatory Avenue. The foremost brick the mass is modulated and other scale techniques are adopted. Reduce faces here are limited to three stories. The two stories above are faced in darker, desaturated, muted colors, ones intended to help these upper levels height near lower density areas. withdraw into the background. Use massing reduction techniques of articulated base, watertables, Multiple massing reduction techniques are employed. Floor-to-floor heights are typically 11’, appropriate for a multi-family building. string courses, material changes, patterns and fenestration to reduce the apparent height of the building. Floor-to-floor heights of a building can have an impact on the mass of a building. For instance... when actual or implied floor-to-floor heights exceed 15-20 feet on the exterior, a building may begin to read as more massive than human-scaled. Create human-scaled spaces defined by either buildings or landscape Spaces along the streets, those pedestrians are most likely to encounter, benefit from plantings, site walls, terraces and porches that support human- features that provide more friendly, inviting spaces. scaled environments. On the building, windows, doors and canopies will further enhance this sense of scale. 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ERB REVIEW CRITERIA continued Architects & Planners 68 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 (reference Charlottesville’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines) Response IV. Building Guidelines Facade Organization & Storefronts Orient primary entrances on a building facade to the street or corridor. The primary entrance faces on the corridor, close to the corner of JPA and Washington Ave. Use a hierarchy of entry design on any complex, if the building has more The inclusion of an entry plaza + site stair aligned with the main entrance creates a visible arrival sequence, complimented by beautiful native plantings. than one orientation and focus on the main entry on the street/corner facade. Secondary entrances may be created to allow convenient access from Secondary entrances are located at both side avenues, close to their intersections with JPA, promoting convenience and helpful redundancy. adjacent buildings, sidewalks, parking, bicycle paths and transit stops.. Orient at least part of public elevations of shopping complexes to any NA adjoining neighborhoods. Provide attractive facade treatments on any elevation that is visible from Primary elevation facades utilize materials, fenestration and masonry detailing that create a robust level of relief and adornment. streets/corridors or from any primary elevations of adjoining developments and avoid use of unadorned blank walls. Consider using the traditional three-part facade of a cornice, a pattern While it has a masonry base, the proposed building does not present a three-part hierarchy in the most obvious, traditional form. This building does not of upper story windows and a storefront with articulated base when designing prioritize the historical horizontal subdivisions that were more common in previous eras. Instead, we intend the use of material and facade transitions to a new building or renovating an existing structure. create a richer juxtaposition, emphasizing both vertical and horizontal proportions, often overlapping the two. Use a regular pattern of solids and voids for openings that relate to more NA traditional building design in the corridor. Use a proportion of openings (vertical or horizontal) that is generally The windows, doors and storefront typically adopt vertical proportions in keeping with traditional buildings. consistent with the context of the building. Traditional design openings are typically vertically proportioned. Strive for designs and materials that reflect the architectural traditions of Typically, material choices are appropriate for the region. the region. Storefronts or large display windows should be used at street level. Storefronts are used at the two main street-level entries at the corner of Washington Ave and JPA. At the corner of Observatory Ave. and JPA, we also call for storefronts that offer visibility into amenity space (that may be converted to commercial space at a future time). 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ERB REVIEW CRITERIA continued Architects & Planners 69 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 (reference Charlottesville’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines) Response IV. Building Guidelines Materials and Textures Use material changes to help reduce mass and provide visual interest. Materials changes are used deliberately to reduce the impression of massiveness. Choose materials that offer texture and avoid monotonous surfaces. The proposed brick and synthetic stucco will provide a range of textures and avoid monotony. For example, use wood or brick or stone or new synthetic materials that approximate the look and dimension of these materials. Use quality materials consistently on all visible sides of commercial, Materials will be durable. office and multi-family residential buildings. In Charlottesville common building materials are brick, wood or stucco Building walls will be faced in stucco or brick. Some stone is proposed on site walls only. walls and standing-seam metal roofs. Stone is more commonly used for site walls than building walls. Avoid the use of building materials with long-term maintenance Synthetic stucco is proposed as an exterior finish on some walls. Synthetic stucco problems on past projects typically resulted from poor application problems such as EIFS (Exterior Insulation and Finish System) or vinyl siding. practices that allowed moisture to get trapped in the wall envelope. Modern application standards using a proven drainage system, such as the inclusion Sustainable, utilitarian building materials such as concrete block, metal siding of a full mesh layer-- one that does not have to be conscientiously oriented to be functional-- under the insulated stucco panels, will be adopted for this or cementitious panels may be appropriate in contemporary designs. project. IV. Building Guidelines Colors A coordinated palette of colors should be created for each development. The colors will be complimentary. Red brick is common along the Corridor. Dark stucco colors are intended to make upper story walls visually recede into This palette should be compatible with adjacent developments. the background, leaving the brick facades more prominent. Other than the brick color, the palette is muted and modern. White windows, storefront and trim is proposed only in the brick facade along the JPA base and at the corner entry, setting these locations apart. Dark windows are used elsewhere. We think the dark window and stucco colors will also create a nice backdrop to the brighter color range seasonally present on the perimeter site plantings. On the courtyard at the third level, vivid color is proposed on courtyard facing pavilions. These are remote enough, they are only partially visible from the Corridor and only from certain angles. They add an unexpected lining-- only occasionally glimpsed-- to an otherwise staid exterior. Set the color theme by choosing the color for the material with the most The brick facades cover the most exterior area. The stucco colors are coordinated to look good with the brick. area. If there is more roof than wall area, roof color will be the most important color choice and will set the tone for the rest of the colors. Limit the number of color choices. Generally there is a wall color, trim While there are several wall colors, the proposed massing warrants it. The variation in colors and materials are intended to mitigate the building massing. color, accent color and roof color. Use natural tints of materials such as reds, browns, tans, grays and Primary colors will have natural tints. Vivid color is proposed only on facades within the courtyard, turned inward. Rarely visible from the street, they will greens as primary colors. Save bright accent colors for awnings and signs create a distinctive and vibrant interior environment. on commercial buildings. 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ERB REVIEW CRITERIA continued Architects & Planners 70 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 (reference Charlottesville’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines) Response IV. Building Guidelines Colors Use natural tints of materials such as reds, browns, tans, grays and Primary colors will have natural tints. Vivid color is proposed only on facades within the courtyard, turned inward. Rarely visible from the street, they will greens as primary colors. Save bright accent colors for awnings and signs create a distinctive and vibrant interior environment. on commercial buildings. Use color variation to break up the mass of the building and provide visual See perspective drawings. interest. Do not use strong color that has the effect of turning the entire building We do not. into a sign. IV. Building Guidelines Details Use articulated elements such as cornices, belt courses, water tables, A building base, bay divisions, variations in wall plane, masonry detailing and coping projections at tops of walls are among the elements used to create bay divisions, variations in wall plane and roof features to create designs of architectural articulation. interest. Include human-scaled elements such as columns, pilasters and cornice, Canopies and fenestration contribute to human scale. in particular at street level and on facades with a pedestrian focus. Avoid large expanses of blank walls that are visible from the public right Typically vertical planes, materials and colors vary often enough that large blank expanses do not result. of way or neighboring developments. Avoid oversized decorative elements. No big decorative elements are proposed. Avoid decorative elements that do not relate to the architecture but No such elements are proposed serve to turn the whole building into a sign. 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ERB REVIEW CRITERIA continued Architects & Planners 71 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 (reference Charlottesville’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines) Response IV. Building Guidelines Roof Forms & Materials Use roof forms that complement the building design and contribute to Roofs and their materials are not visible from the ground. They are flat roofs, common for and appropriate to multi-family buildings in Charlottesville. human scale. Avoid tall roof areas that overwhelm the height of the building’s wall. Common Charlottesville roof forms include hipped, gable, flat and gambrel. If a shed roof or flat roof design is used, add a parapet wall to screen Some roofs have parapets. the roof. Avoid a visible monolithic expanse of roof on large-scale buildings. Roof surfaces are not visible from the Corridor. Break the roof mass with elements such as gables, dormers or parapets. Scale these features to the scale of the building. Consider using a special roof feature on buildings located at a Canopies are used to help distinguish prominent corners and their entries. gateway, a prominent corner, or highlight entry bays on larger structures. Steeper forms are associated with more traditional design and can be NA appropriate when the development adjoins nearby neighborhoods. On roofs that visible such as gable, hipped or shed design, use quality NA materials such as metal or textured asphalt shingles Any equipment located on a roof should be screened from public It will be. view. IV. Building Guidelines Awnings Encourage the use of awnings at the storefront level to shield displays Canopies are proposed for these purposes. and entry and to add visual interest. Coordinate the choice of colors as a part of the overall color scheme. Solid Canopy colors are coordinated with associated storefronts. colors, wide stripes and narrow stripes should be considered as appropriate. Awning forms may be angled or curved. NA 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ERB REVIEW CRITERIA continued Architects & Planners 72 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 (reference Charlottesville’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines) Response IV. Building Guidelines Awnings Use of a canopy as an illuminated sign is not appropriate NA Awning materials should be appropriate to the overall design of Canopies would be painted or powder coated metal. the building. Traditional cloth fabric, standing seam metal or newer rigid materials may be considered. IV. Building Guidelines Appurtenances Building service, loading and utility areas should not be visible from Service, loading and utility areas will be located our of sight in the parking deck or screened by a wall near the entry drive into the parking level. public streets, adjacent developments or from access drives within large developments. Such service areas should be located behind the main structure in the least visible location possible. Mechanical equipment on roofs or sides of buildings should not be Rooftop equipment will be screened behind parapet walls. visible from the street. When mechanical equipment vents, meters, satellite dishes and NA similar equipment is ground mounted, screening should include either an opaque fence or wall made of the same material as the building or an evergreen hedge that screens objectionable views. Items such as roof ladders, railings, roll-up doors and service doors, None of these are located in visible locations. should be located on building elevations that are the least visible from public streets/corridors, adjacent developments or from access drives within large developments. Their colors should be coordinated among all of these elements and with the rest of the building. In some cases appurtenances may be integrated into the building NA design if such integration enhances the compatibility of the overall design with the corridor vision. IV. Building Guidelines Additions & Corridor NA Conversions IV. 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ERB REVIEW CRITERIA continued Architects & Planners 73 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 (reference Charlottesville’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines) Response IV. Building Guidelines Franchise Designs NA IV. Building Guidelines Gas Station Canopies NA IV. Building Guidelines Civic & Institutional Buildings NA IV. Building Guidelines Multi-Family Buildings Follow other guidelines in this chapter as applicable to the overall design Other applicable chapter guidelines are addressed in previous pages. of such buildings in such issues as massing and building footprint, scale, complexity of form, height and width, materials, textures and colors, roof forms and materials, etc... Give consideration to placing the first floor retail storefronts in NA multi-family buildings if they face along a commercial corridor or face a pedestrian-oriented street within the downtown. Avoid creating street front facades that are dominated by garage No garage doors are proposed on the front facade. doors. Ensure that the designs of such buildings are consistent with any They are consistent. adjoining neighborhoods and the zoning ordinance. 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ERB REVIEW CRITERIA continued Architects & Planners 74 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 APPENDIX b CORRIDOR CONTEXT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 2 6 7 8 SITE 3 10 9 4 1 8 9 10 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA JPA CORRIDOR CONTEXT PHOTOS Architects & Planners 76 12.20.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 Attachment 2: February 14, 2023 ERB staff report. 2005 JPA CoA Request 1 2005 JPA - ERB Review - Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines (Feb 3, 2023) Chapter I: Design Principles Applicant's Comment Staff Comment Design for a Corridor Vision: New building design should be Exterior material selections are predominantly brick and stucco, Staff concurs. compatible (in massing, scale, materials, colors) with other consistent with other buildings along the JPA corridor. The color neighboring structures that contribute to the overall quality of palette falls in a compatible range. Building massing is varied, not the corridor. Existing developments should be encouraged to monolithic. The scale evident in fenestration, entrances, site make upgrades consistent with the corridor vision. Site designs stairs, canopies and porches is appropriate for this district. The should contain some common elements to provide continuity landscape design along JPA-- consisting of multiple terraces and along the corridor. New development, including franchise plantings-- has the potential to enhance the corridor’s character, development, should complement the City’s character and creating opportunities for pedestrian comfort and interaction in a respect those qualities that distinguish the City’s built shaded environment that is a marked improvement over other environment. student housing that fronts this corridor. Preserve History: Preserve historic buildings and distinctive There are no historically designated buildings on this site. The Staff concurs. architecture from earlier periods. Encourage new contemporary property is in an Entrance Corridor, but it does not fall within any design that is respectful of historic building design. of the city’s Historic Districts Facilitate Pedestrian Access: Encourage compact, walkable The potential pedestrian experience along JPA represents a Staff concurs. developments. Design pedestrian connections from sidewalk and significant improvement over streetscapes found elsewhere on car to buildings, between buildings, and between corridor the corridor. The existing sidewalk will be rebuilt to current city properties and adjacent residential areas. standards with a narrow planted buffer between parked cars and pedestrians. On site, easily accessible plaza spaces adjacent to the sidewalk will give pedestrians a kind of wayside where they can relax and socialize in the shade and beauty of new plantings. At the rear of the property, a paved walk is proposed, available for public use, allowing nearby residents a second, alternative connection between Washington and Observatory Avenues Maintain Human Scale in Buildings and Spaces: Consider the The building height is similar to multiple nearby structures along Staff concurs. impact of building design, especially height, mass, complexity of the corridor. Buildings at 1725 JPA, 1815 JPA and 1800 JPA are form, and architectural details, and the impact of spaces created, five to nine stories tall. Mass and form of the proposed building is on the people who will pass by, live, work, or shop there. The varied. Multiple walks and terraces provide usable spaces, size, placement and number of doors, windows, portals and traversable by visitors and passers-by. Street trees will provide openings define human scale. screening, shade and beauty. The dimensions and arrangements Attachment 2: February 14, 2023 ERB staff report. 2005 JPA CoA Request 2 of windows, openings and entries are consistent with neighboring apartment buildings. Preserve and Enhance Natural Character: Daylight streams, and The landscape plan proposes a variety of native plantings in a Staff concurs. retain mature trees and natural buffers. Work with topography to variety of sizes-- from smaller shrubs to large trees. minimize grading and limit the introduction of impervious surfaces. Encourage plantings of diverse native species. Create a Sense of Place: In corridors where substantial In addition to the multiple terraced areas along JPA, several of Staff concurs. pedestrian activity occurs or is encouraged, or where mixed use the apartments fronting Observatory Avenue have porches and and multi-building projects are proposed, one goal will be walks connected to the sidewalk. Not only will these benefit the creating a sense of place. Building arrangements, uses, natural scale of the project, they provide outside spaces from which features, and landscaping should contribute, where feasible, to tenants can easily see and communicate with other students and create exterior space where people can interact. city residents as they move to and fro. In its current state the site makes little contribution to the street wall. It lacks architectural presence on the corridor. Very few buildings front the street to contribute to a sense of place. The proposed development will engage the street corners and contribute to the existing street wall-- one defined by variation more than uniformity. Create an Inviting Public Realm: Design inviting streetscapes and A generous array of plaza spaces and planting beds will create a Staff concurs. public spaces. Redevelopment of properties should enhance the comfortable, shaded environment along the public realm, existing streetscapes and create an engaging public realm. creating a kind of expanded sidewalk with places to sit, rest, eat and talk. At the corner of Jefferson Park and Observatory Avenues, a corner space is proposed with the potential to serve future commercial use, connected to an outside terrace convenient to passers-by Create Restrained Communications: Private signage and n/a. No signage advertising should be harmonious and in scale with building proposed. Signage will elements and landscaping features. require separate signage permits Attachment 2: February 14, 2023 ERB staff report. 2005 JPA CoA Request 3 Mask the Utilitarian: Provide screening from adjacent properties All on-site parking is concealed under the building. Access to the Not specified and public view of: parking lots, outdoor storage and loading basement parking is located on Washington Avenue, over 200 areas, refuse areas, mechanical and communication equipment, feet away from JPA. Storage areas, refuse areas and mechanical and other uses that have adverse impacts. Where feasible, equipment will all be concealed within the building or on rooftops relegate parking behind buildings. behind parapets Respect and Enhance Charlottesville’s Character: Architectural By and large, traditional materials are proposed, but the Staff concurs. transplants from other locales, and shallow or artificial imitations building’s architecture does not rely on historic references of the Jeffersonian architectural style are examples of building deployed superficially or romantically. It does not indulge designs that are neither appropriate nor desirable. Objectionable vernacular details associated with places outside Charlottesville or incompatible aspects of franchise design or corporate signature buildings must be modified or customized to fit the character of this community. Chapter II: Streetscapes, B. Plantings & Open Space Applicant's Comment Staff Comment 1. Use street trees to provide shade, a sense of enclosure and to Many street trees are proposed along Jefferson Park, Observatory Staff concurs. define edges. and Washington Avenues. In the site’s current condition, street trees are uncommon. 2. Include appropriately scaled trees, shrubs and other plantings A varied selection of plantings-- from large trees to medium trees Staff concurs. to provide beauty as well as shade, within a pedestrian gathering to shrubs-- will benefit the environment around the building, place, and as screening for parking, utilities, and service areas. encouraging people to gather and socialize within the color, comfort and shelter of the landscape. In addition to street trees, multiple planting beds-- as buffers along JPA, in transitional spaces between sidewalks and entrance terraces/porches, and along the building edge-- will host smaller plantings. The combination of plantings will enhance a sense of scale around the building, emphasizing the edges of and enclosing outdoor space. 3. Maintain existing plantings in all public areas. 4. Use hardy native species that require minimal maintenance. Most planting selections come from the Charlottesville Tree Staff concurs. Packet of recommended species. Over-used species-- Bradford Pear and Crepe Myrtle, for example-- are not proposed. Attachment 2: February 14, 2023 ERB staff report. 2005 JPA CoA Request 4 5. Replace damaged or missing street trees with appropriate species. 6. Avoid over-used species such as Bradford pear. n/a 7. Use larger tree species where appropriate to space and Certain species-- London Planetree, Honeylocust and Kentucky Staff concurs. function. Coffeetree, among them-- will attain significant height when mature. They are proposed along the streets, where in time they will provide abundant shade and an ever-changing screen of the upper stories of the new building 8. Expand use of seasonal color in plantings. Multiple species-- black gum, ? and ? among them-- will provide potentially great colors in fall and spring 9. Use landscaping to create an identity within a particular corridor or sub-area by selecting specific species, sizes, colors or shape of plants and trees. 10. Use plantings to promote visual order and help integrate In time, the varied scale of plantings will create a layered Staff concurs. buildings into the corridor. environment from which the building emerges, avoiding abrupt or stark transitions. 11. Refer to the Tree Planting and Preservation BMP Manual in Acknowledged the Charlottesville Standards and Design Manual. 12. Encourage day lighting of streams where appropriate. n/a Chapter II: Streetscapes, C. Pedestrian Routes Applicant's Comment Staff Comment Attachment 2: February 14, 2023 ERB staff report. 2005 JPA CoA Request 5 1. Provide, where feasible, unbroken pedestrian routes between The continuity of sidewalks will be significantly improved with Staff concurs. developments. Place paths in a logical pattern where people will this project. Currently sidewalks along both Observatory and want to walk. Place sidewalks on both sides of streets where Washington Avenues are discontinuous on both sides, with feasible and separate them from the curb by a minimum five (5) stretches of more than 200 feet without sidewalks at all. Where feet wide landscape zone if possible. there are sidewalks currently, they are frequently crossed by parking drives and aprons. After this project is complete, the sidewalks will continue, without break, along all three street edges. Only one vehicular drive-- at the Washington Ave. entry to the parking deck-- will cross the new sidewalks. At JPA, a landscape buffer is proposed. Because of utility limitations it will be three feet wide, sufficient for smaller plantings. To compensate, we propose a sufficiently wide planting bed for larger street trees to be located on the building side of the sidewalk. 2. Within developments, identify a complete internal pedestrian All building entries, porches and plazas are connected to public Staff concurs. pathway system linking all buildings, parking and green spaces. pathways, often in multiple locations. At the rear of the property, Ensure that this network connects to public pedestrian pathways there is currently a surface parking lot with few trees. For years that link schools, recreation areas, and other major destinations. this lot has served an informal, but illicit, function as a pedestrian connection between Washington and Observatory Avenues. With this project, a new pedestrian path behind the building-- and open to public use-- will replace the parking lot. The new path will enjoy screening and shade from a wide planted buffer along the north property boundary 3. Add designated pedestrian pathways through larger parking No visible surface parking lots are proposed in this project. lots. 4. Provide crosswalks at intersections, between major pedestrian A crosswalk will be provided where the Washington Ave. sidewalk destinations and in front of building entrances that link to intersects with the vehicular drive accessing the parking levels. parking. 5. Design crosswalks to highlight their visibility by slightly raising At the entrance to the under-building parking, the crosswalk will them, by making them wider, by constructing them of materials not be paved in asphalt, and it will be wider than the sidewalk. other than asphalt and by using bulb-out corners that reduce their length. Attachment 2: February 14, 2023 ERB staff report. 2005 JPA CoA Request 6 6. Provide breaks in large building masses to allow pedestrians to The concealed parking levels do not permit accessible passage pass through, particularly through shopping centers. across the full site within the building’s perimeter. However, at the rear of the property, not far from JPA, a public pathway is proposed that crosses the entire property. Currently, it’s unusual for people to walk between Observatory and Washington Avenues except at the rear parking lot and at JPA. Connections at these locations will be retained and improved 7. Place sidewalks throughout residential areas. 8. Avoid excessive curb cuts for vehicular access across The project requires only a single curb cut, marked with a change Staff concurs. pedestrian ways. Where curb cuts are necessary, mark them with in material, at the entry to the under-building parking on a change in materials, color, texture or grade. Washington Ave. This is a significant reduction to existing curb cut conditions. Currently, there are at least eight curb cuts or driveway crossings located along Observatory and Washington Avenues accessing this site. 9. Design sidewalks appropriately for the site and the expected In this largely residential district, a seven foot wide sidewalk is amount of foot traffic. In commercial areas where foot traffic is proposed along Jefferson Park Ave. expected, sidewalks should be a minimum of (10) ten feet. Sidewalks in residential areas can be five (5) feet, depending on the type of street and size of road. 10. Use brick or patterned concrete, or a combination of these Currently, there is little precedent in this corridor for brick or Staff concurs. materials, that relates to the existing architectural vocabulary of patterned concrete walks... however, we propose brick and stone the corridor or sub-area. for numerous low site walls contiguous to walks and plazas 11. Avoid concrete curbing poured in continuous strips. Acknowledged 12. Avoid excessive variation in sidewalk and curb materials. Acknowledged Chapter II: Streetscapes, D. Bicycle Routes Applicant's Comment Staff Comment 1. Provide for bicycle traffic along major corridors and between Currently there is a dedicated bike lane along JPA adjacent to the major destinations, with particular emphasis on connecting site. This will remain. residential areas to schools, recreation areas, and commercial centers. Attachment 2: February 14, 2023 ERB staff report. 2005 JPA CoA Request 7 2. Provide new bike paths to connect to planned or existing n/a municipal paths or paths of adjoining developments. 3. Provide facilities to store or lock bicycles at appropriate sites, Indoor, secure storage for bicycles will be provided on site including schools, major recreation areas, office parks, public institutions, and large commercial centers. 4. Develop an easily identifiable graphic system of signs and road n/a markings to designate bicycle routes and crossings. Chapter II: Streetscapes, E. Lighting Applicant's Comment Staff Comment 1. Use full cutoff luminaires in accordance with City lighting Full cutoff luminaries will be used See recontended requirements to provide better lighting and prevent unwanted conditions in staff glare. report 2. Where appropriate, replace modern cobra-head type lamps n/a and poles with painted metal, traditionally designed fixtures that have a base, shaft and luminaire. 3. Consider using a different but compatible style of fixture for n/a each of the corridors. 4. Light pedestrian areas with appropriately scaled poles. n/a 5. Provide pedestrian lighting at transit stops and along paths to n/a parking lots and other destinations. 6. Provide lighting of intersections in high traffic areas. n/a 7. Include any lighting upgrades as a part of an overall n/a streetscape plan for each corridor. Chapter II: Streetscapes, F. Street Furniture Applicant's Comment Staff Comment 1. Develop and use a common palette of colors, materials and The furniture materials, colors and design will be coherent design. Attachment 2: February 14, 2023 ERB staff report. 2005 JPA CoA Request 8 2. Coordinate furniture along corridors. While they need not There is little presence or continuity of street furniture along JPA match, they should be compatible and not clash. now. We do not anticipate furniture choices for this project to clash. 3. Place benches at key locations such as transit stops. Use No transit stops are currently located along the site’s JPA traditional designs constructed of wood and/or painted metal. boundary, but built-in benches and tables are planned to be included on the front entry plaza. These are very close and convenient to the sidewalk. They will allow a place to wait, rest and meet with friends. If a transit stop is placed here in the future, the project’s benches have the potential to create alternative waiting areas close-by and within sight of it 4. Avoid placing too many elements on narrow sidewalks. n/a Chapter II: Streetscapes, G. Public Signs Applicant's Comment Staff Comment 1. Develop a system of public wayfinding and informational signs Signage not reviewed to reflect the character of Charlottesville to be used on all under this CoA. corridors. Signage requires a separate sign permit; 2. Coordinate the colors and design of signs within a corridor. The color scheme and design of signs will be consistent and must comply with EC coherent. design guidelines. 3. Keep signs to the minimum number and size necessary for the The number of signs will not be excessive use. 4. Scale and place signs for both automobile traffic and pedestrians. 5. Avoid placing signposts in locations where they can interfere with the opening of vehicle doors. 6. Consider using decorative color banners within a specific corridor Chapter II: Streetscapes, H. Public Art & Monuments n/a Attachment 2: February 14, 2023 ERB staff report. 2005 JPA CoA Request 9 Chapter II: Streetscapes, I. Utilities & Communication Applicant's Comment Staff Comment Equipment 1. Locate and screen utilities to limit their visibility from the street Power and communication cables will remain above ground and and from nearby development. suspended from utility poles. but transformers and meters will be located out of view from JPA. 2. Place existing and proposed utilities underground. Utilities will not be buried, as is typical of almost all other buildings along this corridor. Chapter III: Sites, B. Connectivity Between Entrance Corridor Applicant's Comment Staff Comment Areas & Neighborhoods 1. Maintain or provide a strong sense of community, by providing Pedestrian connections to the neighborhoods on Observatory and Staff concurs. pedestrian and vehicular links from a corridor site to nearby Washington Avenues are enhanced by improved continuous neighborhoods, parks, schools and other public destinations. sidewalks that are minimally interrupted by vehicular crossings 2. Use common streetscape elements, materials and designs to Materials typical of the surrounding neighborhoods-- brick, stone, Staff concurs. See visually link the corridor areas and neighborhoods. concrete-- will be used in walks and site walls precedent images. 3. Provide continuous pedestrian routes along corridors where Pedestrians routes along the corridor will be enhanced and Staff concurs. feasible. expanded. 4. Site grading should promote connectivity with adjacent sites. Site grading will not affect adjacent sites. Staff concurs. Chapter III: Sites, C. Connectivity Between & Within Sites Applicant's Comment Staff Comment 1. Create a complete pedestrian pathway system within a site and All building entries, porches and plazas are connected to public Staff concurs. between adjacent sites, linking all buildings, parking areas and pathways, often in multiple locations. At the rear of the property, green spaces. Ensure that this network connects to any nearby there is currently a surface parking lot with few trees. For years public pedestrian pathway. this lot has served an informal, but illicit, function as a pedestrian connection between Washington and Observatory Avenues. With this project, a new pedestrian path behind the building-- and open to public use-- will replace the parking lot. The new path will enjoy screening and shade from a wide planted buffer along the north property boundary. Attachment 2: February 14, 2023 ERB staff report. 2005 JPA CoA Request 10 2. Design pedestrian and vehicular circulation to maximize the At the entrance to the under-building parking, the crosswalk will Staff concurs. quality and safety of pedestrian experience through: not be paved in asphalt, and it will be wider than the sidewalk. The change in materials and wider dimension will call attention to pedestrians where the garage entry/exit crosses the sidewalk at Washington Ave. a. Design approaches such as “shared space” that slow vehicle n/a speeds and enhance pedestrian experience. b. Designated, separate sidewalks with planted areas through n/a large parking lots. c. Crosswalks at points of vehicular access routes and in front of n/a building entrances. d. Crosswalks designs that highlight their visibility by slightly n/a raising them, by making them wider, by constructing them of materials other than asphalt and by using bulb-out corners that reduce their length. 3. Ensure that new paving materials are compatible with the At the entry plaza, associated walks and the corner terrace at the Materials are character of the area. Scored concrete with broom finishes, intersection of Jefferson Park and Washington Avenues, paving appropriate colored, exposed aggregate concrete, and brick or unit pavers are materials will be scored concrete in a buff stain. The walks leading examples of appropriate applications. Avoid large expanses of to the Observatory Ave. porches will be paved in brick. bright white or gray concrete surfaces. 4. Provide passageways within large building masses to allow The concealed parking levels do not permit accessible passage Staff concurs. pedestrians to pass through, particularly through shopping across the full site within the building’s perimeter. However, at centers the rear of the property, not far from JPA, a public pathway is proposed that crosses the entire property. Currently, it’s unusual for people to walk between Observatory and Washington Avenues except at the rear parking lot and at JPA. Connections at these locations will be retained and improved. Chapter III: Sites, D. Building Placement Applicant's Comment Staff Comment Attachment 2: February 14, 2023 ERB staff report. 2005 JPA CoA Request 11 1. Orient the facade of new buildings to front on the corridor. The main building entry and entry plaza front Jefferson Park Staff concurs. Avenue. 2. Limit setback of new buildings according to the zoning of the The front yard is between 20 and 30’ deep, which is consistent Staff concurs. particular corridor. with multiple other similar buildings along the corridor. 3. Limit setbacks at major intersections so that the architecture While the intersections may not be regarded as major, they are Staff concurs. can help define the area. not insignificant. The architecture-- both in the street-level terracing and prominent entry areas-- serves to define the corners 4. Use compact building arrangements to reduce the feeling of No exposed, surface parking is proposed. The building is not sited Staff concurs. seas of parking, encourage pedestrian activity and define space. too far from rights-of-way, but enough to allow expanded pedestrian spaces and ample plantings. 5. Strive for contiguous building arrangement along the street We seek a balance in the building arrangement. While the base of Staff concurs. face, and avoid large breaks between buildings in identified the building is contiguous along JPA, the residential wings above development sites. step back independently of one another-- one offset from the other-- to introduce varied massing and temper the impression of formality that a more symmetrical form might impose 6. Ensure that larger developments orient their design to any The introduction of brick facades along Washington and Staff concurs. adjoining neighborhoods and to side streets. Observatory Avenues creates the impression of independent attached dwellings-- not unlike townhouses-- fronting on the side streets and their associated neighborhoods. Porches at multiple ground level apartments along Observatory reinforce this perception 7. Provide breaks in large developments and building masses to allow pedestrian connections between developments. 8. Orient service areas to limit their impact on the development The building will be serviced largely at the entrance to the under- Staff concurs. and any neighboring areas. building parking on Washington Ave. This will help minimize the presence of service vehicles like trash trucks along the JPA corridor 9. Each side of a corner building that faces a street should be Building corners, especially at Washington Ave., turn to face side Staff concurs. considered a facade of the building for design purposes. streets with prominent entry points and fenestration Attachment 2: February 14, 2023 ERB staff report. 2005 JPA CoA Request 12 Chapter III: Sites, E. Parking Applicant's Comment Staff Comment 1. Reduce the scale of parking lots by: n/a 2. Where existing parking lots are located on the street, screen n/a such lots from the street and from adjoining development, using low fences or walls, or year-round plantings. 3. Reduce the visibility of residential garages by: a. Not allowing a garage to become the primary architectural The garage entry is on the project’s east side yard, over 200 feet Staff concurs. feature when a development is viewed from the street, especially from the JPA corridor for attached housing. b. Placing garages behind the building setback, preferably facing The entry drive to the garage is not in the front yard Staff concurs. to the side or rear of attached housing. c. Placing garages and parking in the rear with alley access Because of grading concerns and to prevent vehicle access from Staff concurs. conflicting with rear yard pedestrian use and planted screening, we elected not to access the garage from the rear yard. 4. Accommodate pedestrian needs within parking areas by: a. Providing clear pedestrian paths and crossings from parking Ways from parking spaces to building entrances will be clearly N/A. Parking is within spaces to main entrances and to the street. marked the building and not visible from the EC. b. Planning parking so that it least interferes with appropriate Primary building entrances are connected directly to public Staff concurs. pedestrian access and connections to adjoining developments. sidewalks, away from subterranean parking. 5. Construct parking lots that reinforce the existing street wall of n/a buildings and the grid system of rectangular blocks. 6. The number and width of curb cuts should be the minimum Only one curb cut for vehicular access is proposed. This will be on Staff concurs. necessary for effective on- and off-site traffic circulation. Washington Avenue, over 200 feet up from the corridor. Whenever possible, curb cuts shall be combined with adjacent entrances. Attachment 2: February 14, 2023 ERB staff report. 2005 JPA CoA Request 13 7. Design any detached parking structures to be architecturally n/a compatible with its setting or to be screened by other buildings or by landscaping. If it fronts on a street or pedestrian path, design the street level facade with storefronts, display windows, bay divisions, and other pedestrian oriented features. 8. Bicycle parking facilities should be provided within areas where Bike storage will be located securely inside the building, significant bicycle traffic is anticipated. They should be located in convenient to an exterior entry along Washington Avenue with designated areas close to buildings and pedestrian paths. The continuous sidewalk access to JPA design, materials, and color of the bicycle racks should coordinate with other site elements and should be well-lit for night time uses. Chapter III: Sites, F. Plantings & Open Spaces Applicant's Comment Staff Comment 1. Provide landscaping within parking areas by: n/a a. Separating parking aisles with medians planted with shade n/a trees along the length of the islands. b. Including pedestrian walkways with planted medians to n/a reinforce connectivity and separate pedestrians from vehicular traffic. c. Avoiding isolated islands of single trees and instead providing n/a landscaped tree aisles between every other row of cars. d. Using shade trees of sufficient number and size at maturity to n/a shade a substantial portion of the lot. Consider orientations that would provide the greatest shade during summer months. Smaller, more decorative trees can be used closest to buildings. Attachment 2: February 14, 2023 ERB staff report. 2005 JPA CoA Request 14 2. The majority of the open space should be located at the Most open space is located along the perimeter. Planting zones Staff concurs. perimeter of the site where it is visible and it should be of vary. Some are linear and narrow, creating an edge along walks. sufficient width and depth to provide adequate contrast to any Others are more spacious, allowing generous green areas suitable adjoining site parking. Planting zones should be consolidated into for larger tree species. Planting zones are designed deliberately to areas large enough to give a natural character to a site rather help define and shade public sidewalks. At the rear of the site, a than randomly distributed in small and narrow open spaces that broad swath of mixed plantings will provide a buffer between this do not match the context and scale of the project. project and smaller scaled neighboring houses to its north. 3. Planted areas should also be located along the public Plantings are proposed in all of these locations (with the Staff concurs. boundaries of the site, within parking areas, along drainage or exception of parking areas, because all parking is under the stormwater management areas, around buildings, and at building building). entries. 4. The existing topography should be preserved intact as much as Outside the building perimeter, significant regrading is not Staff concurs. possible to minimize disruptions in drainage. proposed 5. Different scales of plantings (trees, shrubs, flowers) should be A variety of plantings of different sizes and colors are proposed Staff concurs. incorporated into site design to the extent possible and such features as mature woods and riparian areas should be retained. 6. Use species appropriate for site conditions including available Selected species are appropriate for site conditions. Selected trees are on sunlight, water and root and canopy space. the City tree list 7. Use trees, shrubs and other landscaping features to provide Plantings will be used to screen utilities where necessary Staff concurs. Will screens for service areas, parking and utilities. confirm via site plan review. 8. Use large specimen street trees along pedestrian routes to Large trees, selected from Charlottesville’s Tree Packet of Staff concurs. provide shade and to define edges. recommended species, are proposed along all sidewalks. 9. In the core of larger commercial and office centers, street trees n/a and more formal urban plantings organized around public open spaces are recommended. 10. Consider using landscaping areas that also provide storm Planted Bioretention is planned along parts of Observatory and Staff concurs. water treatment, such as rain gardens. Jefferson Park Avenues. 11. Refer to the Tree Planting and Preservation BMP Manual in Acknowledged the Charlottesville Standards and Design Manual Attachment 2: February 14, 2023 ERB staff report. 2005 JPA CoA Request 15 12. Encourage day lighting of streams where appropriate. n/a Chapter III: Sites, G. Lighting Applicant's Comment Staff Comment 1. Use full cutoff luminaires in accordance with City lighting All relevant lighting will follow the city’s cutoff luminary See recommended requirements to provide better lighting and prevent unwanted requirements conditions in the staff glare. Lighting should at all times be designed to prevent light report. pollution in the form of light transmission laterally beyond site boundaries or upward to the sky. 2. Coordinate the lighting plan with the landscape plan to ensure Lighting is being coordinated with the landscape design pedestrian areas are well-lit and that any conflict between trees and light fixtures is avoided. 3. Lighting should provide for appropriate and desirable nighttime LED lighting at levels and temperatures recommended by BAR illumination for all uses on and related to the site to promote a guidelines will be specified. Most exterior lighting will be motion- safe environment. activated 4. Light pedestrian areas with appropriately scaled poles and Most lighting of pedestrian areas will not be mounted on poles. luminaires. Their heights are typically ten to fourteen feet. Those lights that are will not be mounted above appropriate heights 5. Avoid using building accent lighting that is too bright and draws Accent lighting will be subtle and used only around building signs too much attention to the building. Reasonable levels of accent lighting to accentuate architectural character may be appropriate in individual instances when it is shielded and is not aimed towards neighboring properties, sidewalks, pathways, driveways, or public right-of-ways in such a manner as to distract travel. 6. Gasoline station/convenience store aprons and canopies n/a should utilize fully shielded lighting fixtures. 7. Provide pedestrian lighting at transit stops and along paths to parking lots and other destinations. Chapter III: Sites, H. Walls & Fences Applicant's Comment Staff Comment Attachment 2: February 14, 2023 ERB staff report. 2005 JPA CoA Request 16 1. Choose high-quality materials and designs using materials such Site walls will be built out of quality, durable materials. Staff concurs. as brick, stone, metal, and wood. Avoid untreated wood, vinyl, chain-link, or wire fences or concrete block walls. Consider selecting materials used elsewhere on the property or the structures within the site. 2. Use a scale and level of ornateness of the design of any new In detailing and scale, the site walls will be compatible with the Staff concurs. walls and fences that relate to the scale and ornateness of the building. building within the site. Use simpler designs on small lots. 3. Avoid exceeding the average height of other fences and walls Site walls will typically be low-- in many cases, seat wall height-- Staff concurs. of surrounding properties. especially along the JPA corridor. 4. Fences should be set back from the street right-of-way to allow n/a a clear area for utilities and landscaping. 5. When walls or fences stretch longer than 50 feet, use designs The brick wall around the upper terrace at Jefferson Park and Staff concurs. with texture and modulation to provide a regular rhythm without Observatory Avenues is punctuated by recesses that keep the being monotonous. For example, use vertical piers (generally wall face from being too monotonous. Where other site walls spaced no more than 25 feet apart) of a different material or stretch more than fifty feet without interruption, these are width or height. Plantings and street trees should be used in typically low, seat-height walls where modulation is of negligible conjunction with a wall or fence to break up a long expanse. value. 6. Use paint or opaque stains on pressure treated or unpainted n/a wooden fences. 7. Fence stringers (the structural framing of the fence) should be n/a located facing the interior of the subject lot, with the finished side facing out away from the subject property. 8. Fences at intersections and driveways should comply with City n/a requirements for site distance. (See Article IX, Division 7 of the Zoning Ordinance for detailed site triangle requirements.) 9. Transitional screening should consist of a densely planted buffer strip to provide an adequate visual screen. The screen should be of appropriate plant materials to form an effective buffer for all seasons. Mature vegetation should be retained in Attachment 2: February 14, 2023 ERB staff report. 2005 JPA CoA Request 17 such areas and supplemented as necessary by new vegetation to screen sight lines. Chapter III: Sites, I. Signs Applicant's Comment Staff Comment 1. Place signs so that they do not obstruct architectural elements Signs will not obscure architecture. They will be well integrated. Signage is not being and details that define the design of the building. reviewed under this CoA. All signage will 2. Respect the design and visibility of signs for adjacent Signs on the subject property will not obscure or clash with signs require a separate businesses. on properties elsewhere. sign permit and must 3. Use colors and appropriate materials that complement the Sign materials and design will enhance building materials and comply with EC design materials and color scheme of the building, including accent and design. guidelines. trim colors. 4. Use a minimal number of colors per sign where possible. Avoid Signs will not have a busy color palette. Bold colors may be jarring overly bright color schemes. selected in special cases, but we believe these are potentially interesting choices. 5. Exterior illumination of signs shall comply with the City’s Sign lighting will adopt the city’s BAR’s recommendations for outdoor lighting requirements. Exterior neon is discouraged. exterior lighting. 6. Illumination of any sign shall not be directed toward any Sign lighting will be discreet and indirect, not shining outward residential area or adjacent street. toward the property edges 7. Consider using a comprehensive signage plan for larger Signs will be compatible with one another. developments. 8. Encourage the use of monument signs with accent landscaping Large signs may be used along the corridor with or without at the base along corridors. associated landscaping. 9. Internally lit signs should use an opaque background so only Sign lighting will be indirect, illuminating only the text/numbers. letters are lit. 10. Flashing lights are prohibited. None proposed. Attachment 2: February 14, 2023 ERB staff report. 2005 JPA CoA Request 18 Chapter III: Sites, J. Utilities, Communication Equipment & Applicant's Comment Staff Comment Service Areas 1. Locate utilities to minimize their visual impact from the street Utilities will be away from or screened from the JPA Corridor Staff concurs. and adjoining developments. 2. Screen and landscape dumpsters with wood board or solid Trash dumpsters/bins will be stored in the building, out of sight. Clarify location barrier wall when multiple sides of a building are highly visible. 3. Place utilities underground if at all possible or locate behind See comments in staff buildings. report. 4. Screen service areas and loading docks that are visible from To be located near streets or adjoining development with berms, landscaping, garage entrance. structures or fences. 5. Site noise-generating features away from neighboring The pool deck-- the only potential generator of noise-- is located properties especially residences, or use noise barriers or other at the already busy and active JPA thoroughfare rather than means of reducing the impact. facing the houses on the quieter side avenues. 6. Screen roof-top communications and mechanical equipment. Rooftop equipment will typically be screened behind parapet See comments in staff walls. report. Chapter IV: Buildings, B. Architectural Compatibility Applicant's Comment Staff Comment 1. Charlottesville seeks new construction that reflects the unique The building’s architecture does not rely on historic references Does not replicate character, history, and cultural diversity of this place. deployed superficially or romantically. It does not indulge historic Charlottesville, Architectural transplants from other locales or shallow imitations vernacular details associated with places outside Charlottesville. but that is not the of historic architectural styles, for example, are neither goal. Does it reflect appropriate nor desirable. "anywhere" architecture or architecture not consistent with Cville? Staff suggests it dos not. Attachment 2: February 14, 2023 ERB staff report. 2005 JPA CoA Request 19 2. A distinctive identity for each corridor should be created Exterior material selections are predominantly brick and stucco, Look at precedents through a combination of materials, forms and features that consistent with other buildings along the JPA corridor. The color and photos. Not create a coordinated and inviting mix of buildings and spaces. palette falls in a compatible range. Building massing is varied, not unlike other monolithic. The scale evident in fenestration, entrances, site contemporary stairs, canopies and porches is appropriate for this district. The buildings in City and at landscape design along JPA-- consisting of multiple terraces and UVA. Proposal is plantings-- has the potential to enhance the corridor’s character, consistent with Com creating opportunities for pedestrian comfort and interaction in a Plan goals to shaded environment that is a marked improvement over other transform this student housing that fronts this corridor. corridor. 3. Encourage a diversity of architectural materials, forms and Exterior material selections are predominantly brick and stucco, Contemporary design styles that respect the traditions of architecture in the consistent with area traditions. The flat roof with parapets is featuring brick and Charlottesville area including gable or hipped roof forms, common among the city’s larger apartment buildings, including stucco, which are standing seam metal roofing, brick, and wood siding. older ones (see 300 Fourth St SE, the Altamont Circle Apts, 39 typical for University Circle, the Preston Court Apts, etc...) Charlottesville. 4. New development should strive to implement the intended Multiple examples of buildings along JPA that do not present Consistent with vision rather than repeat existing inappropriate development engaging facades along the corridor (ex. 1909, 1905, 1801, 1721, revised Comp Plan re: patterns. 1719, 1715, 1713, 1709 and 1712 JPA). On these properties, density surface parking is prominent and visible in the front yards. Pedestrian walks are negligible and typically connect front doors not to public sidewalks but to asphalt parking. Street trees are uncommon, in many cases nonexistent. Trash cans are visible throughout the week. These properties do little to contribute to a sense of a street edge. Architectural character is often indistinct. The proposed project will not perpetuate any of these patterns. It represents a design that aspires to a better vision for this Corridor. 5. New development should respect existing historic buildings No buildings on the property are historically designated. PC established that and excellent examples from the recent past. historic context was compromised. Property is not locally designated Attachment 2: February 14, 2023 ERB staff report. 2005 JPA CoA Request 20 6. Existing development should be upgraded as opportunities n/a arise. Chapter IV: Buildings, C. Building Mass, Scale & Height Applicant's Comment Staff Comment 1. Break up the front of a large building by dividing it into Along the side avenues, brick facades at three stories above the Staff concurs individual bays of 25 to 40 feet wide. base stories are less than 30 feet wide and are intended to create the impression of individual dwellings attached to one another, not unlike townhouses. 2. Use variation in materials, textures, patterns, colors and details Material, textures and colors are varied. Brick veneer is used both Staff concurs to break down the mass and scale of the building. to establish a building base and to emphasize smaller scale building faces within the longer facades, an effort to differentiate volumes within the mass. Avoid an unmodulated mass Perspective views reveal modulated massing. Staff concurs Use stepped-back height Stepbacks occur frequently at upper stories. Staff concurs Use varied wall surfaces Wall surfaces do not extend for long stretches in the same plane. Staff concurs Facades are distinguished by projections and interrupted by recesses at regular intervals Use varied heights with regular width Parapet walls are taller over some locations, creating both Staff concurs variation in wall heights and places to screen mechanical equipment. 3. Use building mass appropriate to the site. Place buildings of not an office or commercial development n/a the greatest footprint, massing, and height in the core of commercial or office developments where the impact on adjacent uses is the least. Follow setback requirements for upper story according to zoning classification of the corridor. Attachment 2: February 14, 2023 ERB staff report. 2005 JPA CoA Request 21 4. When making transitions to lower density areas, modulate the Because the grade rises from JPA to the rear of the site, the lower Guidance of Comp mass of the building to relate to smaller buildings. Heights can be parking levels of the building can be submerged. This results in Plan conflicts with greater if the mass is modulated and other scale techniques are fewer stories above grade at the rear half of the site, where the 2011 Corridor Plan. adopted. Reduce height near lower density uses. proposed building is closer to the smaller scale houses along (See May 10, 2022 Observatory Avenue. The foremost brick faces here are limited to staff memo re: SUP three stories. The two stories above are faced in darker, request.) desaturated, muted colors, ones intended to help these upper levels withdraw into the background 5. Use massing reduction techniques of articulated base, Multiple massing reduction techniques are employed. Floor-to- Staff concurs watertables, string courses, cornices, material changes and floor heights are typically 11’, appropriate for a multi-family patterns, and fenestration to reduce the apparent height of a building large building. Fake windows and similar details are not appropriate articulation. Floor-to-floor heights of a building can have an impact on the mass of a building. For instance, typical ceiling heights in a residence are 8-9 feet. First floors of office buildings or retail shops can range from 10-15 feet. Upper floors that include residential or office are generally 8-12 feet in height. When actual or implied floor-to-floor heights exceed 15-20 feet on the exterior, then a building may begin to read as more massive than human-scaled. When articulating large buildings, keep these dimensions in mind. Space: Creating human-scaled spaces that are defined by either Spaces along the streets, those pedestrians are most likely to Staff concurs. Project buildings or landscape features provide more friendly, inviting encounter, benefit from plantings, site walls, terraces and features terraces, places. porches that support human scaled environments. On the bench's, walls, building, windows, doors and canopies will further enhance this landscaping. sense of scale. Chapter IV: Buildings, E. Facade Organization & Storefronts Applicant's Comment Staff Comment 1. Orient primary entrances on a building facade to the street or The primary entrance faces on the corridor, close to the corner of Staff concurs corridor. JPA and Washington Ave Attachment 2: February 14, 2023 ERB staff report. 2005 JPA CoA Request 22 2. Use a hierarchy of entry design on any complex, if the building The inclusion of an entry plaza + site stair aligned with the main Staff concurs has more than one orientation, and focus main entry on entrance creates a visible arrival sequence, complimented by street/corridor facade. beautiful native plantings. 3. Secondary entries may be created to allow convenient access Secondary entrances are located at both side avenues, close to Staff concurs from adjacent buildings, sidewalks, parking, bicycle paths and their intersections with JPA, promoting convenience and helpful transit stops. redundancy 4. Orient at least part of public elevations of shopping complexes Project incorporates to any adjoining neighborhoods. existing grade 5. Provide attractive facade treatments on any elevation that is Primary elevation facades utilize materials, fenestration and Staff concurs. Project visible from streets/corridors or from any primary elevations of masonry detailing that create a robust level of relief and has no blanks walls adjoining developments and avoid use of unadorned blank walls. adornment. 6. Consider using the traditional three-part facade of cornice, While it has a masonry base, the proposed building does not Staff concurs. Achieved pattern of upper story windows and a storefront with articulated present a three-part hierarchy in the most obvious, traditional through contemporary design. (NYT Feb 2014: base when designing a new building or when renovating an form. This building does not prioritize the historical horizontal existing structure. subdivisions that were more common in previous eras. Instead, Like coats and ties at a we intend the use of material and facade transitions to create a ballgame, cornices richer juxtaposition, emphasizing both vertical and horizontal have pretty much proportions, often overlapping the two. disappeared from contemporary architecture. https://www.nytimes.com/ 2014/03/02/realestate/the -crowning-glory.html) 7. Use a regular pattern of solids and voids for openings that Staff concurs. relate to more traditional building design in the corridor. 8. Use a proportion of openings (vertical or horizontal) that The windows, doors and storefront typically adopt vertical Staff concurs. generally is consistent with the context of the building. More proportions in keeping with traditional buildings traditional designed openings are typically vertically proportioned. 9. Strive for designs and materials that reflect the architectural Typically, material choices are appropriate for the region Staff concurs. traditions of the region. Attachment 2: February 14, 2023 ERB staff report. 2005 JPA CoA Request 23 10. Storefronts or large display windows should be used at the Storefronts are used at the two main street-level entries at the Staff concurs. street level. corner of Washington Ave and JPA. At the corner of Observatory Ave. and JPA, we also call for storefronts that offer visibility into amenity space (that may be converted to commercial space at a future time). Chapter IV: Buildings, F. Materials & Textures Applicant's Comment Staff Comment 1. Use material changes to help reduce mass and provide visual Materials changes are used deliberately to reduce the impression Staff concurs. interest. of massiveness. 2. Choose materials that offer texture and avoid monotonous The proposed brick and synthetic stucco will provide a range of Staff concurs. surfaces. For example, use wood or brick or stone, or new textures and avoid monotony. synthetic materials that approximate the look and dimension of these materials. 3. Use quality materials consistently on all visible sides of Materials will be durable Staff concurs. commercial, office and multi-family residential buildings. 4. In Charlottesville, common building materials are brick, wood Building walls will be faced in stucco or brick. Some stone is Staff concurs. or stucco siding, and standing-seam metal roofs. Stone is more proposed on site walls only. commonly used for site walls than building walls. 5. Avoid the use of building materials with long-term Synthetic stucco is proposed as an exterior finish on some walls. Staff concurs. maintenance problems, such as EIFS (exterior insulation and Synthetic stucco problems on past projects typically resulted from finishing systems), or vinyl siding. Sustainable, utilitarian building poor application practices that allowed moisture to get trapped in materials such as concrete block, metal siding or cementitious the wall envelope. Modern application standards using a proven panels may be appropriately used for a contemporary design. drainage system, such as the inclusion of a full mesh layer-- one that does not have to be conscientiously oriented to be functional-- under the insulated stucco panels, will be adopted for this project. 6. Clear glass windows are preferred. See staff report for recommendations re: clear glass. Attachment 2: February 14, 2023 ERB staff report. 2005 JPA CoA Request 24 Chapter IV: Buildings, G. Color Applicant's Comment Staff Comment 1. A coordinated palette of colors should be created for each The colors will be complimentary. Red brick is common along the Done development. This palette should be compatible with adjacent Corridor. Dark stucco colors are intended to make upper story developments. walls visually recede into the background, leaving the brick facades more prominent. Other than the brick color, the palette is muted and modern. White windows, storefront and trim is proposed only in the brick facade along the JPA base and at the corner entry, setting these locations apart. Dark windows are used elsewhere. We think the dark window and stucco colors will also create a nice backdrop to the brighter color range seasonally present on the perimeter site plantings. On the courtyard at the third level, vivid color is proposed on courtyard facing pavilions. These are remote enough, they are only partially visible from the Corridor and only from certain angles. They add an unexpected lining-- only occasionally glimpsed-- to an otherwise staid exterior. 2. Set the color theme by choosing the color for the material with The brick facades cover the most exterior area. The stucco colors Done the most area. If there is more roof than wall area in a are coordinated to look good with the brick. development, roof color will be the most important color choice and will set the tone for the rest of the colors. 3. Limit the number of color choices. Generally there is a wall While there are several wall colors, the proposed massing brick, to wall, accent color, trim color, accent color, and roof color. warrants it. The variation in colors and materials are intended to colors mitigate the building massing. 4. Use natural tints of materials such as reds, browns, tans, grays, Primary colors will have natural tints. Vivid color is proposed only Staff concurs. and greens as primary colors. Save bright accent colors for on facades within the courtyard, turned inward. Rarely visible awnings and signs on commercial buildings. from the street, they will create a distinctive and vibrant interior environment 5. Use color variation to break up the mass of a building and See perspective drawings Yes provide visual interest. 6. Do not use strong color that has the effect of turning the entire We do not Staff concurs. building into a sign. Attachment 2: February 14, 2023 ERB staff report. 2005 JPA CoA Request 25 Chapter IV: Buildings, H. Details Applicant's Comment Staff Comment 1. Use articulated elements such as cornices, belt courses, water A building base, bay divisions, variations in wall plane, masonry Staff concurs. tables, bay divisions, variations in wall plane and roof features to detailing and coping projections at tops of walls are among the create designs of interest. elements used to create architectural articulation 2. Include human-scaled elements such as columns, pilasters and Canopies and fenestration contribute to human scale Simple, minimal. Walls cornices, particularly at street level and on facades with a and terraces. Entry pedestrian focus. features 3. Avoid large expanses of blank walls that are visible from the Typically vertical planes, materials and colors vary often enough Avoided public right of way or neighboring developments. that large blank expanses do not result 4. Avoid oversized decorative elements. No big decorative elements are proposed. Achieved 5. Avoid decorative elements that do not relate to the No such elements are proposed Achieved architecture but serve to turn the whole building into a sign. Chapter IV: Buildings, I. Roof Form & Materials Applicant's Comment Staff Comment 1. Use roof forms that complement the building design and Roofs and their materials are not visible from the ground. They Flat roof contribute to a human scale. Avoid tall roof areas that overwhelm are flat roofs, common for and appropriate to multi-family the height of the building’s wall. Common Charlottesville roof buildings in Charlottesville. forms include hipped, gable, flat and gambrel. 2. If a shed roof or flat roof design is used, add a parapet wall to Some roofs have parapets. screen the roof. 3. Avoid a visible monolithic expanse of roof on large-scale Roof surfaces are not visible from the Corridor variation in the wall buildings. Break the roof mass with elements such as gables, planes and in heights dormers, or parapets. Scale these features to the scale of the of vertical elements building. 4. Consider using a special roof feature on buildings located at a Canopies are used to help distinguish prominent corners and Staff concurs. gateway, a prominent corner or highlight entry bays on larger their entries structures. Attachment 2: February 14, 2023 ERB staff report. 2005 JPA CoA Request 26 5. Steeper forms are associated with more traditional design and n/a can be appropriate when the development adjoins nearby neighborhoods. 6. On roofs that are visible such as gable, hipped or shed designs, n/a use quality materials such as metal or textured asphalt shingles. 7. Any equipment located on a roof should be screened from It will be See comments in staff public view. report. Chapter IV: Buildings, J. Awnings. Applicant's Comment Staff Comment 1. Encourage the use of awnings at the storefront level to shield Canopies are proposed for these purposes displays and entry and to add visual interest. 2. Coordinate the choice of colors, as part of an overall color Canopy colors are coordinated with associated storefronts scheme. Solid colors, wide stripes and narrow stripes should be considered as appropriate. 3. Awning forms may be angled or curved. n/a 4. Use of a canopy as an illuminated sign is not appropriate. n/a 5. Awning materials should be appropriate to the overall design Canopies are painted or powder coated metal of the building. Traditional cloth fabric, as well as standing-seam metal or newer rigid materials may be considered. Chapter IV: Buildings, I. Appurtenances Applicant's Comment Staff Comment 1. Building service, loading, and utility areas should not be visible Service, loading and utility areas will be located our of sight in the See comments in staff from public streets, adjacent developments or from access drives parking deck or screened by a wall near the entry drive into the report. within large developments. Such service areas should be located parking level. behind the main structure in the least visible location possible. 2. Mechanical equipment on roofs or sides of buildings should not Rooftop equipment will be screened behind parapet walls be visible from streets. Attachment 2: February 14, 2023 ERB staff report. 2005 JPA CoA Request 27 3. When the mechanical equipment vents, meters, satellite dishes n/a and similar equipment is ground mounted, screening should include either an opaque fence or wall made of the same material as the building or an evergreen hedge that screens objectionable views. 4. Items such as roof ladders, railings, roll-up doors and service None of these are located in visible locations doors should be located on building elevations that are the least visible from public streets/corridors, adjacent developments or from access drives within large developments. Their colors should be coordinated among all these elements and with the rest of the building. 5. In some cases, appurtenances may be integrated into the n/a building design if such integration enhances the compatibility of the overall design with the corridor vision. Chapter IV: Buildings, J. Additions & Corridor Conversions n/a Chapter IV: Buildings, K. Franchise Design n/a Chapter IV: Buildings, L. Gas Station Canopies n/a Chapter IV: Buildings, M. Civic & Institutional Buildings n/a Chapter IV: Buildings, N. Multi-Family Buildings Applicant's Comment Staff Comment 1. Follow the other guidelines within this chapter as applicable for Other applicable chapter guidelines are addressed in previous See above the overall design of such buildings in such issues as massing and pages building footprint, scale, complexity of form, height and width, materials, textures and colors, roof forms and materials, etc. 2. Give consideration to placing first floor retail storefronts in See above multi-family buildings if they face along a commercial corridor or face a pedestrian-oriented street within the downtown. Attachment 2: February 14, 2023 ERB staff report. 2005 JPA CoA Request 28 3. Avoid creating street front facades that are dominated by No garage doors are proposed on the front facade Garage entrance not garage doors. visible from JPA 4. Ensure that the designs of such buildings are consistent with They are consistent See precedents. Comp any adjoining neighborhoods and the zoning ordinance. Plan goals intend for this corridor to change/be developed Sub-Area C: Maury Avenue to Emmet Street Recommended General Guidelines Staff Comment Put utilities underground that are now located within median N/A. Project area does not include the median. Ensure that off street parking areas are well defined and Parking is within the building and not visible from the EC screened as needed Design new apartment buildings to break up their large scale and Design is contemporary. Typical building materials: Brick, stucco, metal, stone. use traditional materials Vision statement for Fontaine Avenue/Jefferson Park Avenue Entrance Corridor: Transitions quickly from accommodating highway speed autos to more congested auto, transit, pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Foremost considerations are traffic calming, provisions for pedestrian safety, and pedestrian amenities such as sidewalks, landscaping and transit stops The neighborhood center, Maury Avenue intersection, is currently a bustling, mixed use pedestrian activity area that newer developments strive to emulate. Pedestrian and mixed use characteristics of this neighborhood intersection should not be lost as redevelopment occurs New mixed use and apartment project design should reflect the character and importance of this major entrance to the City and the University Historic assets to be protected include the JPA median that formerly accommodated a trolley line, the Fry Spring’s Service Station, and the Oakhurst- Gildersleeve Neighborhood. This corridor is a potential location for public way-finding signage. Attachment 3: February 14, 2023 ERB staff report. 2005 JPA CoA Request CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT ERB Review of Special Use Permit Request within the Fontaine Avenue / Jefferson Park Avenue Entrance Corridor 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: May 10, 2022 Project Planner: Matt Alfele Date of Hearing: May 10, 2022 Application Number: SP-15-00001 Zoning: R-3 Residential with Entrance Corridor Overlay (Fontaine Ave/JPA; Sub-area C.) Tax Parcels: 17-104, 17-103, 17-103.1 (Note: 17-104 is not within the EC Overlay.) Site Acreage: 1.7 acres (74,531 sq ft) ERB Staff report prepared by: Jeff Werner, AICP, Preservation and Design Planner ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Relevant Code Section Section 34-157 (a)(7). When a property that is the subject of the application for a SUP is within an Entrance Corridor (EC), City 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 district, and for recommendations as to reasonable conditions which, if imposed, that would mitigate any such impacts. The ERB shall return a written report of its recommendations to the City Council. Note: Regardless of the approval or denial of the requested SUP, per Section 34-309, any subsequent development of this site will require design review by the ERB [applying the City’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines (design guidelines)] and approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA). Background The 1.7-acre project site is comprised of three parcels; two (1.5 acres) are within the Fontaine Avenue/Jefferson Park Avenue Entrance Corridor, Sub-area C (Maury Avenue to Emmet Street). The site is the location currently of six (6) residential structures: a c1899, two-story house (converted to apartments), a 1948 single-story house; a 1957 two-story apartment building, a c2000, four-story apartment building, and two c2000, three-story apartment buildings. 2005 JPA SUP - ERB staff report (4/27/2022) 1 Attachment 3: February 14, 2023 ERB staff report. 2005 JPA CoA Request SUP request1 to increase residential density from 21 DUA to 70 DUA. (87 DUA is the max allowed by SUP), will require the following: • Increase building height from 45-ft to 75-ft (101-ft is the max allowed by SUP). • Reduce the rear yard setback from 75-ft (w/25-ft S-3 buffer) to 40-ft (w/25-ft S-3 buffer). • Reduce off-street parking requirements from 200 spaces to 125. Discussion Zoning Requested SUP Comp Plan 2013 EC Vision Rear 75-ft 36-ft n/a n/a Setback Front 25-ft 26-ft n/a 15-ft (min.) Side 20-ft 20-ft n/a 15-ft 5-stories, up to 8 at Height (max.) 45-ft 75-ft 101-ft * 60-ft key intersections Higher intensity mixed High density Density (max) 21 DUA 70 DUA 87 DUA use residential On-site parking 200 125 n/a n/a (min) * w/44 DUA Approx. equivalents: 5-stories = 60-ft. and up 8-stories = 90-ft. Increased residential density Staff comment: No adverse impact on EC. The design guidelines do not address how density, in and of itself, visually impacts an EC. (Whether a building contains 100 small apartments or a single large one, the design review applies the same guidelines relative to scale and design.) Increased height (including massing and scale) Staff comment: No adverse impact on EC; impact(s) of increased height can be mitigated. Note: Following the April 12 deferral, design staff revaluated this request and suggests the increased height will not adversely impact this EC. Importantly, staff’s broader conclusion remains unchanged: The impacts of increased height can be adequately mitigated by application of the design guidelines and addressed during the required ERB design review. EC Guidelines and Comp Plan: • EC design guidelines (adopted 2011). Corridor-specific recommendations for this EC--and sub-area—suggest a 60-feet height maximum for structures on parcels zoned University High Density. • 2013 revisions to the Land Use Map designated the parcels University High Density. 1 Mitchell Matthews SUP Application for 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue, dated January 11, 2022: Cover, pages 2 through 37. 2005 JPA SUP - ERB staff report (4/27/2022) 2 Attachment 3: February 14, 2023 ERB staff report. 2005 JPA CoA Request • Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map (adopted 2021): Recommends development as an Urban Mixed-Use Corridor, with a maximum height of five stories, up to eight stories for properties at key intersections. [Note: JPA is not designated a key intersection.] The requested height increase differs from what is recommended for by-right development; however, it is allowed by Special Use Permit and is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which envisions this corridor becoming an area of higher residential density and mixed-use, facilitated by allowing taller and larger structures than the current built form. As presented conceptually, this project is generally consistent with the design guidelines relative to streetscape, site design, and architectural design. This evaluation reflects the City’s vision for this corridor, which is to transform it, not replicate the existing built form. Additionally, during the later design review, application of the design guidelines will further mitigate the impacts of the building’s height, massing, and scale. Perception of a building’s height is a response to its massing and scale--more so than to its vertical or planar dimensions--and is experienced primarily at the pedestrian level. Massing refers to how one perceives a building’s shape and size, its three-dimensional form. Scale refers to the dimensional perception of building within the context of its setting. This perception is further affected by architectural elements, materials, colors, setbacks, and even landscaping. Staff suggests envisioning this project as experienced at the pedestrian level and viewing the site as an urban block bounded by Jefferson Park Avenue Washington Avenue, Observatory Avenue, and the rear setback. The approximately 196-ft by 380-ft block is comparable to other blocks in the City, providing context. (Dimensions are approximate. Illustrations in Appendix.) Location typical block; curb-to-curb Front Side Total Length Area (SF) Downtown Charlottesville 210 256 466 53,760 2005 Jefferson Park Ave 196 380 576 74,480 Rose Hill Neighborhood 350 295 645 103,250 Venable Neighborhood 360 320 680 115,200 Martha Jeff Neighborhood 350 350 700 122,500 Belmont Neighborhood 500 290 790 145,000 Fifeville Neighborhood 800 200 1,000 160,000 10th and Page Neighborhood 800 275 1,075 220,000 Woolen Mills Neighborhood 680 400 1,080 272,000 Facing JPA, the building façade spans approximately 150-feet of the approximately 196-foot wide block. (On Main Street, at the Downtown Mall, buildings generally span approximately 196-feet of the 210-foot wide blocks.) Viewed from JPA, the two, five-story, apartment buildings are separated by a courtyard and sit atop and back from the façade of a two-story, 2005 JPA SUP - ERB staff report (4/27/2022) 3 Attachment 3: February 14, 2023 ERB staff report. 2005 JPA CoA Request masonry foundation. The height, scale, and massing are mitigated by the variation of materials, door and window openings, articulated facades, and street level landscaping, walls and terraces.* Facing Washington Avenue and Observatory Avenue, the building elevations span approximately 310-feet of the approximately 380-foot long block. (The 310-foot elevation is comparable to Memorial Gym (320-ft) and the Culbreth Parking Garage (285-ft). Less than the Water Street Parking Garage (400-ft) and the West Main facades of The Standard (380-ft), The Lark (380-ft), and The Flats (370-ft).) * From the front, NE corner to the back, SW corner the site rises 37-feet. On Observatory Avenue, this allows the masonry foundation to recede into the topography, transitioning the seven-story building to five. On Washington Avenue, the masonry foundation remains visible; however, the wall is articulated, features windows and entrances, and walls and terraces at street level. The building transitions from seven-stories to six; however, at the street level, the elevation of the masonry foundation reads as a two-story building, mitigating the perceived height, scale, and massing of the apartments above.* (* See Appendix for examples of building lengths.) Reduced rear setback Staff comment: No adverse impact on EC. The rear setback is not visible from JPA; reduction will not visually impact the corridor. On-site Parking Staff comment: No adverse impact on EC. The design guidelines address the visual impacts of on-site parking. (Screening, etc.) The on-site parking here will be concealed below-grade and accessed via a single entrance at the NW corner of the site, providing a solution consistent with the design guidelines. Recommendation As demonstrated, the impacts of the increased height are mitigated by design elements [as presented conceptually] and can be further addressed during the ERB’s design review process. The increased height is not prohibited (allowed by SUP) and anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends the increased height and related massing and scale will not adversely impact Sub-Area C of the Fontaine Avenue/Jefferson Park Avenue Entrance Corridor. During that later design review and approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness, the ERB will consider all design elements; however, staff suggests for the SUP three conditions that will help mitigate the increased height and memorialize desirable elements of the conceptual design. 2005 JPA SUP - ERB staff report (4/27/2022) 4 Attachment 3: February 14, 2023 ERB staff report. 2005 JPA CoA Request • To establish the block-level scale of this project, consideration should be given to dedicating and constructing within the rear setback a multipurpose (bike/ped) path linking Washington Avenue and Observatory Avenue. • Building’s façade and elevations, relative to form, massing, step backs, variation in materiality, and landscaping, shall be generally consistent with the conceptual design presented for the SUP request, • Organization and arrangement of the buildings shall be generally consistent with the conceptual design presented for the SUP request. Public Comments Received See special use permit staff report for comments received. Suggested Motion Finding of no adverse impact: I move to find the impacts of increased building height and related massing and scale can be mitigated during the required design review process and, therefore, will not adversely impact the Fontaine Avenue/Jefferson Park Avenue Entrance Corridor[.] [and, relative to mitigating those impacts, recommend the following conditions for the SUP: …]. (See staff’s recommendations above.) Alternate Motions Finding of adverse impact, mitigation available: I move to find the impacts of increased height and related massing and scale will adversely impact the Fontaine Avenue/Jefferson Park Avenue Entrance Corridor; however, these impacts can be mitigated during the required design review process[.] [and, relative to mitigating those impacts, recommend the following conditions for the SUP: …]. (See staff’s recommendations above.) Finding of adverse impact, no mitigation available: I move to find the impacts of increased height and related massing and scale will--and in a manner that cannot be mitigated during the required design review process--adversely impact the Fontaine Avenue/Jefferson Park Avenue Entrance Corridor. Attachments • Attachment 1: Charlottesville Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines Chapter V: Fontaine Avenue/Jefferson Park Avenue Entrance Corridor (pages 17-19) • Attachment 2: Relevant Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines 2005 JPA SUP - ERB staff report (4/27/2022) 5 Attachment 3: February 14, 2023 ERB staff report. 2005 JPA CoA Request Appendix 2005 JPA SUP - ERB staff report (4/27/2022) 6 Attachment 3: February 14, 2023 ERB staff report. 2005 JPA CoA Request Building façade lengths, for context: • 15th Street NW façade Grand Marc Apartments (5 stories) approx. 450-feet. • Water Street façade Water Street Parking Garage (4 stories) approx. 400-feet. • West Main façade The Standard (5 stories) approx. 380-feet. • 10th Street elevation The Lark (6 stories) approx. 380-feet. • West Main façade The Flats (6 stories) approx. 370-feet. • Water Street facade City Walk Apartments (4 stories) approx. 360-feet • Memorial Gym: (4 stories) approx. 320-ft • 2005 JPA (conceptual): Side elevations (6 stories, mid-block) approx. 310-feet. • Culbreth Parking Garage (3 stories) approx. 285-feet. • Side streets, Downtown Mall: Building wall approx. 235-feet. • West Main facade The Omni (6 stories) approx. 232-feet. • Maywood Lane façade of 1800 JPA (3 stories) approx. 221-feet • Water Street façade CODE Building (8 stories) approx. 215-feet. • 2111 JPA (apartments) front façade (3 stories) approx. 210-feet. • East High Street façade Queen Charlotte condos (4 stories) approx. 200-feet. • Main Street (facing Downtown Mall). Building wall approx. 196-feet. • 1600 JPA west façade South Range Apartments (4 stories) approx. 188-feet • Grady Avenue façade Preston Court Apartments (4 stories) approx. 160-feet • 1815 JPA apartments façade (5 stories) approx. 160-feet • 2005 JPA (conceptual): JPA façade (seven stories) approx. 150-feet • 1600 Monticello Avenue (apartments) (5 stories) approx. 150-feet. • Stadium Road facade Woodrow Apartments (2 stories) approx. 145-feet. • 1830 JPA (apartments) Shamrock Road facade (3 stories) approx. 124-feet. • 1725 JPA (apartments) front façade (6 stories) approx. 100-feet. 2005 JPA SUP - ERB staff report (4/27/2022) 7 Attachment 3: February 14, 2023 ERB staff report. 2005 JPA CoA Request Attachment 1: 2005 JPA SUP - ERB staff report (4/27/2022) 8 Attachment 3: February 14, 2023 ERB staff report. 2005 JPA CoA Request 2005 JPA SUP - ERB staff report (4/27/2022) 9 Attachment 3: February 14, 2023 ERB staff report. 2005 JPA CoA Request 2005 JPA SUP - ERB staff report (4/27/2022) 10 Attachment 3: February 14, 2023 ERB staff report. 2005 JPA CoA Request Attachment 2. Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines • Chapter I: Introduction o http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793359/1_Introduction_ERB.pdf • Chapter II: Streetscape o http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793360/2_Chapter%20II%20Street scape_ERB.pdf • Chapter III: Site o http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793361/3_Chapter%20III%20Site_E RB.pdf • Chapter IV: Buildings o http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793362/4_Chapter%20IV%20Buildi ngs_ERB.pdf • Chapter V: Entrance Corridors o http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793363/5_Chapter%20V%20Maps %20of%20Corridors_ERB.pdf Design Guidelines relevant to Density n/a Design Guidelines relevant to Height (including massing and scale) Chapter I: Maintain Human Scale in Buildings and Spaces: Consider the impact of building design, especially height, mass, complexity of form, and architectural details, and the impact of spaces created, on the people who will pass by, live, work, or shop there. The size, placement and number of doors, windows, portals and openings define human scale. Chapter IV: Guidelines for Buildings C. Building Mass, Scale & Height 1. Break up the front of a large building by dividing it into individual bays of 25 to 40 feet wide. 2. Use variation in materials, textures, patterns, colors and details to break down the mass and scale of the building. a. Avoid an unmodulated mass b. Use stepped-back height c. Use varied wall surfaces d. Use varied heights with regular width 3. Use building mass appropriate to the site. Place buildings of the greatest footprint, massing, and height in the core of commercial or office developments where the impact on adjacent uses is the least. Follow setback requirements for upper story according to zoning classification of the corridor. 4. When making transitions to lower density areas, modulate the mass of the building to relate to smaller buildings. Heights can be greater if the mass is modulated and other scale techniques are adopted. Reduce height near lower density uses. 2005 JPA SUP - ERB staff report (4/27/2022) 11 Attachment 3: February 14, 2023 ERB staff report. 2005 JPA CoA Request 5. Use massing reduction techniques of articulated base, watertables, string courses, cornices, material changes and patterns, and fenestration to reduce the apparent height of a large building. Fake windows and similar details are not appropriate articulation. Floor-to-floor heights of a building can have an impact on the mass of a building. For instance, typical ceiling heights in a residence are 8-9 feet. First floors of office buildings or retail shops can range from 10-15 feet. Upper floors that include residential or office are generally 8-12 feet in height. When actual or implied floor-to-floor heights exceed 15-20 feet on the exterior, then a building may begin to read as more massive than human-scaled. When articulating large buildings, keep these dimensions in mind. Design Guidelines relevant to Setbacks. Chapter III: Guidelines for Sites, D. Building Placement 1. Orient the facade of new buildings to front on the corridor. 2. Limit setback of new buildings according to the zoning of the particular corridor. 3. Limit setbacks at major intersections so that the architecture can help define the area. 4. Use compact building arrangements to reduce the feeling of seas of parking, encourage pedestrian activity and define space. 5. Strive for contiguous building arrangement along the street face, and avoid large breaks between buildings in identified development sites. 6. Ensure that larger developments orient their design to any adjoining neighborhoods and to side streets. 7. Provide breaks in large developments and building masses to allow pedestrian connections between developments. 8. Orient service areas to limit their impact on the development and any neighboring areas. 9. Each side of a corner building that faces a street should be considered a facade of the building for design purposes. Design Guidelines relevant to Parking. Chapter I. Design Principles Mask the Utilitarian: Provide screening from adjacent properties and public view of parking lots, outdoor storage and loading areas, refuse areas, mechanical and communication equipment, and other uses that have adverse impacts. Where feasible, relegate parking behind buildings. Chapter III: Guidelines for Sites, E. Parking 3. Reduce the visibility of residential garages by: a. Not allowing a garage to become the primary architectural feature when a development is viewed from the street, especially for attached housing. b. Placing garages behind the building setback, preferably facing to the side or rear of attached housing. c. Placing garages and parking in the rear with alley access 2005 JPA SUP - ERB staff report (4/27/2022) 12 Attachment 3: February 14, 2023 ERB staff report. 2005 JPA CoA Request Chapter IV: Guidelines for Buildings, E. Facade Organization & Storefronts 3. Secondary entries may be created to allow convenient access from adjacent buildings, sidewalks, parking, bicycle paths and transit stops. Design Guidelines specific to Fontaine Avenue/Jefferson Park Avenue Entrance Corridor (Ref. Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines, Chapter V: Corridors, pages 17-19.) Vision statement for Fontaine Avenue/Jefferson Park Avenue Entrance Corridor: This corridor transitions quickly from accommodating highway speed autos to more congested auto, transit, pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Foremost considerations are traffic calming, provisions for pedestrian safety, and pedestrian amenities such as sidewalks, landscaping and transit stops. The neighborhood center, Maury Avenue intersection, is currently a bustling, mixed use pedestrian activity area that newer developments strive to emulate. The pedestrian and mixed use characteristics of this neighborhood intersection should not be lost as redevelopment occurs. New mixed use and apartment project design should reflect the character and importance of this major entrance to the City and the University. Historic assets to be protected include the JPA median that formerly accommodated a trolley line, the Fry Spring’s Service Station, and the Oakhurst-Gildersleeve Neighborhood. This corridor is a potential location for public way-finding signage. Recommended General Guidelines for Sub-area: Maury Avenue to Emmet Street: • Put utilities underground that are now located within median • Ensure that off street parking areas are well defined and screened as needed • Design new apartment buildings to break up their large scale and use traditional materials 2005 JPA SUP - ERB staff report (4/27/2022) 13 Attachment 4: February 14, 2023 ERB staff report. 2005 JPA CoA Request CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Summary of BAR Discussion on July 17, 2018 re: Clear Glass On July 17, 2018, at the request of the ERB, the BAR regarding the definition of clear glass and the corresponding 70 VLT that has become the city’s standard. Background: While one of several factors used in specifying glass, Visible Light Transmission (VLT) is generally accepted as the measure of the clearness and reflectivity of glass. High VLT indicates the glass is clearer and less reflective; low VLT indicate less clear, more reflective glass. The city’s Design Guidelines for Architectural Design Control Districts and Entrance Corridors (EC projects are reviewed by the Entrance Corridor Review Board, or ERB) both recommend “clear glass.” However neither guidelines refers to a specific VLT—see citations below. Several years ago, after evaluating the criteria used to specify glass, the BAR (and the ERB) began using 70 VLT as the threshold for clear glass; tacitly establishing it as the standard. Summary of BAR Discussion: BAR concluded that VLT 70 should remain the preference relative to clear glass. However, they acknowledged the case-by-case flexibility offered in the Design Guidelines; specifically, though not exclusively, that this allows for the consideration of alternatives—e.g. VLTs below 70--and that subsequent BAR decisions regarding glass should be guided by the project’s location (e.g. on the Downtown Mall versus a side street), the type of windows and location on the building (e.g. a street level storefront versus the upper floors of an office building), the fenestration design (e.g. continuous glass walls versus punched windows), energy conservation goals, the intent of the architectural design, matching historical glass, and so on. Additionally, the BAR recommends that the ERB consider a similar approach in its evaluation of the glass proposed for EC projects. References to Glass in Resign Guidelines ADC Design Guidelines Chapter 3. New construction; I. Windows & Doors (5) Darkly tinted mirrored glass is not an appropriate material for windows in new buildings within the historic districts. (9) Glass shall be clear. Opaque spandrel glass or translucent glass may be approved by the BAR for specific applications. Chapter 4. Rehabilitations; C. Windows (15) Do not use tinted or mirrored glass on major facades of the building. Translucent or low (e) glass may be strategies to keep heat gain down. Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines IV. Guidelines for Buildings; E. Materials and Textures (6) Clear glass windows are preferred. Note: The Historic Conservation District guidelines state: Clear glass windows (VLT of 70% or more) are preferred. These were adopted after the 70 VLT became the tacit standard for ADC and EC projects. Glass Discussion Report (August 14, 2018) 1 Planning Commission and Council Comprehensive Plan Discussion October 11, 2021 12:00 PM to 2:00 PM Virtual Meeting Members Present: Chairman Solla-Yates, Commissioner Mitchell, Commissioner Russell, Commissioner Stolzenberg, Commissioner Stolzenberg, Commissioner Lahendro, Commissioner Habbab Councilors Present: Vice-Mayor Magill, Councilor Hill, Councilor Snook, Councilor Payne, Mayor Walker Members Absent: Commissioner Dowell Staff Present: Patrick Cory, Brian Wheeler, Alex Ikefuna, Missy Creasy, Matt Alfele, Lisa Robertson, Carrie Rainey, James Freas, Chris Engel, Sam Sanders The Chairman called the work session to order at 12:00 PM. Vice-Mayor Magill called Council to order. 1. Comprehensive Plan Discussion Chairman Solla-Yates – There was a quite bit of interest in Council getting up to speed on the Comprehensive Plan and discussing in depth (in a less structured way) the details of the plan so that we’re all familiar with what we’re talking about. Today, I would like to focus on concise statements and questions on the big concepts of the Comprehensive Plan. Councilors and Planning Commissioners are more than welcome to weigh in. Please be respectful and conscious of Council’s time. Councilor Snook – There’s a common criticism, which I believe to be based on ignorance, that the Future Land Use Map and the suggestions of likely higher density have not taken into account the effect of the University of Virginia, the effect of the student population, the distorting effect on the poverty data of the student population, and the expected effect from whatever the University might end up doing. The criticism is being given to us that we should reject what the consultants have done because they have screwed it up with respect to the University population. I wonder if the consultants might be able to tell us something more about what they have done to compensate for potential distortions that are caused by the fact that the students are not typical residents. They do distort some of the statistics and do distort some of the needs. As I look at it, I can see places where there have been accommodations made. I would like to hear the consultants directly answer that question. Jennifer Koch, Cville Plans Together – We came into this working with the assessments that have been previously completed. Building on those assessments, a housing needs assessment was completed in 2018. There was a fairly robust discussion about that document and about how students may or may not play into various impacts on affordability in the city. There was discussion during the Affordable Housing Plan about whether there was additional considerations needed. I would like HR&A to speak to this. The way we are considering this is that we have not pulled out the sensitive community areas that we have looked at. We have not pulled out census data we think are student populations. Using census data, we have looked at income data. It’s not always straight forward to do that. We have not pulled out that analysis and potential student data. We know that the region is growing. At the same time, we know UVA is planning to get more students on Grounds. They’re likely planning for additional students. One of the other ways we are looking to include considerations for students in this plan is looking at potential intensity of development near UVA. For example, with the Jefferson Park Avenue and Fontaine Avenue areas, we have included additional intensity in those areas. We have included a discussion of potential additional intensity in those areas as we move through the zoning. There are areas near the University 1 where students are living right now. Those areas might be ideal areas to allow even more students to live, to have areas designated for additional student housing in the city to rein in impacts on other areas of the city. We know that students need housing. We know there will always be students that aren’t living on Grounds and they are part of the Charlottesville community. We’re not looking to completely cut students out of the conversation. Ron Sessoms, Cville Plans Together – We understand that the University is a major institution within the city of Charlottesville. It has major land use impacts. We have to think about how those impacts effect the way we look at, not only the Future Land Use Map, but the way we look at housing, transportation, and all of those different elements that would help support the growth of the University in the long term sustainability of that institution. As we looked at the Future Land Use Map, we did plan for intensity of residential uses around the University. Intensity could be supported in helping support housing for students as well as understanding how those areas begin to effect other residential neighborhoods immediately around the University for non-student uses as well. We do understand that the University is a very important component of the city. We have thought about it and planned for it through this planning process. Mayor Walker – I hope that the conversation doesn’t become how we ensure that the University and their growth is considered in every aspect. Part of why we’re doing this in the first place is because of the impact their growth has had on the community in a negative way. The conversations that I have had with the University is them acknowledging that. Part of their mission to be great and good is to ensure that they are building on Grounds. Based on the community needs, they’re supposed to develop these relationships with the community and that they’re more strategic about where they build, where their students go, and where they recommend for them to go. Those partnerships with them and even these new developments that they’re supposed to be doing has moved from helping with the current housing needs to we’re now having more of a conversation around workforce housing. I have shared my concerns with them about that. We have to make sure the reason we’re in this situation today is because nobody kept the pressure on them to be great and good community members. That has to be a major part of the conversation. Based on what I just heard, I will be concerned about us making these changes. I understand that UVA students will live throughout the community. There needs to be a conversation with the University to ensure that goes very differently than it has in previous decades. Ms. Koch – The question from Councilor Snook was (at a high level) centered on criticisms that this plan hasn’t considered enough of the impact of UVA students or it has considered it too much in terms of the housing needs. You’re right, Mayor Walker. This is about making sure the community, as a whole, that we’re not discussing any specific changes based on the student need. One thing I failed to mention was that beyond the Future Land Use Map, within the Affordable Housing Plan, and within the Comprehensive Plan document, it talks several times about the need to coordinate with UVA, Albemarle County, and regional planning groups to make sure that everyone is playing a role in this conversation. I want to make sure that is clear as well. Mayor Walker – What we also have to move towards is not just the partnerships with county. The city, in some way, would be a landowner. That partnership looks very differently than what it looks now: buying land versus partnering with the county. I understand the regionalism and those conversations. What we have heard from the county is that they have a housing crisis too that they have been trying to figure out. I know that Councilor Payne is on the regional housing partnership. I don’t know where that’s going. I think we may need to ensure in some way that we have more control over what happens on those properties than we do at this time. 2 Councilor Snook – The other question I have wanted to ask deals with the overall issue of whether there is an assumption that the consultants have made about population growth. I have suggested that we consider that the population will continue to grow in Charlottesville as it has largely grown over the last 20/30 years. I don’t exactly know what the numbers are. It has been annualized at about 1 percent a year. That essentially tracks the growth of the University, which has basically grown at an annualized rate of 1 percent a year since 1980. I see no reason to think that the University is not going to continue to grow at 1 percent a year. As a general average, that’s a pretty good number. As long as that is likely to be the case, the city should figure that in addition to the University growing at 1 percent a year, the city should expect its population to grow at 1 percent a year. Therefore, new housing availabilities should start growing at roughly 1 percent a year. This is an argument overall for more density and for not just ‘pulling up the drawbridge’ and saying nobody else is allowed to come live in the city of Charlottesville. Only by embracing the notion that there will continue to be growth pressures, that we will have to do something to ameliorate. Only by embracing that and planning for it will we be able to hold the line on housing prices for not only the very poor and the 30 percent AMI. Right now the problem that people are having is that there’s just not enough of the missing middle housing options that would embrace significantly more income. There’s just not enough inventory out there. Have you (consultants) given any thought to whether (in the Comp Plan) we should embrace a particular population projection as something that we should be planning for? Ms. Koch – There’s a discussion of that in the beginning portion of the Comprehensive Plan right before the Guiding Principles where we pull in discussions we have been having throughout this process; including these regional projections for growth at around 15,000 households by 2040. We have a graph that shows the projected rate of growth in Albemarle County and the projected rate of growth in Charlottesville. Charlottesville’s growth rate is much lower. That’s because there is no additional housing. There’s not additional growth happening. We haven’t done additional analysis. That wasn’t built into this process to do additional projection for population. We know that there is growth happening. We know the University is growing, not only in students, but also obviously in employees. We know the city is growing because of UVA, economic development that is happening, people want to live in Charlottesville, and people want to live in the region. We are looking to provide more opportunities for that. We have not put out a specific percentage per year. Councilor Snook – Do you think that the one percent average is a reasonable first step/approximation? What can we work towards? Ms. Koch – That is something I would like to discuss more with the team. Mayor Walker – We also have to think about what the census is telling us to date about who is leaving the city. We have to be well intentioned about how to keep those individuals in the city or we’re going to be looking at a completely different community in the next few decades that is predominantly white and upper middle class. Ms. Koch – There are tracking metrics built into the implementation chapter to make sure that tracking does happen. We have heard anecdotally that this is happening. There are a lot of pressures. We certainly can see trends in data that this needs to be continued moving forward. Commissioner Stolzenberg – I draw your attention to strategy 2.4 within the housing chapter, which aims to target a 5 percent rental vacancy rate in order to ensure a better functioning rental market ideally. With prices rising as fast, that is an indicator by proxy of the pressure for the population to grow. We know that outlying counties are growing much faster than we are. Some might say that people prefer to live in Greene or Fluvanna. Others might say that is because there’s no housing available in the 3 city. That low vacancy rate that we currently have is well below 5 percent. It is an indicator that the natural rate of population growth, if we didn’t have all of these restrictions on housing, would be faster than what it is now. Commissioner Mitchell – I want to talk about the overlay. To do that, I am going to be redundant. There’s nobody that wants density for the sake of density. We want density with a purpose. I think everyone at this meeting wants to increase the equitable housing stock. The density should allow us to do that. The overlay would allow us to do that. The consultants continue to recommend something else. What I would like the consultants to do so I can get comfortable with moving away from the overlay, is ‘walk me through’ what we’re going to do to increase the density with the purpose of privileging. I am asking them to do that. I am asking them to do this for the audience as well. How does what they’re proposing to do allow us to increase density with the focus on privileging affordability in Charlottesville? Ms. Koch – At a high level, we have proposed that the zoning ordinance (when we get there) instill affordability requirements in various ways directly into the zoning district language. The reason we have done that is to more directly tie affordability to the land use categories rather than having it in a separate overlay. The way that works out is different depending on each category. We have included a table in the Comprehensive Plan as well as the materials for tomorrow to ‘walk through’ the housing affordability framework. In General Residential, we’ve talked about allowing a base up to 4 (market rate) units if the existing structure is maintained plus an additional bonus to be determined in the zoning ordinance. In the sensitive community areas within the General Residential, those would require that the first new unit be affordable and allow additional units beyond that. The reason we have shown these two separate is that we are looking to incentivize potential housing opportunities or capitalize those potential housing opportunities outside of those sensitive community areas, which many have a lot of pressures because they are close to UVA/Downtown. They have communities that are sensitive to displacement pressures. We are looking to allow additional development outside of those areas at that market rate level in the General Residential category. In the Medium Intensity category (the next step up), we are currently proposing using either a bonus program or another inclusionary zoning mechanism for affordability. There would be a base amount of residential units allowed; then additional units depending on the affordability level. We’ve not identified the specific levels because they require additional analysis, which is forthcoming. We don’t want to get ahead of that. Higher Intensity Residential, Mixed Use (corridors or nodes) will all have affordability requirements built in and an inclusionary zoning mechanism that would likely say something about a certain percentage of units that would need to be affordable. Each category has requirements and incentives for affordability built into it that way. Lee Einsweiler, Cville Plans Together – The only thing I wanted to add was that there’s been a lot of talk about this mechanism being an overlay. The only reason that we have softened up the language surrounding an overlay is that we intend to put it in all of the underlying districts. It would have the exact same impact as an overlay. The regulations would be with each district itself instead of being in a separate part of the ordinance. In the interest of truly embedding these affordability ideas into each district, we would like to combine those ideas together as part of a base district rather than a standalone overlay. Both would have the same fundamental rules; whatever we decide those rules would be. This is something we can continue to talk about during the zoning process. We are encouraging the city and we are talking to the City Attorney about the use of the base districts themselves across the city in place of an overlay. It is fine to keep using that rhetoric because I know it has been used so far. Commissioner Mitchell – There seems to have been a retreat in the non-sensitive General Residential and the affordability component. At the last meeting in many of the documents that we saw, we want to treat the non-sensitive General Residential and the affordability components associated with that like we 4 want to treat the sensitive General Residential. We’ve moved away from that. I am wondering what the thinking was as it relates to moving away. Ms. Koch – That was not something we proposed. Commissioner Mitchell – I think there was strong consensus from the Commission to do that. If you guys rejected that, why did you reject that? Ms. Koch – We heard comments on both sides of that. From our perspective, we didn’t see it as a strong consensus. That’s why we didn’t make that adjustment. I am happy to hear more comments about that. From my point of view, we heard quite a few comments on both sides of that. Commissioner Mitchell – My recollection was that the Commission was pretty unanimous. I didn’t hear any commissioner objecting to that. Commissioner Stolzenberg – As I recall, the original overlay proposal was for the low intensity areas (sensitive areas) to have that second unit be affordable and have a base General Residential category elsewhere where there were a few by right. It was affordable requirements with the bonus program in that overlay up to 12 beyond that. Am I wrong in saying that what is currently being proposed is consistent with the overlay proposal from June except for that one thing in the sensitive areas about bonuses beyond four? Commissioner Habbab – I have more of a clarification of these sensitive residential areas. It is a question to the consultants and the rest of the Planning Commission. For the sensitive residential area, the first unit would be affordable. If a development happens, we would be replacing the already affordable unit in the sensitive community with another affordable unit/mandating it. Would we want to increase that affordability in those sensitive areas instead of replacing a one-for-one unit? On the General Residential, it is just a question of if we’re giving up our (single-family home) to 4 units without any affordability to that 4 number. Do we want to have any units there that are affordable to increase that? Are the consultants looking at whether that will generate enough housing that is going to be 80 percent AMI? Is there a specific number where a single family owner build ADUs that it are more affordable? Ms. Koch – We want to make sure that in these areas that have traditionally not had a lot of housing except for single family housing. we want to incentivize those opportunities by making sure they are competitive with the market rate for those areas right now. By allowing additional market rate units in those areas, we can incentivize units that will (even if not affordable to a deeply affordable level) will likely be smaller units. They will be more naturally affordable. With the additional bonus, there could be a lot above that. We believe having those as market rate could support additional, affordable units that could be deeply affordable or affordable at a deeper level with that market rate base. You did mention one thing we do think is an important consideration. Those housing property owners that don’t want to build up to 4; they maybe want to build 1 or 2 ADUs on their property. That is one thing we have taken into consideration with this thought around keeping the first units market rate. We want to make sure that it is feasible and makes sense from an economic perspective for even smaller property owners to put that type of development on their property. If we were to require a deeply affordable ADU, that might be less accessible for a lot of people to finance without subsidy. Commissioner Habbab – The first question was about the number of affordable units we’re proposing in the sensitive areas. If you want to tear down this building or develop this house, you have to provide one unit. You can provide up to four units total with one being affordable. These sensitive areas are 5 sensitive because we want to protect the people that live there. They have affordable units there now. Instead of replacing one-for-one unit, I guess that’s what we’re doing. We’re not really adding any more affordability in the new built units that are going to happen there. Ms. Koch – That’s right. We’re saying the first new unit should be the affordable unit or it can be the existing housing unit that’s affordable. If they want to add additional units, the existing building can be the affordable unit. We are saying: one unit affordable to the level specified in the zoning. The reason for that is we want to balance this desire to protect vulnerable communities that would be sensitive to displacement pressures while also still allowing for wealth building in these neighborhoods. There are homeowners who have owned these properties for a long time. We want to make sure that we’re not making it more difficult for them to build wealth with those properties. We look to balance that with the numbers of units we have noted. Commissioner Habbab – That makes sense the way you have it. My only concern with that is that would fundamentally shift the demographic. It can push people out if we have all of these market rate units in these neighborhoods. Commissioner Russell – That spoke to my first question. My concern is that we may not be going far enough if we don’t require more than that 4th unit to be affordable in the General Residential. I wonder if it would even happen. Would we even start to see anyone going to that? What would be the downside in perhaps requiring the second unit be affordable and the flexibility of relaxing that rather than trying to dial it back at a later time? Ms. Koch – The question is the potential harm in saying up to 2 units would be affordable? Commissioner Russell – Requiring that the second unit as opposed to the third or fourth? We’re going from a primarily R-1 and going all the way up to 3 units, no affordability. The fourth unit would require affordability. What is your assessment of what would happen if the second, third, or fourth unit was required to have affordability after that? Ms. Koch – What we’re proposing is that any new unit would need to be affordable. The first new unit would need to be affordable. Councilor Hill – The fourth unit isn’t affordable in General Residential. You can maintain the existing structure. Ms. Koch – That’s right. We had proposed a couple iterations back of having up to four units with the fourth unit being affordable. We heard that was not going far enough. Commissioner Russell – Then affordability isn’t baked into all of the zones? You’re not requiring affordability in General Residential. Ms. Koch – There will be a bonus program established that we have not put a specific number of units on but we have built into this to establish that in the zoning process. Councilor Hill – The bonus program is assuming that we can do more than 4 units in these R-1 sites. I do have a lot of pause about that. I think there’s going to be capacity issues for even up to 4 units on many of these sites. I share the concerns that are being raised. We should be assuring more affordability throughout more of the neighborhoods in this community. I am not sure if it is the first unit. I am not sure what the city can do to incentivize that but we’re not looking at an AirBnb, which is one of my 6 biggest concerns with some of this. I am just echoing the concern. We need to be looking at the General Residential similarly as the sensitive if we really want to achieve affordability throughout this community. The last time we met, I raised some very specific examples around Medium Intensity and where it might not be appropriate. Those were really to be examples. Has the team gone through and looked at every place that they put that Medium Intensity and take that same scrutiny that I have taken on a few areas that I picked out? My intention wasn’t for you to take certain things and change them. My intention was to understand holistically how we looked at where Medium Intensity is. I would take the position that we should keep that category. I believe there are places for it. Until we go through the rezoning, I don’t think, at this point, it is appropriate to be specifically identifying locations for Medium Intensity until it’s been really looked at on a street by street basis. Ms. Koch – In terms of the Medium Intensity (where it is located), we did hear comments the last time we met from you (Councilor Hill) and others about specific locations. We made sure that we looked more holistically at intensity. Throughout this process, we’ve focused on having that near parks and schools (community hubs). We’ve focused on having it along corridors that we believe should be prioritized for improved multimodal transportation. We do recognize there are some areas that are more constrained. In the refining for this map, we have pulled back on a few areas that we believe that were PUDs or small lots and were part of a PUD. We have pulled back in some of those areas because we recognized that even though they’re developed to a level that feels Medium Intensity if we’re looking at a lot by lot basis. General Residential is more relevant for those locations. We’ve looked throughout the map at those adjustments to make them. I would be interested to hear from others about how people feel about having this category on the land use map. We do feel it is important from a planning perspective. It makes sense to identify locations for greater intensity. Going back to the first part of your question which was around the General Residential and why not have that affordability baked in at a lower level. We’ve talked about why we have not shown that; wanting to incentivize development in these areas that traditionally have not had this level of development. Councilor Hill – I am just trying to understand. The desire is that we have options for affordability and more places than sensitive areas. I certainly see the benefit of wealth building in those sensitive areas. What I am seeing here concerns me that there is going to be a target on these sensitive areas. That’s where some of the most affordable ways to do some of these things are. It is not going to be incentivizing beyond that. We’re going to be concentrating on that activity and not actually finding the affordability growth outside of those areas. This is up to 4 units if you maintain the existing structure and none of that is affordable. With the Medium Intensity, I feel the same way. If you want a bonus, I understand that’s where the affordability really comes in. My first statement was recognizing that it is going to be hard for many of these parcels in R-1 zoning to actually go beyond that fourth unit. What do we accomplish here? I don’t want density for the sake of density. Ms. Koch – In these categories that we have been discussing throughout this process, we have said up to a certain number of units: up to 4 in General Residential and up to 12 in Medium Intensity. I believe what we’ve proposed allows flexibility to provide a lower number. We have said that some areas might not allow up to four based on constraints in the General Residential. We have noted that not all areas will be appropriate up to 12 in Medium Intensity. I believe this would leave us flexibility to say in the zoning ordinance some areas up to two base units in General Residential with a bonus on top of that. 7 Councilor Hill – Are you assuming that you know the maximum capacity is more than two? That’s where I am really having trouble piecing this together. If we’re saying that it is up to four and that property can’t have up to four because it won’t accommodate it, we’re going to give them two. What makes us think that we can have a third if we can’t accommodate more than two? Ms. Koch – We would look at what the capacity would be on these sites, which would be within these form constraints. We have talked about and looked at environmental constraints. We could stay within that. The base and the bonus would be within that level of development. Councilor Hill – We wouldn’t give them a base to maximize the property. We would give them something less than that. If you want to maximize this, you have to do affordability? Ms. Koch – I believe yes. (Lee) Can you confirm that would be something that you would support? As we have been noting throughout, zoning districts will not be one-to-one with each of these land use categories. We will be breaking them down. There will be transitions between heights and other intensity levels. In Medium Intensity, we say up to 12 units within these areas. The zoning would allow some potential breakdown for that. Not all areas would be up to 12. Some for example would be up to six. It is the same for General Residential. Not all areas would have the same capacity. If we want to ensure that there is a bonus for affordability in all areas and if some areas are not appropriate or not able to handle more than 4 units of intensity, would we be comfortable saying that one unit would be allowed a base level with additional/two units based on affordability requirements? Would we be bringing down that base level with a bonus on top of that in the General Residential and Medium Intensity? Mr. Einsweiler – The challenge with General Residential outside of the sensitive areas is that we understand from research around the country that it takes about ten units before you can generate one market, affordable unit; for the market to actually be able to afford to build it themselves. We are not likely on a single lot in many of the neighborhoods in the city going to achieve that level. Right now, we have not been asking for the affordability, except in ways that we would actually incentivize that go beyond what the market might produce. There’s a portion of this that is focused on the market producing some more housing opportunities for people in these areas. The units we’re talking about are typically going to be smaller. Therefore, as a new unit goes, it is less expensive than a large new unit that might take up a whole lot. While there is some natural affordability, it is hard to determine how to generate that other level of affordability. We have it in a bonus system or an inclusionary system (right now) to be determined as we go through the zoning. Yes, some lots have more capacity than other lots. We will be able to offer the option for more units. We may not be asking for four everywhere. Councilor Hill – My question is around the capacity of any parcel. If we’re saying that the capacity is going to be met with a market rate that affordability overlay doesn’t even have any place in this because we have already met the capacity. That’s the fundamental question that I am trying to have answered. With Medium Intensity, they could have up to 12. If they can only have eight (for example) in their capacity, would we be saying that those eight are market rate? And the only way to get more than eight is if they are affordable but then you’re beyond the capacity of the lot? I am just trying to understand the lot capacity versus how we’re applying this overlay. Mr. Einsweiler – Right now, we are hoping to improve on the affordability. There is nothing about what we’re talking about so far that does not suggest that we’re going to need additional funds/supplemental funds to support affordable units at these lower densities. When you get to that Medium Intensity (at the top end of that), we could potentially produce some more affordable housing but not at the four or six units level. It is unlikely to be produced without subsidy. 8 Vice-Mayor Magill – How are we defining affordable? Ms. Koch – We have included a discussion about that in the document. There has been a lot of questions about that. We have, throughout this process and the Affordable Housing Plan, been really clear that affordable is generally thought of as something that a household doesn’t pay more than 30 percent of their income on housing including utilities and other housing costs. What is affordable is dependent on what the household makes. If the household makes 80 percent of the Area Median Income, what is affordable for them is different than a household that makes much less or much more than that. In the Affordable Housing Plan when we’re talking about funding targets established to provide half of the city’s funding for affordable housing towards housing that will be affordable to those that make 30 percent of Area Median Income. We have this general definition of affordability. We have shown how we’re targeting funding in that plan. We have not established what affordability means in terms of the bonus programs and what levels of affordability we’re talking about. That’s because there are additional market analysis that is happening with the zoning process. We don’t want to jump ahead of that. Vice-Mayor Magill – What I am understanding is that we haven’t defined in this conversation what we’re requiring in the Comp Plan and what this overlay means. The definition of affordable has not been set yet. Ms. Koch – That’s right for these land use categories. We have ran the plan to include both affordable that is possible to actually happen. That’s the directive we’ve given ourselves and the city for that next piece of the process. Vice-Mayor Magill – My next question is about the mixed use nodes. I was noticing that quite a few have disappeared entirely from previous renditions. I was curious as to why. Ms. Koch – In the May version of the map, there were two neighborhood mixed use nodes. One was at Barracks Road and Rugby Road and one at Meadowbrook Heights and 250. There was a mixed use corridor at Calhoun and Locust. You’re right. Those were removed from the August version of the map. We have retained them off the map since then. The reason for that is that we heard concerns about levels of intensity in those areas. Primarily, we believe that the commercial use that we were envisioning on those sites aligned with what would be allowed within the residential districts. Those were removed from the original version of the map. Vice-Mayor Magill – My concern is that we have a food desert problem. We also have a walkability problem in a lot of places. Even if we could identify where in a general area recommendations would be for small local grocery stores that would really be beneficial. It concerns me that we are now back to some very wide swaths of area that don’t appear to have the ability to grow to help support food deserts. Ms. Koch – The General Residential, Medium Intensity, and Higher Intensity all support neighborhood scale commercial uses, which we will be looking at through the zoning process. It might be intersections for example. We want to make sure that it is included as a possible use throughout these districts, not only because of the food desert issue, but also other neighborhood scale commercial uses and small business uses. Commissioner Stolzenberg – How does the current draft differ/compare to the proposal that we received from the Housing Advisory Committee in June? If we were to apply the same rules as for sensitive General Residential to non-sensitive General Residential as we heard in the proposal from yesterday, what would be the effects on sensitive areas from that? How would it change the incentives or protections that we’re offering up for those areas? 9 Ms. Koch – In terms of how this compares to the Housing Advisory Committee proposal, that proposal looked at areas similar to those areas that are sensitive community areas. They identified specific neighborhoods, recognizing further analysis was needed. They identified a proposal to keep neighborhoods (Fifeville, Tenth & Page) at the current level of intensity and allow a bonus on top of that for affordability up to a higher intensity level depending on how affordable it was. The proposal outside of those few neighborhoods of concern was to allow General Residential everywhere in the residential areas and allow Medium Intensity anywhere if half the units were affordable. With higher intensity, I believe it called for allowing that in more locations if affordability requirements were met. This differs in that we have applied a similar concept to those sensitive neighborhood areas/sensitive community areas; keeping General Residential, base residential level lower than in other areas to help reduce some pressure and displacement there. We have our base level General Residential that is similar. We’ve established that there will be a bonus program allowed. We’re establishing a number of units. We’re allowing for something similar to what was called for in the HAC proposal. We’re not saying that all General Residential areas should allow up to Medium Intensity if half are affordable. We are leaving flexibility to look at what level would it be appropriate in the zoning. Commissioner Stolzenberg – If we were to make this new change to put the same rules we have in sensitive areas to the rest of General Residential, how would that change the pressures and results in what happens in the sensitive areas? Ms. Koch – There would be continued pressure in those sensitive areas. There is a lot of people at risk of displacement in these areas. They are prime areas of focus for development because of their location in the city. We would reasonably expect that we would see less development happening in those areas in the General Residential areas outside the core of the city. We would expect to see continued pressure within those sensitive community areas. We could set targeted funding for rehab and other strategies we have identified to help protect those communities. From the land use perspective, there would be less relative protection for those areas. James Freas, Director of NDS – If the whole city is treated the same, then the relative cost of development, as we have noted with the incentive to develop in the sensitive areas, particularly those close to the University Grounds, is very strong and the cost of land is low. The incentive is very strong to develop there. The proposal we have put together essentially creates an incentive for existing property owners to be able to do something with their property. Outside investors are less incentivized to do so. If we have the same body of rules citywide, all of the other factors that make those sensitive areas attractive for development are going to make those areas more attractive than the rest of the city. Mayor Walker – I wanted to follow up Councilor Hill’s comment. That’s a focus we should really try to get in order. I know we were hoping that we wouldn’t have individual developers or property owners come in before us as they do now with a special use permit. It doesn’t seem like that is going to be possible. If developers or private landowners are able to build four units before they are even considering an affordable one, then we are back to the comments regarding the density for density sake. We have to decide where we are in that process. Projects like Friendship Court and the CRHA redevelopment/rehab took a lot of partnerships and people thinking outside of what has been normal to date. Even though we don’t know what the process will be and what the mechanisms are in place to serve that process well, we have to think along those lines. If there is an affordability requirement, it either won’t happen or we will figure out how to subsidize it by the time it is presented. Planning commissioners and councilors know that it will take some type of investments to make these units happen. I heard two things. I heard that we are allowing up to the four units. The example was that it takes ten units before you can build an affordable one. If we base what we’re attempting to create on 10 what is currently/what has been done historically in Charlottesville and around the country, we’re never going to get to where we’re desiring. We have to think about it in terms of: This is our goal. We know that it is going to take some partnerships to get there. Financing that is not stipulated in the way that previous or current financing streams are stipulated. The question becomes: We’re going to allow these units and it becomes a density for density’s sake or will we allow these units only if they’re subsidized in a way that will ensure affordability. Ms. Koch – One thing I want to note with density for density’s sake argument (which I appreciate) is that in all of this, we are looking at not just building new housing units under current guidelines. We’re looking at changing the type of units that can be built; smaller units, smaller lot sizes, and things that can support units that are more likely to be built under current regulations. The city has committed to finding funding/subsidy for incentivizing or supporting affordable units. We certainly recognize there is subsidy involved and there is subsidy planned. We want to make sure there is housing being built that supports all of those affordable units. By allowing that basic market rate, we can better support affordable units as well. Mr. Einsweiler – One of the keys here is that in the sensitive areas, it is presumed that the existing house is most likely to be used as the affordable house. It is easier to rehab and less expensive to rehab than to build new. That is an unlikely scenario in any of the remaining neighborhoods in the city. That main house, unless we are splitting the main house which is a possibility under these kinds of rules, the affordability won’t come from the main building. It will come from the slightly less expensive new small units that would likely be built in response to the kind of regulations we’re talking about. That equity lens of who can live in which neighborhoods begins to change even if units are closer to market rate or at market rate in these areas as long as they are smaller. It is providing more opportunity for some to live in those areas. It will still require subsidy for certain people to join in and live in those areas. We need to be looking at all of that. There is a reason to produce more housing in the city. That reason is most of your housing has been going out to the county. When Councilor Snook was talking about this earlier, my initial thought was 1 percent may not be right because your housing market has been so tight for so long. It may not represent what the housing market is actually willing to do under the kinds of rules that gives you the kind of housing that you would like to see. That’s what some of these ideas surround is making it more possible to build a closer to affordable unit in these areas in addition to the unit that is already there. Mayor Walker – I have been saying this the whole time since I have been Council. When you have single family homes in Belmont going for almost a half million dollars, you just have to be realistic about building closer to affordable, who will be able to afford that. This is back to Councilor Magill’s question about determining affordability. A lot of citizens throughout my time have talked about ‘if you build more housing that will free up the housing for lower income people.’ I still don’t believe that is the case. Nothing about the trends in Charlottesville is showing us that is the case. Commissioner Russell – I agree wholeheartedly. We should think about what the housing plan says, which is to lay out a path to increase the number of subsidized affordable homes. If we aren’t purposeful where we direct this, will we continue to concentrate poverty rather than what we intend to do, which is make our neighborhoods more equitable. I am really concerned about the General Residential not requiring the affordability that we want. Strategy 2.1 of the Housing Chapter of the draft Comp Plan says that the zoning changes will allow mixed-income neighborhoods by right. How are we really doing that if we’re just hoping for it? Ms. Koch – I would go back to what we previously discussed. Perhaps we can look within the base General Residential up to four. The plan does actually state this in the chapter. We will explore whether 11 that is a feasible way to require the first or second new unit be affordable at a certain level in the General Residential areas outside of the sensitive areas. At this point without having that analysis, that would be ‘under our belt’ in the zoning process we’re hesitant to put in at this point. Commissioner Russell – I am hesitant to get behind something that doesn’t have those assurances at this point. It feels like we keep ‘kicking the can down the road.’ This is really important. Councilor Payne – When it comes to the discussion of General Residential, is the tradeoff basically if we expand the sensitive area approach citywide to all General Residential that the market won’t build any of those affordable units. What it would be doing is saying, ‘if additional units are built in General Residential, it will only occur if it is being combined with subsidy either from the city, state, or federal government to produce those additional affordable units citywide?’ Ms. Koch – When we’re talking about inclusionary mechanisms, we’re trying to incentivize inclusion of affordable units in these smaller scale developments in General Residential by allowing these base market rate units that can help support additional affordable units. Councilor Payne – If the approach in the sensitive areas requiring the base of one and the rest being affordable and if that was expanded citywide, basically what is being done is in order to get the increase in any General Residential throughout the city, the market will not produce those affordable units. Any additional units citywide in General Residential will have to come through a subsidy from the state, local, or federal government to actually achieve that affordability if market won’t. Is that accurate? Ms. Koch – Most likely, yes. If we’re requiring affordable units first in those areas, that’s why we’re looking to not include that. We want to make it more realistic. We don’t necessarily need subsidy for all of that. Mr. Sessoms – There are ways to make units affordable in these General Residential areas by perhaps limiting the lot size of those subdivided lots and perhaps limiting the unit size so we can ensure those units are more naturally affordable and lend themselves more towards the affordable spectrum. Those are tools we can use that are disposable as well to encourage the development of more affordable units. Councilor Payne – Another question is trying to get to more affordability through the building footprint, lot size, setbacks, parking requirements. I am guessing that is something that is going to be addressed in the zoning rewrite part of this. Ms. Koch – In goal 1 of the land use, urban form, and historic, cultural, and preservation chapter, the zoning goal does list what we’re looking at including those things that you just mentioned. Councilor Payne – An idea that I have heard floated about is allowing 2 over 2 townhomes up to four stories citywide or apartments up to 4 stories citywide if they are 100 percent affordable. Is that something that has been contemplated? Is that something the market would not likely be able to respond to? Would we get those if we’re combining it with some kind of subsidy? Mr. Einsweiler – We have continued the conversation about those possibilities. There is a hint that maybe we would be willing to allow a fourth floor. It produces a very different form of development than what is on those sites today. It would not be soft density. It might be more affordable. It invokes that four stories of height versus 2.5 stories that might be there on adjacent sites today. We have struggled with that issue. For now, we have suggested that’s why Medium Intensity exists, to allow those forms, whether they are built in Medium Intensity with or without subsidy. They will be an 12 excellent source of more slightly less expensive units if we can produce those. At present, we’re talking about those mostly in the Medium Intensity areas. We think there might be occasions. The two over two is an interesting question. If you put a two over two on a hillside that slopes away from the street, you can disguise some of its bulk and mass. There are maybe some tools and techniques like that we can use. We can bring that back into play in some of those areas. We will certainly be looking at that in the zoning. We have heard loud and clear that those housing types are the most affordable to construct. We’re hoping to find ways to incorporate them. Councilor Payne – Especially if it is being conditioned on being allowed if it is 100 percent affordability. I know there are a lot of different perspectives on it. You’re definitely not just getting density for density’s sake. In the definition of Medium and High Intensity, it makes reference to either bonuses or inclusionary zoning affordability requirements. Is that something that is completely not set at this moment and will it be developed in the zoning rewrite process in terms of determining what the base rate is throughout the city? The height and number of units that will be allowed conditioned on affordability? Ms. Koch – We have maintained what is ‘flexible’ as we go into the zoning ordinance, recognizing that we have a lot of analysis happening. Our goal is to incentivize or require as deep affordability as possible in as many places as we can. We don’t want to propose something in the Comprehensive Plan, get through the zoning analysis, and say that this is not actually feasible. Those are drastic comments. I am just trying to get at the reason why we haven’t included that explicitly at levels of affordability and numbers in this proposal. Councilor Payne – I have heard a lot of concern around particularly High Intensity but to a lesser extent Medium Intensity. For me, the biggest concern is development patterns; thinking about something like The Standard that overshadows some of our public housing sites as well as Friendship Court, where we have a major risk of development towering over and crowding out the design that residents have said they wanted. There has been a resident vision statement in terms of the kind of development pattern and height that they want to see; particularly in those cases is it anticipated in the zoning rewrite that there’s going to be plenty of time and the ability to have a very careful approach in terms of looking at the impact that greater intensity can cause. My concern is particularly for these neighborhoods that are facing gentrification, displacement pressure and seeing these luxury units towering over their neighborhood. Mr. Einsweiler – The key here is to think about the zoning exercise in two halves. One half is the map. That’s what you’re talking about right now. We can agree that we could write a good district that in the appropriate place, has the right impact. If we apply it in the wrong place on the map, we get a bad outcome. The text and the map are two different things. What we’re really looking for is the general guidance of the Future Land Use Map and the opportunity to build the text for the various districts. Once we have agreement, we will move on and get the mapping work done. How much time we have for that will have everything to do with the Council at the time. We are beyond our original timeline. There’s not a lot of time shown. We show ourselves building out the text and getting the map on the table before the end of next year. That would mean adoption right before the end of the year/spring. How long that conversation has to last is a tough question. Not every site has to be zoned to its maximum intensity immediately. It could be that if you’re comfortable applying a certain level and that you want to study more some of the places and apply a higher level at some point in time. There will be options within the existing Future Land Use Map. There will be options available to increase or decrease the intensity when looking at the zoning map. 13 Councilor Payne – That is one of the things that I have struggled with. This is one very small step of this process that is not even getting into the most important changes. I am thinking about our housing needs assessment. I think the number was 1200 new affordable units by 2040. It definitely seems pretty clear that the only way to get there is through subsidy and how we can combine our zoning with those opportunities with that $10 million a year in the housing plan; hopefully state and federal money that could be available. That’s the only way we’re going to get the affordable units. The market is just not going to produce them, no matter what zoning changes we make. Given that, there is a lot of room to condition some of it on 100 percent affordability or greater affordability levels. The tradeoff that is a question to me is: in a lot of the city that clearly makes sense. The only question is whether very wealthy neighborhoods without no displacement and gentrification pressures, there are homes well over 1 million dollars. If you’re losing opportunities potentially for more affordable duplex/triples to get built, those housing types could still be $400,000 to $500,000 and are not going to be affordable at an 80 percent AMI. It seems to me like it is two completely different tools: the subsidy and how we combine our zoning with that and what if any role we want for the market rate. The market rate is just not going to produce the deeper affordability. Commissioner Stolzenberg – If you require affordable units for that base, soft density in historically exclusionary areas, you have single family zoning by right and potentially more with affordability. Didn’t you say that nothing beyond single family houses would pencil unless it was nonprofit affordable? We would effectively be enshrining single family zoning in our exclusionary areas? Is that what I just heard? Ms. Koch – This is the reason we’re showing market rate up to four in these areas that are historically exclusionary. The concern is that if we say anything above single family it would need to be affordable for at least the first few. If we say that right now without looking at deeper, our concern is that we want to make sure there are incentives to develop something beyond single family housing. If those first few units need to be affordable and would require subsidy, we would expect to see much less if that happened. We want to incentivize other housing opportunities in those neighborhoods beyond the single family residential that is typically built today. Commissioner Stolzenberg – We would see a lot less in those areas earlier that we would see a lot more pressure on sensitive areas. That’s what would happen there. Ms. Koch – That’s right. We can certainly (CAHF Committee, the city, etc.) still target funding in those other areas for other initiatives to help homeowners maintain their homes. We would expect that there would be more pressure in those areas. Vice-Mayor Magill – What has been considered about recommending no new gas hookups to new builds? I didn’t see that in there. I was wondering why it wouldn’t have been. Mr. Freas – A number of us staff had conversations about this topic. We had staff from the utilities division, DPW sustainability division, and from NDS. At this point, what we’re asking is that we be given the opportunity to study this issue more closely. What we know is that there is a great deal of complexity. We have technology complexity and financial complexity (in terms of city finances and the financial state of our residents). We need to be able to look at all of those issues together and bring recommendations back to City Council on this issue. We’re asking for a little more flexibility here at the Comprehensive Plan level. As we go forward and do our climate action planning and the implementation of this work, we have time and the space to come up with solutions we can present to City Council. 14 Vice-Mayor Magill – I know there are a lot of restrictions on the state level of what we can ask with Air BNB and short term stays. We have some things in place. However, enforcement is very difficult. I am not seeing anything in the Comprehensive Plan that is addressing that. Some of that might have been addressed a little bit in the affordable housing piece. I am looking at an apartment building on VRBO that has been turned into a short term stay. It is one of the few small apartment buildings in Belmont. It is now all Air BNB. I am very worried that is going to be a continuation. This is just going to keep getting worse because it is much more economically viable in a lot of ways for people; recommendations that we continue to fight this as a state. Is there anything that has been found in other cities that they have actually been able to maintain the enforcement? It is so difficult with Air BNB and VRBO not giving us the information we need to proceed with enforcement or partnering with us in enforcement. Ms. Koch – We do have a discussion looking at short term rentals, ways to mitigate the impacts of short term rentals. I believe we added text about enforcement and making sure there are resources for enforcement. That certainly can be a piece that does need to be happening. As you noted, there are enforcement mechanisms in place and maybe the resources are not there. Mr. Freas – This is ultimately a land use issue. We have an existing set of rules. The key issue is enforcement. We’re looking at what creative solutions we might be able to come up with to better do enforcement. It doesn’t make sense from a time perspective for us to continually scan VRBO and Air BNB websites. They aren’t necessarily going to cooperate with us on the enforcement side. We are looking at tools. Ultimately, worst case scenario, there are services out there that will essentially scrape those website for a fee and provide the reporting back to you. That’s an option if we have to go there. We’re trying to figure out what we can do in house using our own tools. Vice-Mayor Magill – I was more concerned about from the legislative side. I have gone and looked. Unless you have lived here for a long time, it is sometimes hard to identify what building that is. It is not identified. It is more about what other places have been able to do statewide to get the information from those companies or to enlist their aid in making sure that they’re checking to make sure that people are in qualification with local ordinances. Alex Ikefuna, Director of Community Solutions – Berkeley, California has a pretty good Air BNB regulation. The legislation in California might be different from Virginia in terms of the enforcement process. However, if we have similar legislation, they will be in control. We can probably have the same regulations that they have in Berkeley. They do charge a considerable amount of money. They put it on the Air BNB. The important requirement is different. The enforcement mechanism is really robust and elaborate. We have to transfer that expense to the Air BNB. Commissioner Mitchell – The objective of my email regarding natural gas was not to immediately decrease our footprint. The objective was to get us thinking about stopping the growth of our footprint. Mr. Freas – I appreciated the email and I appreciate the comment. In the conversation we are having at the staff level, we’re looking at this as a phased approach. That first phase is to figure out how we manage the growth now towards whatever eventual goal makes sense for the city. We are looking at it as a phased approach. Commissioner Russell – I want to talk about Medium Intensity residential. What I am hearing is that it doesn’t seem like there is a clear articulation of the consultant’s methodology for assigning certain areas as Medium Intensity residential. I know that some of the considerations be near parks and schools and around areas where there is multimodal opportunities. It seems that they are overlaid in places where 15 there is an existing built out neighborhood and maybe lacking opportunities for infill if not multiunit developments. Can we talk about that more and why those areas have been chosen? Ms. Koch – We did include the land use planning objectives, which don’t speak directly to Medium Intensity. They do give some description such as parks and schools. We also looked at employment centers. Speaking directly to your concern, these areas don’t have potential to immediately incorporate additional housing. They’re built out. Some of these areas have potential to incorporate greater intensity by splitting existing homes; having an ADU for example, splitting existing structures or having additional structures. There are places that have vacant lots in these areas that could allow more than that. Overall, we’re trying to give this future land use vision. We’re not saying that this is something that needs to happen immediately in all of these areas. We’re trying to put out, informed by logical planning methodology/objectives, how we have laid this out. Not all of these areas would have immediate potential to change. We’re trying to give the overall framework for development in the city in the longer term to better support access to amenities. Councilor Hill – I know that you went through PUDs. Cherry Hill is off of Cherry Avenue. That’s a PUD full of very tight row houses. I am not seeing the link between how some of these areas were selected for Medium Intensity. I am not seeing how we’re going to get more than what we have there. Ms. Koch – With the PUDs, we went through and looked for a couple of things. One was if they had an existing development that was the Medium Intensity. We also looked at where it sits in the overall framework outside those PUDs. If there was a PUD that was directly adjacent to a school, a park, or another corridor of Medium Intensity, we looked to show those as Medium Intensity with that overall planning framework. Mr. Sessoms – We went back through and where we have Medium Intensity styled development on the map and made sure those are Medium Intensity. We pulled back in some areas. They are already built out. They might be off corridor or near where amenities are located. We went back and evaluated that. We need to keep in mind (with the Medium Intensity), when we say up to 12 units per lot, we recognize that not every lot will have 12 units given that maximum. All of these land use categories can be broken down to specific zoning districts. We can look to the existing Future Land Use Map with 9 key land use categories. There are 30 zoning districts. We will see the same evolution as we move into the zoning phase with how we begin to further evaluate on a neighborhood by neighborhood, corridor by corridor basis and what this Medium Intensity will look like. We expect that a lot of these areas are going to break down further. We do want to keep in mind that this Future Land Use Map is meant to be general so we can have more flexibility to break these areas down to sub-districts moving into the zoning phase. Commissioner Russell – It seems that this Medium Intensity is up to 12 units and in some places it won’t be that. It has caused a lot of residents to be upset and upset with the ambiguity and lack of clarity around the methodology. It leaves a lot to be desired in the future phases. Commissioner Stolzenberg – Sunshine Mathon sent three other comments different from the sensitive thing. One was to allow for units in General Residential outside of sensitive without the existing structure. Two was to allow in sensitive areas more than four if they are affordable. That is consistent with what we heard from CLIHC, heard in the Cherry Avenue plan outreach. People are OK with density as long as there is affordability. The final point was if you’re doing that, you don’t necessarily need to keep the existing house. 16 In the responses to comments about townhouses in General Residential, you wrote “we support adding an allowance for townhouses.” I don’t see that allowance in the text. When you say that you support adding it, were you expecting us to come up with an amendment to add? Ms. Koch – To the second point, no. I thought we had included that in here. It would be under the zoning ordinance text. You mentioned a couple of things from the HAC. Was there a specific item you would like for us to respond to from what they recommended? Commissioner Stolzenberg – Those two things. I think the major one was in sensitive areas for affordable housing, allowing more density. Ms. Koch – You’re right. We have not included that bonus idea that we have in other locations. That is perhaps something we can include as a possibility in the next phase. We recognize that many of these areas are highly desirable for development. We’re trying to reduce any displacement risk as much as possible. That makes sense to say: If it meets affordability criteria, perhaps additional units could be allowed. Commissioner Stolzenberg – I understood it to be different than the regular bonus where you would have some affordable and some at market rate. If it is all affordable, there are very strict affordability requirements. Ms. Koch – In that case, that would be something if you would like to propose that, it could be proposed as a change. Councilor Snook – I want to comment on a couple of things. One was the suggestion that had been floated about basically finessing the issue of the Medium Intensity zone. It is fair to say that we have gotten more complaints about that than any other issue. They are complaints that are visceral. They are not complaints that we can simply dismiss by saying “you don’t know what you’re talking about, there is more to come, there is a zoning ordinance that will solve all of these problems.” That has not been a very persuasive argument to people. That is already a contentious issue. When it gets down to voting, that feels to me like an issue that isn’t ready to be discussed. More than any other issue, that is an issue that needs the zoning ordinance before we can decide how to deal with it. I have tried to make the argument to people. We had to start with the Comp Plan and Future Land Use Map because our zoning ordinance was so defective. It could not serve as the basis for moving forward. We had to start someplace. Let’s start with the Future Land Use Map and Comp Plan then go to the zoning ordinance. That makes sense to me. It doesn’t sell. We have to recognize that it is a political reality. We also have to acknowledge that any rezoning we’re going to be doing pursuant to this, is going to be a very slow moving tool. It is not going to create an automatic “shazam-houses torn down, apartment buildings go up.” It is a 5-10-20 year kind of change. We should probably take the time to get that piece right. The way forward on that is to leave the Medium Intensity zone/land use category there but not assign anything to it at this point or not assign anything new to it at this point. At some point once we have the zoning ordinance in hand, we can look at lot by lot at how the zoning ordinance will effect that particular lot. We can do that in a way that is going to be scaring people. Mr. Freas – This is something I have heard you say is the idea of revisiting the Future Land Use Map at the time of the zoning adoption. As we get into the zoning process rewrite, we’re going to be doing a lot more ground-truthing, a lot more in depth discussion in each of these areas. If we go into that process 17 recognizing that as we do this, we will plan to come back to the Land Use Map. We maybe say that up front here in the Comprehensive Plan. Do you think that starts to address the concern? Councilor Snook – Intellectually, it should. It won’t. Mr. Freas – It won’t? Councilor Snook – It won’t. Not from what I am hearing from people. Mr. Freas – Are there others that have a comment? This is one of these critical issues particularly since we’re looking at the possibility of a Planning Commission vote as early as tomorrow. Councilor Snook – There has to be a time when we talk about increasing the density to include the Medium Intensity use. My fear is that right now, you have 70 percent of the city in R-1 zones who are convinced that there is going to be a 12 unit apartment building in their backyard. I don’t care about the electoral consequences. I am not up for re-election for another couple of years. I am concerned that when people are upset at this visceral, emotional level, that is not something that we can push aside. That is not a good response. Councilor Payne – The goal is affordable housing with the housing needs assessment of 1200 units by 2040 in addition to preserving the existing affordable units. With that goal in mind, my concern is we get an outcome where we use the zoning tool (on its own) is not helpful for that 1200 new affordable units and is using market rate tools, which are limited and are not going to get that 1200. We end up in a situation where we have done that zoning and market rate piece and we don’t have any guarantee of affordability. We have our Affordable Housing Plan. It is not funded yet. We don’t even have a clear strategy of how we’re going to fund it. I am certainly going to continue advocating that we do fund it. We haven’t done that yet. There is no guarantee that piece is locked in. My concern is that if we get the zoning piece but haven’t done that $10 million and haven’t figured out not only how we’re going to fund it but how we’re going to target it. We will end up repeating the development pattern of density pushed into low income housing neighborhoods. Wealthy neighborhoods staying largely as is. That same development pattern could get repeated. That’s my major concern. From a policy standpoint, it would seem wise to me that we will revisit the land use map either during or after the zoning rewrite process because there are so many unknowns in that zoning rewrite process. If we are going through that and we’re seeing that this is not meeting the affordability goals we wanted to see in terms of inclusionary zoning bonuses, there is some opportunity to revisit it. I don’t want to ‘kick the can down the road.’ That’s my concern. We get the zoning but we don’t get the other pieces of affordability. It is extremely important to keep the focus on how we’re going to fund the $10 million and think about things like community land trusts, who owns land, and how we get more land under the ownership of either community land trusts, CRHA, Habitat, other housing nonprofits and get more people who are renters to figure out how they can own their land, which is going to create less displacement pressures in these areas. Mayor Walker – There is concern about the intensity, the density in these areas. If we don’t make the changes, it may not happen. If the voices that have been the loudest about a 12 unit apartment building when it is not even possible at this point based on their surrounding area for that to occur. A lot of things would happen for that to occur. Those aren’t the voices that we should feed into. What does this look like? If we do delay until the zoning rewrite, we know the point of the zoning rewrite if there are amendments that need to be made to this document, we will make them or they will be made. They will have to be considered. A lot of the fears that we have heard over the past few months are in response to change. We know that we have to make those changes and for people to understand that we’re taking it 18 into consideration during the next part of the process, which we have always said is the most instrumental part of this process over what has been presented is actually possible and under what circumstances. Commissioner Habbab – I agree with Mayor Walker. For the Medium Intensity, I get that in some specific spots that it might not be applicable. I would be afraid of taking it out and not getting back to it. That’s a real possibility. It is something we said that we would analyze in the zoning. The affordability bonus is something that can still be tweaked throughout the zoning process. It is not tied to the Future Land Use Map. Councilor Hill – I certainly recognize that people are reacting to change. We have acknowledged for many years we’re going to be at a point finally where we’re getting rid of R-1 zoning in the entire city of Charlottesville. We’re going more than just two units in many of these cases. I think that this is a tremendous amount of change for any homeowner or anyone living in this city to digest. I understand the concern of someone who sees that their neighborhood might be going to Medium Intensity. I am mostly concerned about those neighborhoods where their housing values are more in that middle income workforce levels. It is just not going to happen in their neighborhoods. The finances are not going to work that way. For anyone who purchased their home, having the expectation that they were moving into an R-1 neighborhood, we’re already taking leaps and bounds away from what that expectation was. We have to recognize that this is really hard for people. I am really vocal about the Medium Intensity. I am not saying that it does not have a place in this map. It absolutely does. I wish we could be more holistic about how we’re looking at it and let that happen through the zoning process. 2. Planning Commission Final Thoughts/Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 2:02 PM 19