urban design committee minutes may 9, 2013 design committee minutes may 9, ... mr. rab mcclure ......

URBAN DESIGN COMMITTEE

MINUTES

May 9, 2013

The City of Richmond Urban Design Committee held a regular meeting on Thursday, May 9, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. in the 5th floor Conference Room of City Hall, Richmond, Virginia. (Reference is made to the audio recording, dated May 9, 2013, on file in the Planning and Preservation offices for the record of the meeting.) Members Present: Ms. Jill Nolt, Chair Ms. Claire Shirley, Vice Chair Ms. Andrea Levine

Ms. Andrea Almond Ms. Giles Harnsberger Mr. Bill Hutchins Mr. Hampton Carver

Member(s) Absent: Mr. Bryan Green

Mr. Paul DiPasquale Mr. Rab McClure

Staff Present: Mr. Jeff Eastman, DPDR

Ms. Tara Ross, DPDR Mr. Jim Hill, DPDR

Others Present: Mr. Charles Bice, High Summit Holdings, LLC Mr. Manouchehr Nosrati, DPW

Mr. Mark Vasco, Whitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP Ms. Gail Kuttesch, Whitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP

Mr. John Schmidt, Land Planning & Design Associates, Inc. Mr. Larry Miller, DPRCF Mr. Heywood Harrison, DPRCF Mr. Malachi Mills, RK&K Mr. Mike Mather, DPW Mr. Marvin Tart, DPW

Mr. Stuart Toraason, Timmons Group Mr. Tom Flynn, DPW

Ms. Jian Xu, DPW Mr. Kevin Newcomb, DPW

Mr. Archie Drudge, Stantec Mr. Doug Dunlap, DPDR

Mr. Lamont Benjamin, DPW Mr. Steve Taylor, City Council Policy Analyst

Mr. Phil Riggan, Richmond.com Ms. Ann Davis Ms. Nancy Taliaferro Ms. Deborah Corliss

UDC Minutes 5-09-2013 of 25 Call to Order

Ms. Nolt called the meeting to order at 10:02 a.m.

Approval of Minutes A motion to approve the March minutes was made by Ms. Levine, seconded by Ms. Shirley and passed 5-0-1 (Almond, Harnsberger, Levine, Nolt and Shirley for and Hutchins abstained). A motion to approve the April minutes was made by Ms. Levine, seconded by Mr. Hutchins and passed 4-0-2 (Almond, Harnsberger, Hutchins, Levine for and Shirley and Nolt abstained).

Secretary’s Report Mr. Eastman gave an update on the actions of the Planning Commission on items from the previous UDC meeting. At their meeting on April 15th, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the Conceptual Review of Cannon Creek Greenway Phase 3, the Final Review of the Fulton Gateway Sign and the Final review of the Norrell Annex building elevator addition on the consent agenda. Mr. Eastman approved encroachment permits for canopies at 900 W. Grace Street and light and building encroachments at 4301 W. Broad Street. Mr. Eastman stated that the UDC appointment of Chris Arias was introduced at council on April 22nd and should go to vote at Council on May 13th. Mr. Eastman stated that he has not received any applications for Mr. McClure’s or Mr. DiPasquale’s seats for art faculty and static artist. Mr. Eastman discussed a building application that he had received for temporary modular classrooms at the Patrick Henry School that required UDC review. The permit was time sensitive, and Mr. Eastman offered the applicant the possibility of a special meeting which requires a motion and a vote by the UDC. Mr. Eastman suggested May 23rd at 10am. A motion was made by Mr. Hutchins to have a special meeting on May 23rd at 10am to hear the application for Patrick Henry School. The motion was seconded by Ms. Shirley and passed 6-0-0 (Almond, Harnsberger, Hutchins, Levine, Shirley and Nolt for).

Consideration of Continuances and Deletions from Agenda

There were no continuances or deletions.

[Mr. Carver arrived at 10:15]

Consent Agenda

A motion was made by Ms. Levine to move former Item #9 [Conceptual Location, Character Extent review of improvements to Ann Hardy Plaza, 3300 1st Avenue; UDC #13-22] from the consent agenda to the regular agenda. The motion was seconded by Ms. Almond and approved 7-0-0 (Almond, Carver, Harnsberger, Hutchins, Levine, Nolt and Shirley for).

--------------------------------------------------------------------

UDC Minutes 5-09-2013

of 25

A motion was made by Mr. Hutchins to recommend that the Department of Public Works give final approval of the door swing and planter encroachments at 1715 Summit Avenue.

The motion was seconded by Ms. Shirley and passed 7-0-0 (Almond, Carver, Harnsberger,

Hutchins, Levine, Nolt and Shirley for). 6. Door swing and Planter Encroachments, 1715 Summit Avenue; UDC #13-24

The application is for approval of door swing and planter encroachments in front of 1715 Summit Avenue. This is a request to permit door swings into the public right-of-way in front of 1715 Summit Avenue. The 4,250ft2 industrial building is being renovated to house a microbrewery containing a tasting room. Due to the change in building class, and the much larger occupancy load (due mostly to the tasting room), the Virginia Construction Code requires that the access doors, which currently swing inward, instead swing outward. The finished grade of the interior of the building is approximately 4’ above the entry level and is accessed by concrete steps. The interior landing is only about 39” deep, just allowing the 36” doors to avoid striking the lowest riser on the concrete stairs up to the slab. Recessing the doors but still allowing them to swing outward would require interior demolition of the concrete slab. In addition, the applicant is using historic tax credits for the renovation of the building, and fears that recessing the doors would alter the historic appearance of the storefront.

The doors are slightly inset from the front façade, and the proposed door swings would both encroach 2’ into the public right-of-way. To ensure that no pedestrians walk in front of an outward opening door, the applicant proposes to provide circular concrete planters next to each door that would encroach 2.5’ into the sidewalk. The sidewalk is approximately 5’ deep in front of the subject property, leaving only 3’ in passable sidewalk. There is a narrow (3.5’) strip of grass between the sidewalk and the curb, and in order to provide the necessary passageway, the applicant proposes to pave this strip with sidewalk, providing an overall sidewalk depth of 8.5’.

Public Comment There was no public comment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

A motion was made by Mr. Hutchins to recommend that the Planning Commission give final approval of alterations to the improvements to Great Shiplock Park associated with the Capital Trail Trailhead Plaza, reaffirming the following previously approved conditions: That none of the proposed improvements along the section of canal bank below the

parking area and north of the locks are installed until after the retaining wall is repaired. That, in order to promote continuity of image, all of the existing lights in the park, including

the four lights along the north side of the locks, is replaced with the fixture proposed for the remainder of the park, utilized on section 1 of the trail and proposed for section 3.

UDC Minutes 5-09-2013 of 25 The motion was seconded by Ms. Shirley and passed 5-0-2 (Carver, Harnsberger, Hutchins,

Levine and Shirley for and Almond and Nolt abstained). 7. Final Location, Character and Extent Review of alterations to the improvements to Great

Shiplock Park associated with the Virginia Capital Trail Trailhead Plaza, 2803 Dock Street; UDC #13-20 The application is for final location, character, and extent review of alterations to the improvements to Great Shiplock Park associated with the Virginia Capital Trail.

This project encompasses alterations to the previously approved plans for improvements to Great Shiplock Park associated with the Virginia Capital Trail trailhead plaza. The primary alteration is the material of the Capital Trail through the park. In the previous approval, the trail was composed of exposed aggregate concrete; in this proposal the trail will be composed of the same asphalt that is used throughout the trail’s 50-mile length. The reason for this change is two-fold: to provide a smoother surface for the trail and to reduce expenses.

This plan also better illustrates the phased improvements to Great Shiplock Park. Due to the continued uncertainty of the trail’s location through the adjoining property, construction of the trail associated with Phase 1 will terminate just east of the “Great Shiplock Green”, leaving flexibility to connect the trail in the future. Phase 2 of the work will join this segment of the trail with the segment through the adjacent property and will also include the improvements along the section of canal bank below the parking area and north of the locks, which won’t be installed until after the canal retaining wall is repaired.

There have also been a number of other minor alterations to the previously approved plans, including: the brick changing from an English edge to a traditional edge (the shape and color will remain the same); the LED light color chancing from blue to white; the addition of 2 solar panels that will have no effect on the supporting structure; the scope of work now includes the ramp/stair on the Chapel Island side of the locks; the existing light pole bases and conduit along the locks will be replaced rather than reused; the trash receptacles will now be a double trash/recycling unit in the same style as the trash can previously approved; and the alteration by the civil engineer of the shape of the bio-filter at the north end of the parking area.

Once complete, the City’s Department of Parks, Recreations and Community Facilities will take ownership of the improvements, and will continue to maintain them. The Virginia Capital Trail Foundation hopes to begin construction in the coming months. Public Comment There was no public comment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

A motion was made by Mr. Hutchins to recommend that the Planning Commission give final approval of Phase 3 of the Cannon Creek Greenway from E. Brookland Park Boulevard to E. Ladies Miles Road. The motion was seconded by Ms. Shirley and passed 7-0-0 (Almond, Carver, Harnsberger, Hutchins, Levine, Nolt and Shirley for).


of 25

8. Final Location, Character and Extent Review of Phase 3 of the Cannon Creek Greenway, From E. Brookland Park Boulevard to E. Ladies Miles Road; UDC #13-11(2)

The application is for final location, character and extent review of Phase 3 of the Cannon Creek Greenway. This is a request to grant final location, character and extent approval for Phase 3 of the Cannon Creek Greenway, from E. Brookland Park Boulevard to E. Ladies Mile Road, a distance of over 3900’, or about 0.7 miles. This is the final phase of the trail, which runs along Richmond-Henrico Turnpike from Valley Road to the Richmond/Henrico County border. Phase 3 of the greenway is split into two segments. The first segment is a shared-use (bicycle and pedestrian) trail that, like Phase 2, would run along the east side of Richmond-Henrico Turnpike. The western side of Richmond-Henrico Turnpike contains steep slopes, land within both the 100 and 500 year flood plains, and a City combined sewage overflow (CSO), making it unsuitable for the location of the trail. Beginning directly across E. Brookland Park Boulevard from the end of the Phase 2 trail and running approximately 500’ to Alvis Avenue, this segment of trail is composed of a ten feet wide asphalt path with a minimum of two feet graded shoulders on each side that will skirt the edge of two privately owned properties. This will require the acquisition of permanent easements (for the trail) and temporary easements (for construction), and the discussions with those affected property owners will begin in the near future. A rough-faced block retaining wall, of a color similar to the “Limestone Blend” shown in the plans, will be provided on the private property at the corner of Richmond-Henrico Turnpike and Montvale Avenue to minimize the impact of the trail on the property. This segment of the trail will be located anywhere between 5’ and 10’ from the roadway, so curb and gutter will be installed along the eastern side of Richmond-Henrico Turnpike. The second segment will be a section of shared roadway, or “sharrow”, along Alvis Avenue and then Richmond-Henrico Turnpike, terminating at the intersection with E. Ladies Mile Road. As part of the construction process, the section of Alvis Avenue will receive a milling and resurfacing treatment and provision of curb and gutter along the eastern edge, followed by the placement of sharrow markings. There is currently on-street parking on the eastern side of Alvis Avenue, and the speed limit is 25 mph. The northern end of this section of Alvis Avenue intersects with Richmond-Henrico Turnpike just south of Craigie Avenue. At this point, pedestrians will be directed to cross Craigie Avenue and then cross over to the western side of Richmond-Henrico Turnpike to use the existing 5’ wide sidewalk, and will continue to utilize sidewalks on both sides of the road for the remainder of the subject corridor, while bicyclists will utilize the existing roadway, which will be painted with sharrow markings. The speed limit on Richmond-Henrico Turnpike is 25 miles per hour, and there is on-street parking on both sides of the road north of Pollock Street. As proposed, the construction of Phase 3 of the trail will require the removal of 12 trees, all in the section between E. Brookland Park Boulevard and Craigie Avenue, with 268” total caliper lost. The applicant proposes to mitigate the loss of these trees with the planting of 68 trees, representing a total caliper replacement of 136 inches (a 50% replacement of caliper inches lost). The replacement planting schedule includes canopy trees of the following species: red maple (26 total), northern red oak (11 total), black gum (9 total), willow oak (8 total), seedless sweetgum (7 total), and river birch (7 total). The largest grouping of trees will be planted at the

UDC Minutes 5-09-2013 of 25

southern end of the trail, including landscaping to the island that separates Alvis Avenue from Richmond-Henrico Turnpike; however, many street trees will also be planted along the northern end of the corridor where the right-of-way widens and a planting strip is provided. A “ladder-style” striped crosswalk spanning E. Brookland Park Boulevard will connect Phases 2 and 3, and similar crosswalks will be marked where the trail crosses Montvale Avenue and on all crossings on Richmond-Henrico Turnpike. All crossings on the side streets will be marked with parallel stripes. Each section of the shared-use segment of the trail will contain a stop sign and bar at intersections, and a small bollard at the entrance to keep vehicles from entering. The trail will contain a dashed stripe down the middle to denote the separation of north and southbound traffic. The roadways adjacent to the trail will also contain markings notifying vehicles to the presence of the trail. All of these marking will be consistent with those utilized in Phases 1 and 2. Alvis Avenue and Richmond-Henrico Turnpike will contain two sets of markings guiding bicyclists to use the sharrows and alerting motorists to the potential presence of bicyclists. Ms. Almond inquired about the applicant reducing the number of maple trees. Mr. John Schmidt, Land Planning and Design Associates, stated that they had a field meeting with city arborist Mike Mather. They walked the corridor and looked at the best location and reviewed the species for the project. Mr. Schmidt stated that they did reduce the number of red maples and increased some of the other species of trees. Mr. Schmidt stated that they did locate more trees along the project and that there is a more even spread of trees to try and make it more of a street tree project. Ms. Almond asked about the area where a couple of the larger trees were coming out because of the way the pathway was aligned and whether making that a sidewalk width versus a path would help preserve any of those trees. Mr. Schmidt stated that if they put in a 5’ sidewalk or 4’ sidewalk that impact alone would be detrimental to the trees so they made a decision to realign it on the southern end to save some trees. Mr. Schmidt stated that when they walked the project they found that there is a red maple that they couldn’t save and if they realigned the trail they can save more trees and thought to leave it as multi use in the lower section and keep it 10’ wide because that seems to be the most blind part of the project and there is a curve there which is unsafe and there are no sidewalks to start with so they are going to maintain the 10’ for that lower section with the sharrow and 5’ sidewalks for the rest of the project. Public Comment There was no public comment.

-------------------------------------------------------------------- A motion was made by Mr. Hutchins to recommend that the Planning Commission give conceptual approval of the application for the Historic Fulton Memorial Park at 611 Goddin Street with the following conditions: That Old Williamsburg Avenue and Fulton Street be formally vacated by ordinance of City

Council prior to final submittal.


of 25

That the existing overhead utility lines along the sections of Old Williamsburg Avenue and Fulton Street that are to be vacated be buried or re-routed.

That the final plans show details on amenities including but not limited to the proposed game tables, benches, trash receptacles, tree uplights, and any proposed park identification signage.

That the final plans show details on the proposed hardscaping materials. That the final plans provide a landscaping schedule, including plant species, quantities,

and size at the time of installation.

The motion was seconded by Ms. Shirley and passed 6-0-1 (Almond, Carver, Hutchins, Levine, Nolt and Shirley for and Harnsberger abstained).

9. Conceptual Location, Character and Extent review of Historic Fulton Memorial Park, 611 Goddin Street; UDC #13-14

The application is for conceptual review of the Historic Fulton Memorial Park. This proposal would establish a passive park on the property at 611 Goddin Street as well as adjacent portions of Old Williamsburg Avenue and Fulton Street rights-of-way. The park will provide space for citizen gathering and events while presenting the history of the neighborhood and memorializing significant people and events in Fulton. The project is the result of a number of community meetings held throughout the last two years that were coordinated by the Greater Fulton Legacy Committee, Storefront for Community Design, Neighborhood Resource Center and the City’s Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Facilities.

The establishment of the park will require the vacation of existing Old Williamsburg Avenue and Fulton Street rights-of-way south of Goddin Street. These rights-of-way currently terminate in a guard rail that was erected when Williamsburg Avenue was realigned. The existing roadway will be dug up, the granite curbs and any cobblestones under the pavement will be salvaged, and the drop inlets will be removed. In their place, the road beds will be filled to level it with the adjacent land, and a 12’ wide soft-surface (crushed gravel, e.g.) walking path will be established following the alignment of the former roads. The walking paths will begin at Goddin Street as cobblestone entry aprons with removable bollards that will allow maintenance vehicles to enter but will restrict access to City vehicles. The paths will join at a circular plaza of pavers at the southernmost point of the parcel and will provide a connection to the existing concrete sidewalk running along Williamsburg Avenue. The plaza will contain granite pylons with plaques dedicated to important figures in the Fulton community.

The existing concrete sidewalk along Goddin Street, which is in poor condition, will be removed and replaced with a hardscaped plaza extending 35’ from the Goddin Street curb. The plaza will contain a band of cobblestones along the curb line, transitioning to pavers for the remainder of the depth. An allee of uplit trees will run through this plaza parallel to Goddin Street and will provide shelter to proposed game tables. The central area of the plaza will contain pavers as well as a statue and other informational structures relating the history of the Fulton area.

This central area of the plaza will open out to a sunken amphitheater. The floor of the amphitheater stage will match the pavers used on the side areas of the plaza. Granite pylons will act as the backdrop for the stage. The amphitheater tiers will be sodded and will be


separated by recycled granite curbing. The top tier of the amphitheater will connect to a soft-surface path that connects to the portions of the path in the vacated rights-of-way. Seating at this level will be provided on granite blocks.

The park grounds to the south of the amphitheater will remain an open lawn, with the exception of the single, existing elm tree which is intended to be saved. The perimeter pathways in the vacated rights-of-way will be landscaped with allees of large deciduous trees. The areas under the trees will be landscaped with a variety of small deciduous trees, small and medium deciduous shrubs, small and medium evergreen shrubs, ornamental grasses, groundcovers and perennials. A small rain garden will be provided at the northeastern tip of the site. In all, the plans will result in a net decrease in the amount of impervious area within the project boundaries.

Beginning at the plaza at the southern tip of the park and moving northward along Williamsburg Avenue, there will be a stacked granite block wall near the perimeter of the park. As one moves northward, the block wall begins to move apart, signifying the decline and demolition of the Fulton neighborhood. Where it approaches the corner of Williamsburg Avenue and Goddin Street, the wall begins to come together again, signifying the rebirth of the neighborhood.

Funds for the establishment of the park will come from the City and private donations. The park’s development may occur in phases as additional funds become available. Currently the construction budget is $600,000 and the design budget is $49,300. Public Comment There was no public comment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

A motion was made by Mr. Hutchins to recommend that the Planning Commission give

conceptual approval of the streetscape improvements to E. Broad Street between College Street and N. 18th Street with the following conditions: That the applicant provides additional street trees on the south side of E. Broad Street

between Old 14th Street and N. 14th Street, on both sides of E. Broad Street between the interstate access road overpass and the interstate overpass, on both sides of E. Broad Street between the interstate overpass and 16th Street, on the north side of E. Broad Street just east of Oliver Hill Way between the bus shelter and the entrance to the apartment building parking area and to consider providing a tree in the triangular area created at the interstate on-ramp on the south side of E. Broad Street.

That all existing cobrahead fixtures be outfitted with pedestrian-scale fixtures on the sidewalk side of the pole, consistent with the fixtures and height of those already installed in the project area.

That the brick sidewalks in the vicinity of the interstate overpasses terminate at the crosswalk, and that the existing sidewalk beyond the crosswalk be removed and seeded with grass.

That the final plans include a rendering of the access to the burial ground, and details relating to the materials and landscaping.


of 25

That prior to final review, the applicant provide evidence that the landscaping plan has been reviewed and approved by the Urban Forestry division of the Department of Public Works.

That the applicant considers installing at least one trash can on each side of E. Broad Street within the project limits, to match the City standard fixture.

The motion was seconded by Ms. Shirley and passed 7-0-0 (Almond, Carver, Harnsberger, Hutchins, Levine, Nolt and Shirley for).

10. Conceptual Location, Character and Extent review of a streetscape improvements to E.

Broad Street between College Street and N. 18th Street; UDC #13-19

The application is for conceptual location, character and extent review of streetscape improvements along E. Broad Street from College Street to N. 18th Street

This project involves a number of streetscape improvements along E. Broad Street from College Street to N. 18th Street, including provision of brick crosswalks, brick sidewalk, street trees and pedestrian scaled lighting. This is the second phase of such improvements along E. Broad Street that began years ago from the 1700 to 2100 blocks. Brick crosswalks across E. Broad Street will be provided on the western side of the intersection with College Street/Old 14th Street, on the western side of N. 14th Street, and on both sides of the intersections with N. 17th Street/Oliver Hill Way and N. 18th Street. Brick crosswalks across the intersecting streets will also be provided on both sides of College Street/Old 14th Street, on the south side of N. 14th Street, on 16th Street, on Crane Street, and on both sides of N. 17th Street/Oliver Hill Way and N. 18th Street. All crosswalks will be composed of red brick laid in a running bond, with concrete outer bands. At all crosswalks where they do not currently exist, new handicap accessible ramps will be provided, with yellow tactile warning strips to match those already installed in the project area and in Phase 1 of the project further east on E. Broad Street. New red brick sidewalk will be provided on the eastern half of the north side of the block between College Street and the Interstate 95 off-ramp, on the eastern side of the ramp to the interstate access road overpass, at both corners of the southern side of the block between old 14th Street and N. 14th Street. The interstate overpasses are composed of monolithic concrete and cannot be modified, so they will remain as is. The provision of brick sidewalk begins again on both sides of E. Broad Street to the east of the access road overpass and continues until the main interstate overpass. The brick sidewalks begin again after the overpass and continue to the project boundary. The project also includes improvements to the pedestrian crossings over the interstate on and off-ramps. The crosswalk across the Interstate 95 off-ramp will be shifted westward to align with the crosswalk at N. 14th Street and a new sidewalk along the northern side of E. Broad Street. This new alignment is intended to encourage pedestrians who wish to cross E. Broad Street to do so at a signalized interested rather than on the overpass, which many now do. At the interstate on-ramp on the north side of E. Broad Street, the new crosswalk will be placed in the location of the existing one, but at the south on-ramp, the crosswalk will be shifted


westward, which will increase the visibility of pedestrians to vehicular traffic coming down the hill.

The plans include the planting of 30 street trees along the project corridor, where space permits. Though no final decisions have been made of a species for each tree well, the plans specify a species list including Chinese Pistache, Ginkgo, Willow Oak, and Crepe Myrtle trees. A total of 23 pedestrian street lights will also be installed along the project corridor, and the fixture, the Granville acorn, will match those used in Phase 1. The plans also call for the repair of the existing damaged concrete curbs, the resetting of existing granite curbs to create more of a reveal from the street surface, and the provision of new granite curb to close curb cuts on the south side of E. Broad Street across from 16th Street, on the south side of E. Broad Street east of Crane Street, and on the north side of E. Broad Street west of N. 18th Street. Though not a part of this project, this area is slated to be milled and repaved after completion of the improvements set forth herein, which will re-establish the proper height of the sidewalk above the street surface. The scope for this project also includes providing access to the burial grounds from 16th Street. The plans show that a herringbone-laid brick plaza will be provided between E. Broad Street and the existing building at the northwest corner of 16th Street. A set of concrete steps or a concrete ramp will provide access to a lower level of brick sidewalk that will lead down to the area north of the tunnel under E. Broad Street. This design includes a planting area between the steps and the ramp, with as-yet-undetermined planting material.

The total project cost estimate is $1.5 million, of which 80% will be federally funded through the Virginia Department of Transportation, and 20% ($377,000) will come from City funds. The estimated construction start date is late fall of this year. Ms. Nolt stated that she had a difficult time understanding the design concept around the burial ground. Ms. Nolt asked if they could give a narrative of what the intent is there and how they envision the ramps working there with the retaining walls, guardrails, ramps and landscaping. Mr. Marvin Tart, Department of Public Works, stated that the intent of the project is to provide access to the burial ground. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) funded the enhancement project and they were pretty strict about the extent of work that could be done at the burial ground. Mr. Tart stated that the intent is to provide access to the burial ground and to enhance it. Mr. Stuart Toraason, Timmons Group, stated that currently there is very steep asphalt that drops down into the site and that the goal of the ramp that they are building is to give ADA access and that’s what caused the “U” shape of the ramp. The ramp will require a retaining wall along the outside because the grade drops very suddenly and the inside can be a wall with a railing along it. In the middle of the ramp they are going to put a large shade tree like a Pistache and do low shrubs and ground cover around that. They will connect the ramp to a path over to the existing gravel pedestrian path under the tunnel. Ms. Nolt inquired if that would remain and Mr. Toraason stated that the tunnel will remain open to pedestrian access from there to the Lumpkin’s Jail site and they are going to extend the path from their ramp over to that. Ms. Nolt asked that when the project comes back for final approval


of 25

they will show them what the retaining wall are made out of and what the guardrails look like. Ms. Nolt inquired if there were any street trees planned along the length of the improvements and Mr. Toraason stated that they have been working with the arborists and they have as many trees as they can possibly fit in that corridor. Public Comment There was no public comment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Regular Agenda A motion was made by Ms. Levine to recommend that the Planning Commission give final approval for the improvements to Ann Hardy Plaza at 3300 1st Avenue with the following conditions: That the final plans contain material and dimension details for the benches, seating wall,

plaza pavers, and splash pad equipment and flooring. That the final plans provide details on the proposed landscaping and rain garden,

including a planting schedule showing plant species, quantity, and size at the time of installation.

That the applicant relocate the existing decorative street light that is to be removed, and place it in the plaza with matching lights.

That the applicant considers providing amenities for community engagement such as game or picnic tables.

That the applicant improves access to the other areas of the park. That the applicant better incorporate the rain garden into the design of the tree grove. That the applicant considers the possibility of providing public art in the park.

The motion was seconded by Ms. Almond and passed 7-0-0 (Almond, Carver, Harnsberger,

Hutchins, Levine, Nolt and Shirley for). 11. Conceptual Location, Character and Extent review of improvements to Ann Hardy Plaza,

3300 1st Avenue; UDC #13-22 The application is for conceptual location, character and extent review of improvements to Ann Hardy Plaza. This project involves improvements to Ann Hardy Plaza, including the provision of a tree grove plaza next to the east façade of the community center building as well as a splash pad (water play) area between the tree grove and the existing tennis/basketball courts. The overall project also includes the interior renovation of the community center building, which is not subject to UDC review.

The existing concrete stairways and the handicap ramp on the east side of the building that lead to the lower level will be removed, as will several sections of sidewalk adjacent to the eastern portion of the building. The project site will be graded so that the proposed tree grove plaza is at grade with the doors into the building on the eastern façade. The southern side of the 100’ by 50’ plaza will sit at a slightly higher elevation, which will allow for rain to drain into a


proposed rain garden at the northern end of the plaza. The plaza will be composed of pavers and will contain 8 tree wells, to be planted with an as-yet undetermined species. Several benches will be located under the trees.

The proposed splash pad area, about 22’ in diameter, will be located on the eastern side of the plaza, and will contain a number of different water sprayers. The surface of the splash pad will be composed of a rubberized material. A seating wall will run along the eastern edge of both the splash pad and the plaza. The area beyond the seating wall will be landscaped with a variety of trees and shrubs, and a sidewalk will provide access to the tennis/basketball courts. An existing holly tree is intended to be removed along the sidewalk’s path to the courts. Two existing light poles are to be relocated away from the proposed improvements.

The City will be funding the project, which has a construction budget of $350,000 and a design and survey budget of $76,000. Construction is estimated to begin in August of this year.

Ms. Levine stated that as a community center with a lot of activity they seem to have a very formal tree plaza layout but not a lot of community enhancement as they do in other areas of the park. Ms. Levine asked if they can incorporate gaming tables that could also be picnic tables. Ms. Levine also asked what the height is around the seat wall around the fountain and what the visibility is from outside that area to the end because people have kids playing in that area where there is water and a lot of running around and stated that she would want the parents to have visualization. Mr. Larry Miller, Department of Parks and Recreation, stated that they agree with everything that Ms. Levine said and as they get farther into the details they will take a look at those items. One of the things that he was concerned about was the type of shrubbery and whether or not it will be low to the ground to allow for sight lines. Mr. Miller stated that in terms of the tables and stuff like that they can incorporate that. They are a little leery about putting things in the park that people can sit on and one of the problems they have in other parks is that people sit and lie down on the tables. Ms. Levine stated that another option is to get smaller tables. Ms. Almond stated that the rain garden looks like an afterthought and that it might be nice to incorporate the rain garden design with the design of the plaza. Mr. Miller stated that they are hoping to use the rain garden as a teaching tool and that they wanted to have some naturalization there. Mr. Miller stated that they will take a look at and see if they can come up with a better solution as it relates to naturalized verses formalized. Mr. Malachi Mills, RK&K, stated that they are shaping the rain garden area due to grading and that they will provide a bench for access and to invite the kids and folks around the perimeter. Mr. Mills stated that they are putting it in as a functional offset to the pavement that they are introducing in that area and stated that they can balance that out. Mr. Miller stated that the design solves a very fundamental issue for them because now they have the most uninviting entry into a community center that one can design. This actually takes them to a more formalized, pleasant and useful entry and that is what they were looking at. Ms. Harnsberger inquired if they presented these plans to the Quality of Life team and Mr. Miller stated that they are deeply involved as the neighborhood has been deeply involved from day one and that this is an outgrowth of a master plan that they developed a year and a half


of 25

ago for the area to kind of reinvigorate the park. Ms. Harnsberger inquired if they had a discussion about doing tables and Mr. Miller but they can incorporate that into their discussion and the neighborhood is with them 100 percent. Mr. Miller stated that this is one of three splash parks project that they are getting ready to activate in the next 6 to 12 months in the city. They have one at Fairmount pool and Battery Park pool and hopefully by the fall this one. Ms. Nolt stated that the formal layout is a great one and inquired how the paths connect to tennis courts and the tot lot. Ms. Nolt stated that she was wondering if they could formalize a connection between the tot lot and plaza a little more directly so the kids have direct access. Mr. Miller stated that there is going to be an opening there. Ms. Nolt made the same point on the tennis court because right now the sidewalk kind of fades into the tennis court and they should give some thought to how that arrives at the court and where the gates are to get to the tennis court. Mr. Mills stated that since they filed this application they have met and articulated those same thoughts. Ms. Almond inquired what sort system are they using for the water filtration and treatment and Mr. Miller stated that it is a recycled system that works like a swimming pool and its clean water that comes back out again. Ms. Almond asked if it was chlorinated and Mr. Miller stated no. Ms. Almond stated the reason she was asking is because other places are using ultra violet light filters which is the new sustainable technology. Mr. Miller stated that he don’t know if they have gotten far enough down the road to give those answers but from a general point of view it is on their radar. Mr. Carver asked Mr. Eastman if this type of expenditure of public funds is fit into the requirement for the one percent for art. Mr. Eastman stated that he is not familiar with that program to answer. Mr. Carver stated that this is a great venue for encountering families and children, especially if the art component could be added. It might be through sculpted furniture and seating but to introduce this community to art and the art community in some way if it fits into that program it might be interesting to take a look at. Mr. Miller stated that they will take a look at that but he’s not sure of the answer. Public Comment There was no public comment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

A motion was made by Ms. Almond to recommend that the Planning Commission give final approval of the application for a roundabout at the intersection of N. 25th Street, Nine Mile Road, Fairmount Avenue and S. Street with the following conditions: That irrigation is provided to the landscaping in center of roundabout. That the pedestrian-scaled streetlight fixtures match those installed on 25th Street

(Hanover fixture on a Sussex Pole), and are painted black to match. That the proposed cobrahead light fixtures and poles are painted black to match the

pedestrian-scaled fixtures. That the applicant meets but not exceed the minimum requirements for lighting at the

intersection.


That the landscape plan be amended in the bump out area at Fairmount Avenue and 25th Street to remove some of the Junipers and to replace them with knockout roses to provide more color and interest.

The motion was seconded by Ms. Levine and passed 7-0-0 (Almond, Carver, Harnsberger,

Hutchins, Levine, Nolt and Shirley for). 12. Final Location, Character and Extent review of a roundabout at the intersection of N. 25th Street, Nine Mile Road, Fairmount Avenue, and S Street; UDC #13-21

The application is for final location, character and extent review of a roundabout at the intersection of 25th Street, Nine Mile Road, Fairmount Avenue and S Street.

This is a request to provide a roundabout, landscaped islands, pedestrian crosswalk markings, handicap ramps and new signage at the intersection of N. 25th Street, Nine Mile Road, Fairmount Avenue and S Street. Currently, the intersection contains traffic lights for all five spokes. The proposed roundabout would create a circular island 64’ in diameter with a roll-top curb and mountable (sloped) cobblestone apron 11’ in width and a raised central island 36’ in diameter. The apron is used to visually direct the traffic away from/around the island, but when a turn is missed, it is more forgiving than a full curb. It will also allow for larger trucks to negotiate the roundabout without enlarging the overall size. In the center of the roundabout is a raised planting area bordered by a standard curb.

The conceptual proposal contained a pill-shaped roundabout 165’ long and 40’ wide that was located further south than the current proposal. In the conceptual proposal, the roundabout location required alterations to the parking lots of two existing commercial businesses. The new proposed roundabout is provided further north as to not affect the existing businesses, but as a result portions of several vacant properties owned by the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority will need to be acquired, and discussions with RRHA to acquire the land have begun. The new roundabout location will also require a landscaped bump-out in front of the Family Dollar store at the southwest corner of the intersection to direct vehicles into the proper traffic configuration.

Raised medians or splitters are used to divide and guide traffic on all of the spokes of the intersection with the exception of the one-way portion of N. 25th Street. These splitters also provide protected spaces for pedestrians crossing each of the spokes. New sidewalks, proposed to be brick with accessible ramps, would ring the intersection. The existing sidewalks in the subject area are composed of concrete. There are two pedestrian-scaled streetlights, installed as part of the 2006 streetscape plan reviewed by the UDC that will need to be relocated as a result of the construction. Eleven new lights, to match those already installed, will be installed along the other rights-of-way. Six new cobrahead style lights are also proposed to be installed in the project area.

The proposed landscaping for the roundabout includes a centrally located river birch, a multi-stemmed tree growing to 40-60’ in height with an equal spread, surrounded by a bed of knockout roses with a mature height of 3-4’, and Otto Luyken laurels, with a mature height of 3’. During conceptual review the roundabout was not being landscaped as the plan was to


of 25

eventually provide a centerpiece water fountain. That is no longer being pursued, but the roundabout will have access to water in the case that a fountain is proposed in the future. This water connection could also be used to provide irrigation to the landscaping in the roundabout.

The portion of the splitters closer to the roundabout will contain Golden Juniper, which reaches a height of 12-18”, while the portions of the splitters on the opposite sides o the pedestrian crossings will contain Mexican Feather Grass, which attains a height of 12-24” and up to 30” while in bloom. The bump-out on Fairmont Avenue and the other smaller landscaped areas will contain these same two species of plant plus Otto Luyken laurels. The landscaping also includes one Nuttall Oak tree (60-80’ tall with a 35-50’ spread), five American Elm trees (45-65’ height with a 35-50’ spread) and four Thornless Honeylocust trees (50-70’ tall with a 35-50’ spread) to be planted along the subject rights-of-way in the project area.

The project is funded by the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP).The total project cost estimate is $721,000, of which 90% (approximately $648,900) will be federally funded, and 10% (approximately $72,100) will come from state matching funds. The estimated construction start date is February, 2014. Ms. Nolt inquired where the six cobra heads and street lights go. Mr. Mark Vasco, Whitman, Requardt & Associates, stated that there will be a cobrahead at each corner of the roundabout at least and that their intent is to adequately light the street. Mr. Vasco stated that they are going to have four new poles to adequately light the roadway plus they are going to add two additional luminary arms on the relocated poles. Ms. Nolt inquired where the more decorative pole lights were in relationship to the cobraheads. Mr. Vasco stated that they are going to have Granville fixtures and that eleven of them will be located along the sidewalk similar to the way they are on 25th Street at equally spaced intervals all around the periphery. Ms. Nolt stated that she would like to see a lighting plan so that she review the location and that it seems like an excessive amount of light. Mr. Vasco stated that when they do the lighting plan they do a photometric design of it to make sure that the requirements for foot candles are met and that there is no shadowing and stated that will happen before the final light layout is complete. Ms. Nolt inquired about how many cobraheads are there now and Mr. Vasco stated that it is 4 right now. Ms. Nolt asked how many decorative pole lights are there right now and Mr. Eastman stated that there are two now that terminate at 25th Street plus 11 new pedestrian fixtures and the two existing will need to be relocated because of the adjustments for the roundabout. Ms. Nolt stated that is a significant addition to lighting and stated that she would like to see a lighting layout before she approve that quantity and Mr. Vasco stated that they will provide that. Mr. Carver asked if there was diagram that shows directional signage and Mr. Vasco stated yes and stated that they show striping and signing for the entire intersection. Mr. Vasco stated that the proposed roundabout will improve efficiency, safety, aesthetic appearance at the intersection and it also lends itself to traffic calming so the traffic will be slowing down. Mr. Vasco gave a presentation for the roundabout project. Ms. Almond inquired about the junipers and if they could delete some of the junipers and put another band of roses on that side to make it a little more interesting and Mr. Vasco stated that they can do that.


Mr. Hutchins inquired how much bigger this proposed roundabout is when compared to the one at 25th and Jefferson. Mr. Vasco stated that this one will be larger that the other one is probably two-thirds the size of this one. Mr. Hutchins inquired what the lighting was down there and Mr. Vasco stated that the majority of them are hung on power poles or utility poles they placed some on new lighting poles. Mr. Hutchins stated that they are talking about half the number of cobraheads and Mr. Vasco stated yes. Ms. Nolt inquired if the street light division of Public Utilities approved the lighting layout and Mr. Vasco stated that they do the photometric layout and calculations and submit them to Public Utilities for approval. Mr. Vasco stated that the proposed lighting has been laid out on the plan as intended and that they are not expecting it to change much but it will be tweaked as they finish. Ms. Nolt stated that she is a little confused as to whether the East End master plan information should be referenced to the Committee as they are discussing the roundabout as being proposed or whether this has credibility that needs to be part of their review process. Mr. Tom Flynn, City Transportation Engineer, stated that 4 years ago a safety grant was submitted which was triggered by a high number of accidents at this intersection and if they put a roundabout here it will reduce the number of accidents and that was the basis for getting the $750,000 grant. At that time they checked with the housing authority and there were no plans for the development and they positioned the roundabout in its current plan. Mr. Flynn stated that at the time the East End Visioning Project came up and they were asked to hold off on the design of the project and what came out of the East End Visioning is what you see there which looks at this intersection as a focal point for the community and another big trigger is the desire for a grocery in the community. Based on their discussion with developers they needed the entire city block for that so the concept that they see there is basically geared toward staying away from that parcel. Mr. Flynn stated that they obviously expressed concerns about that because now they are going to have to move into private property. The grocery store concept didn’t pan out so the fundamental intent there has changed and in their discussions with Economic and Community Development they asked them if they were sure they want them to proceed ahead with potentially having to condemn land from two active parcels. Mr. Flynn stated that at that point they met with them and they encouraged them to make the change in design and they talked to number of people including Ms. Newbille and they supported it. Ms. Nolt stated that her main reason for bringing this up is that when she sees a proposal like this she reads it like a town center, where there is equal weight between the pedestrians, vehicles and multimodal active density that happens with how that rectangular square has been created. Ms. Nolt stated that she fears that when they go with the more traditional vehicular roundabout as being proposed they lose the opportunity to fulfill some of this master plan that envisioned something greater for this intersection. Ms. Nolt stated that when the project came before the Committee conceptually it was given some reference to a larger planning intent to make something great out of the intersection and fear that going to a circular roundabout solves vehicular problems but maybe does not fulfill the intent of what was envisioned from a planning level for the community. Mr. Flynn stated that he would respectfully disagree and that this is a different configuration but the intent is identical to what the Committee saw the first time around that was developed and they are still doing the same things there in terms of sidewalks, landscaping and traffic calming concepts. They just repositioned it off private property. Ms. Nolt stated that the location of the buildings up against the streets so that it’s a


of 25

more urban condition where they have storefronts, mixed use development on the sidewalk and the way that the sidewalk is positioned now preserves those parking areas in front of the existing buildings and changes that relationship between the street and the sidewalk and the businesses. Ms. Almond inquired about what kind of tree is in the 25th Street roundabout and Mr. Mike Mather, City arborist, stated a Pistache. Ms. Harnsberger stated that she thinks this is a great solution for this intersection and doesn’t particularly think that the consultant’s solution as a town center for this intersection is really based on the way the neighborhood uses it and that she understands that it was a visioning document and there is a lot of input in that plan. Ms. Harnsberger stated that her primary concern about this intersection is safety and it is a messy spot and she thinks a roundabout will help convey traffic on Nine Mile and that this will be more attractive and has the potential to get more development that way. A motion was made by Mr. Hutchins to approve the project with the Staff recommendations. That motion did not receive a second and subsequently failed. Ms. Nolt inquired if the applicant could return in two weeks with a lighting plan and Mr. Flynn stated that ultimately DPU has to sign off on the plan he doesn’t think that can happen in a couple of weeks. Ms. Nolt stated that they want to make sure that DPU has approved it. Mr. Flynn stated that he agrees totally and that DPU has clear guidelines of the level of lighting that they want. Ms. Nolt stated that her concern is that they may be proposing excess lighting. Mr. Vasco stated that their lighting design will minimize the light and will only require the amount of light that they feel is needed based on their calculations and that less light is better certainly from a cost standpoint. Mr. Hutchins stated that the purview of this Committee is to look at these projects and make aesthetic suggestions but not to build them. Mr. Hutchins stated that the city has built these things with years and years of experience with lots of experts and the Committee should let them do their job. Mr. Eastman offered an example and stated that the 2nd Street connector was reviewed by UDC and the Planning Commission and they showed a series of lights on alternate sides of the street and after it was approved it was then reviewed by DPU Street Lights Division and they said it didn’t meet the street light requirements so they are going to have to add more lights. Mr. Eastman stated that they added more of the same kind of lights, fixtures and color that was approved and it didn’t affect the tree placement so they didn’t bring it back to UDC. Mr. Eastman stated that it is fairly uncommon that after the UDC and Planning Commission review plans that there are alterations that are made to the plans because as Mt. Hutchins stated they are not reviewing full engineered documents here and there are alterations and it is up to the staff of UDC and the Secretary to the Planning Commission to determine whether or not they are in substantial accordance with the recommendation that was approved.

Public Comment There was no public comment.


-------------------------------------------------------------------- A motion was made by Ms. Nolt to recommend that the Planning Commission give final

approval of the application for improvements along Forest Hill Avenue between Hathaway Road and Powhite Parkway with the following conditions: That the applicant reduce the length of the left turn lane into Willow Oaks Country Club

from the current 221’ to the proposed 90’. That the applicant look into the possibility of extending the 4’ wide concrete median

further into the crosswalk and/or moving the crosswalks at Rettig Road further out to provide pedestrian refuges.

That the applicant consider providing a larger canopy shade tree than the Chinese Pistache (for example Sourwood), working within the constraints of the 4’ planting strip.

That the applicant considers using red truncated domes in the ADA accessible ramps instead of the standard yellow.

That the applicant considers a retaining wall material that is redder in color, specifically the “Auburn” color that was provided in the application package.

To provide signage specific on the Powhite Parkway off-ramp to westbound Forest Hill Avenue alerting drivers to the presence of the bike lane.

That the applicant considers substituting Itea for the Nandina plants in the landscape plans.

That the applicant considers including appropriate locations for future gateway signs for the corridor or entrance features into the adjacent neighborhoods.

That the applicant considers the ability to attach banners to the light poles in the median in the future.

The motion was seconded by Mr. Carver and passed 6-0-0 (Almond, Carver, Harnsberger,

Hutchins, Nolt and Shirley for). 13. Final Location, Character and Extent review of streetscape improvements to Forest Hill Avenue between Hathaway Road and Powhite Parkway; UDC #13-21

The application is for final location, character, and extent review of improvements along Forest Hill Avenue. This is a request to widen and improve Forest Hill Avenue from Hathaway Road to the Powhite Parkway, a distance of 0.74 miles. The existing right-of-way contains two travel lanes in each direction separated by a double-yellow line, with a narrow shoulder on the edge of the road. The subject roadway does not contain sidewalks or curb and gutter for the majority of the corridor except in the vicinity of the office/commercial area near Hathaway Road. The current speed limit on this section of Forest Hill Avenue is 40 mph, but the plans include reducing the speed limit to 35 mph.

Along the entire project corridor, the proposed right-of-way width varies from between 77’6” to 95’6” wide. In each of the four typical sections provided in the plans the right-of-way includes a minimum 10’ width landscaped or painted median, two 11’ wide travel lanes in each direction, a 5’ bike lane in each direction, curb and gutter, a 4’ planting strip on each side, and a 4’ wide concrete sidewalk on each side. The variations in width account for turning lanes in the median


of 25

and from the outside lanes. As part of the improvements, all private properties will get a formalized, curbed entrance to the driveway.

The proposed improvements do not include any dedicated right-turn lanes off of Forest Hill Avenue onto the neighborhood streets; however, dedicated right-turn lanes will be provided from westbound Forest Hill Avenue into the Willow Oaks Country Club and onto Hathaway Road. Heading west on Forest Hill Avenue, left turn lanes will be provided into the adjacent neighborhoods at Rettig Road and Woodberry Lane; and into the commercial establishments at the project’s western edge. A proposed traffic signal at Melbourne Drive, to be synchronized with the Hathaway Road signal, will ease the latter turning movements.

Heading east on Forest Hill Avenue, left turn lanes will be provided into the adjacent neighborhoods at Windsorview Drive and Rettig Road; and into the Willow Oaks Country Club. Due to the proposed median, vehicles exiting Norcross Road, Heartwood Road and Glyndon Lane, all on the south side of Forest Hill Avenue, will be unable to turn left (west). As these roads all connect to either Rettig Road or Melbourne Drive, these movements can be accommodated at other intersections or through u-turns on Forest Hill Avenue. The improvements will increase the existing curb radii at each intersection.

Five pedestrian crosswalks will be provided across Forest Hill Avenue in foul locations: on the east side of the intersection with Melbourne Drive, on the east side of the intersection with Windsorview Drive, on both sides of the intersection with Rettig Road, and at the intersection with Powhite Parkway, just west of the stop light where vehicles have exited the Parkway and are waiting to turn eastbound onto Forest Hill Avenue. Of these five crosswalks, only the ones at Windsorview Drive and the Powhite Parkway contain pedestrian refuges, though it should be noted that a signalized crossing will be provided at Melbourne Drive. The crosswalks will be composed of brick, in an Autumn Red color to contrast the road paving, with concrete banding on the edges. The crosswalks across all of the side streets will be striped with parallel lines. All crosswalks will contain ADA compliant handicap ramps with truncated domes.

Due to changes in topography between the roadway and the adjacent private properties, retaining walls will have to be constructed at the back of the sidewalk in several locations, including on both sides of the entrance to the Stratford Hills Shopping Center, in front of the office building at the southeast side of the intersection with Melbourne Drive, in front of the Stratford Professional Building on the north side of Forest Hill Avenue in the RO-1 zoning district, in front of residential properties on the north side of the road east of Windsorview Drive, in front of a residential property on the north side of the road east of Rettig Road, and in front of residential properties on the south side of the road east of Heartwood Road to Glyndon Lane. The proposed wall would be composed of a rough-face block in a “granite” color. The height of the proposed retaining walls varies between 2’ and 5’.

The main utility lines are currently at the edges of the road, but this plan would move those lines to the central median. The wooden poles in the median would carry residential power, cable/phone and power lines for the cobrahead light fixtures that will be installed in the median. Of a total of 16 instances where there were utility service connections to the outer sides of the roadway, half (8) of them will occur underground. Moving the utilities to the median will allow the trees that will be installed in the planting strip to grow unimpeded.


The applicant’s report indicates that a tree survey was conducted to identify all trees within the project limits larger than 6” in caliper. Of a total of 159 trees in the corridor that exceeded 6” in caliper, 88 will need to be removed. To offset this loss, the landscape plans call for the planting of 60 black gum trees, which reach up to 50’ tall with a 20-30’ spread and 57 Chinese Pistache trees, which reach up to 35’ tall with an equal spread. These trees will be planted in an alternating fashion in the planting strip as street trees. In the medians, where overhead utilities are present, the landscape plans include the planting of 38 Eastern Redbud trees, which reach about 20’ tall with a 15’ spread, and 48 Serviceberry trees, reaching to about 25’ tall with a 15’ spread.

Some of the proposed serviceberry trees will also be located in Filterra units along both the median and the curb edges. Filterra units are designed to be installed adjacent to stormwater inlets and help to filter and absorb the rainwater before releasing excess into the storm drain system. In all, 10 of these units will be installed along the project corridor. Use of the Filterra units will negate the need for a stormwater basin at the east end of the project limits.

In addition to the trees in the median, the plans call for the installation of 301 Eleanor Tabor Indian Hawthorne shrubs, an evergreen that at maturity is about 3’ tall with a 4’ spread, and 274 Gulfstream nandina plants, which have similar mature dimensions. Median plantings also include groundcovers, with 7,865 Green Liriope plants and 621 Feathergrass Ponytails (an ornamental grass) proposed to be installed. Lastly, the plans also include over 12,000 square feet of planting strip area to be seeded with turf grass.

The plans as presented will require the acquisition of right-of-way from 17 individual private property owners. Temporary construction easements will also be required from 38 private property owners, and permanent construction easements will be required from 7 private property owners. Discussions with those affected property owners will begin after plans receive approval.

The total estimated cost of the project is $12 million will be paid with Federal funds. Of the total cost, $2 million is estimated for design; $1.5 million is estimated for right-of-way acquisition, relocation assistance, and utility relocation; and construction accounts for the remaining $8.5 million. Mr. Kevin Newcomb, Department of Public Works, and Mr. Archie Drudge, Stantec, stated that they were available to answer questions. Ms. Shirley asked if there would be pedestrian countdown crossings at the signalized crossings and Mr. Newcomb stated yes. Mr. Drudge stated that the two existing intersections at Hathaway and at Powhite Parkway there are pedestrian phases there currently and that the synchronized signals that they plan for Melbourne will include pedestrian phases also. Public Comment Ms. Ann Davis stated that she lives in the Willow Oaks Subdivision which joins this particular proposal. She is concerned that the notification of this project has been lacking notice that is why there are not a lot of people here today to respond to it. Ms. Davis stated that the notice for the meeting in March was only published to the people who lived directly on Forest Hill Avenue and she saw Mr. Newcomb putting out flyers. Mr. Newcomb stated that was when they had the


of 25

snow event. Ms. Davis stated that this is going to have a negative impact of the neighborhood. She requested accident data from the city and read the accident data and statistics from 2006 through 2009 and 2012. Ms. Davis stated that she questions the character and location of this project and inquired if they are doing everything they can to prevent the accidents at the Powhite intersection. Ms. Davis drew a diagram of Powhite Parkway and stated that the west bound exit lane will be extended all the way and dead ends at the country club entrance and stated that it will move the accidents to there. She discussed the new lanes that will conflict with the bicycle lanes and the merging lanes. Ms. Davis stated that 88 trees will be torn down and she thinks this roadway will encourage speed. Ms. Davis went over the traffic numbers and stated that the numbers have decreased. Ms. Davis stated that this neighborhood in Windsorview and Willow Oaks has a severe drainage problem which is caused by runoff from Forest Hill and majority of it is caused by the shopping centers themselves which is below grade. Ms. Davis stated that she will have a harder time getting in and out of her neighborhood when the project is done it will be hard for her to take a left turn out of her subdivision and stated that more accidents will occur. Ms. Davis also stated that as far as aesthetics they asked for irrigation for this heavily landscaped property and stated that there are no underground utilities being proposed for the poles. Ms. Davis stated that it will be more concrete that will drive more drainage. Ms. Nancy Taliaferro, who lives on Forest Hill Avenue, stated that she didn’t know anything about this meeting until this morning and there are so many aspects about this proposal for this project that she is against. She is asking the Committee to consider specifically the poles that are proposed to be put in the center of the median which will be so unsightly. Ms. Taliaferro stated that they asked them to have them buried or put on the side but they said it is too expensive and to allow them in the center is just going to be terrible looking for years to come. She is very much against the whole project and it is going to ruin the quality of the neighborhood and hope that they consider what she has said today. Ms. Shirley stated that there is a marked disagreement on livability and reading the project goals that landscaping and gateways create livability but states that the residents are feeling that it is not the case. Ms. Nolt stated that she agrees that there is a disagreement about what is livable on the corridor and thinks that having dedicated bike lanes and sidewalks would increase safety levels for pedestrians and may encourage more walkability from the neighborhood, country club and shopping centers. Ms. Nolt stated that it could be purely the width of the road that is having the neighborhood consider it less livable because of the width of the new road. It is the traffic solutions that are less livable and not the pedestrian amenities. Ms. Nolt discussed the options that they had a previous meeting and stated that they weren’t pleased with any of them and did not recommend approval and that the Planning Commission picked one of the options to move forward. She thinks the plan has come a long way from 2 years ago and that these areas of refuge for pedestrians crossing the roads didn’t exist. Ms. Shirley stated that a left turn in at un-signalized intersection is precarious in any situation and having the median does give them that break and gives you a better chance of knowing that it is clear on both sides. Ms. Shirley stated that with a vegetative median it’s not going to feel like a four lane wide road and stated that the presence of pedestrians and the presence of more bicyclists will result in slower speeds.


Ms. Levine stated that she knows that it has been very emotional for the public and she appreciates them coming here and sharing their thoughts with the Committee. Ms. Levine stated that the Committee is not in the position at this point to say no that they can’t move forward on this project and stated that all they can do is accommodate, listen and hopefully if there is anything else they can try to do to make this a better process for all of them. Ms. Levine stated that when they were discussing the median strip and moving power lines that it was her understanding that everything that could be done there has occurred. If they had trees that are topped due to the power lines it is more unsightly than utility poles running down a median strip. Ms. Levine stated that the pedestrian factor of this you look at the sidewalk conditions there and think that by having more life in this corridor by nature is going to slow things down. Ms. Nolt suggested putting banners and signage on the poles in the median that celebrates these neighborhoods and introduces them to a distinct area would help give additional purpose to the poles in median. Ms. Nolt stated that the residents that are on the side of the street that have the existing poles are actually going to get some relief from them by moving them to the middle. They can do some decorative light fixtures and banners or something that is a little more thoughtful. Ms. Nolt inquired if they have a lighting plan that shows which lights are being proposed and Mr. Newcomb stated that they are recommending cobraheads. Ms. Nolt asked if there will some kind of pedestrian level decorative pole lights along the sidewalks and Mr. Newcomb stated no, that they have investigated that as part of the project but it was too large a cost increase for the project. Ms. Nolt inquired if it was considered at some point to irrigate the islands and Mr. Newcomb stated that they did but the Landscape Architect has chosen plants that were not requiring irrigation and coupled with their two year maintenance agreement that will allow the trees more time to be established. Mr. Newcomb stated that they would prefer not to incur the long term cost and maintenance for running an irrigation system and would prefer to choose the correct plants to begin with. Mr. Drudge stated that with the cobraheads being in the median you are going to get them on either side to illuminate both sides of the roadway and stated that now the cobra heads are only on the side where the utilities are so they are not lighting equally. Mr. Drudge stated that one of the issues with the landscaping plan that they have for the median are tree that are going to be small when they are put in and they are going to grow up and stated that they are going to grow to the height of the power line so the canopy of the tree is also going to screen those power lines. Ms. Nolt stated that it if you can’t get the power lines underground it makes sense to that they go in the median and they are equal distance from the residences on both sides of the street. Mr. Carver stated that he hear a lot of rationalizing going on to dress this up as best they can but stated that this is an example of the difference this Committee can make in helping the city do a better job. What they have today is a far cry better than what they were introduced to several years ago. Mr. Carver stated that the community that hasn’t been able to make these meetings has said that at every meeting about contact. Mr. Carver stated that is a real shortcoming and he hopes that improvements are made in that regard because residents should always know in advance of meetings when they are going to affect their living standard, property rights and so forth.


of 25

Mr. Carver stated that from an aesthetic standpoint he sees a lot of tall poles in the middle of the road and small diameter trees and in 20 years those diameter trees will grow to some standard of aesthetic. The other aesthetic issue is that the cutting away of the banks and the necessitation of the retaining wall and the grey rough stone that is going to be used; it looks like they are introducing commercial components. Mr. Carver stated that they are doing a lot to alleviate the high traffic flow and they are bringing in a new power line system down the median and then they are going to be adding certain hardscaped elements in the front of residences. Mr. Carver stated that it conflicts a little bit with the fact that they are operating within a residential area and stated that the residents are trying to maintain a residential feeling but states that it seems like they are doing a lot is in the face of that. Mr. Carver stated that he is having a hard time justifying these different elements coming into this residential community. Mr. Drudge stated that if they review their plans the retaining walls are only in areas where the grade changes between the yard and the road and they are there to lessen the impact. Mr. Carver inquired should there be a discussion on those materials. Ms. Almond stated that they looked at the materials at the February meeting and the applicants were supposed to take the samples to the community meeting to get their input. Mr. Drudge stated that they took samples to the community meeting and Mr. Newcomb stated that they didn’t get any substantial input. Ms. Almond inquired if it was because there were no people there and Mr. Newcomb stated that they showed up but they didn’t get any input and the city didn’t want the standard concrete retaining wall. Mr. Newcomb stated that the segmented block retaining wall is a little easier to construct and they chose the grey color because of the granite type neighborhoods. Mr. Newcomb stated that there are many other choices but that they had very little input from the citizens. Ms. Harnsberger inquired if they could comment on the bike lanes on the west bound lane of Powhite Parkway. Mr. Drudge stated that they have the bike lanes coming from Powhite Parkway and stated that the widths of the existing structure are adequate enough to provide a bike lane mark across the Powhite Parkway over past and it will come along this island and stated that the standard from VDOT City design is for this bike lane to be between this travel lane. Mr. Newcomb stated that there are signs and markings in that bike lane that designates it as a bike lane. Ms. Harnsberger inquired if they thought about signage on the off-ramp or is that within their purview and Mr. Newcomb stated that there are pedestrian signs at the crosswalk. Mr. Drudge stated that they can install the bike signs. Ms. Harnsberger stated that she thinks that a bike sign is important. Mr. Drudge stated that there is a bike route sign already on the corridor and stated that they could do something when they come off the ramp and Ms. Harnsberger stated that she know that there is a toll booth right there and still think that any time you have a major interstate intersecting a bike lane it warrants more. Mr. Drudge stated that he agrees. Ms. Almond stated that she agrees with staff’s comment that the plant pallete is not unique to the neighborhood and agree that the Pistache should be changed to another type of shade tree that might not look urban but more residential. Ms. Almond went on to say that there are so many Nandinas on this plan and she thinks it would be a good opportunity to switch them out with a native plant like an Itea. Mr. Drudge stated that Public Works is open to any ideas that they want to make as far as the planting goes and stated that the ones they show on there are the ones that were influenced by the city arborist and ground maintenance.


Ms. Nolt asked Ms. Almond if she wanted to offer a substitute for the Chinese Pistache for the corridor and Ms. Almond stated that the sourwood would be something different and more native and is a medium size tree and has really good fall colors. Mr. Newcomb stated that they also have a four foot planting strip that they have to be aware of and they don’t want to put too large of a variety in there that will cause maintenance problems. Ms. Nolt inquired if they wanted to revisit the materials selection on the retaining walls. Mr. Carver stated that he wanted to see what everyone was comfortable with. Ms. Harnsberger stated that at the last meeting they suggested that the crosswalk be the auburn color and the retaining wall be a more mottled pink and grey granite and that she thought that was a nice solution. Ms. Harnsberger stated that she thought the community would have something to say about it. Ms. Taliaferro stated that grey granite would look unnatural and that the reddish color will be better and that granite is supposed to be Granite Hills but she doesn’t think anyone would make that connection. Ms. Taliaferro stated that she would love to see it brick red. Mr. Drudge stated that there is a red and grey that blend together and stated that there are other textures and colors. Ms. Nolt stated that if they are set on doing the concrete retaining wall is it reasonable to think about a brick cap that would dress up the top edge. Mr. Carver stated that his only comment would be maintenance and longevity when you add a different element. Mr. Hutchins asked if this product was a system and Mr. Drudge stated that the blocks are made in a brick pattern and there are three sizes and not all square and will not look like a center block wall and stated that there are 18”, 9” and 12”. Ms. Nolt inquired if they were mortared together and Mr. Drudge stated no and they have pins that hold them together. Ms. Nolt asked if they mortar with the rebar and Mr. Drudge stated no and that the caps are put on with an adhesive. Ms. Nolt stated that if they wanted to make a recommendation to change the color that they would want some kind of community input. Mr. Eastman stated that they are making a recommendation to the Planning Commission so there is another public hearing that happens for this project. Ms. Nolt inquired if they would have that opportunity at the Planning Commission meeting to speak up or in opposition of the project and stated that the Planning Commission meetings are publicized a little different than the UDC meeting as far as public announcement to the community and Mr. Eastman stated that he is not familiar with their publication announcements. [Ms. Levine departed]


of 25

Ms. Harnsberger inquired if they could recommend that the color of the retaining wall be consistent with the crosswalks and Ms. Nolt stated yes. Ms. Harnsberger stated that the auburn was the preferred color. Ms. Taliaferro stated that she didn’t know if they were going to make the recommendation to have the poles in the middle and Mr. Hutchins stated that it has already been done by the Planning Commission. Ms. Nolt stated that they could make a recommendation that they consider more decorative lights or banners and Mr. Eastman stated that there is a banner program in the city that comes through him administratively and that it is a community driven process not Public Works driven. Ms. Davis stated that they asked Mr. Newcomb for something to designate the entrance of the whole strip as they come off the Powhite like some kind of marker but the City said it was outside the budget and Mr. Newcomb suggested that they pursue separate funding for that. Ms. Davis stated that they wanted something hardscaped that will make it feel like a neighborhood verses a thoroughfare. Ms. Harnsberger stated that there is an organization in the city called Storefront for Community Design and that she can give them contact information and they can them come up with a design that the neighborhood would like for a gateway. Ms. Davis stated that is what they want something that has better visual when you enter the neighborhood. Ms. Nolt stated that she thinks they should still recommend it even though DPW cannot directly act on it and stated that they could designate the location for where it goes and stated that maybe there is funding in another department that will surface. Ms. Davis stated that they also talked about having a more defined entrance to each of the distinct neighborhoods that borders the road so it could feel like a neighborhood.

-------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Business There was no other business. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 12:51 pm.

urban design committee minutes may 9, 2013 design committee minutes may 9, ... mr. rab mcclure ......

Documents